Welcome to Gaia! ::

You and me have disagreed on this basic point, but I'll say it again. Roleplaying is entertainment.

It is our job to entertain those who read our product, our post, our roleplaying. That includes those who are actively participating with us and those who are passively participating through reading or judging.

I read your fight. I think you won your fight. While I wasn't impressed with either performance, I think you out did Bojouka in every catagory.

The reason you lost that fight, based on what Yummy said, was your OOC. I don't necessarily agree with OOC affecting IC but the harsh reality is, is that it certainly does.

When I pressed you in the GTB literally about what I felt was an inconsistency in judging, you blew me off like Yummy is blowing you off. So while I understand why you are pressing him, note that you must understand why he is blowing you off.

Something about your OOC caused Yummy to feel that Bojouka was more entertaining. Hero did as well. It could be that you are Vintrict and that you've built up a lot of ire towards yourself. It could be that they know OutlawD better than they know you.

but the bottom line is, its your job to make them like you. Thats what this is. All that technical competitive bullshit is bullshit. Its about who can make the judges want to read their s**t the most.

So my suggestion to you Vin, is to ask not why they judged how they judged...but what they want to see from you in the future and how they think you can improve.

Ertai has that effect on people. He's very specific and very heavy-handed when it comes to his posts.

I'm sorry that you didn't have fun, but I enjoyed reading what you wrote.

No one answered my question, how can I better myself in that fight and in fights general?

I know you use every opportunity to flash your opinion on this Tres, but in this case you are objectively wrong. Vin's points are valid because they are addressing issues with the grading criteria, and Yummy is, in this case, refusing to engage them.

Entertainment is only one of the criterion, not all of them... which, while it can be considered subjective, is still only that one part of the score. And as this is a tournament, and thus a competitive endeavor, it requires a concrete rubric and ruleset by which to evaluate the participants. A good rubric, one that is both clear and objective, and provides meaningful comparisons to score numbers by which to measure them, should result in nearly identical scores from any judge who picks them up.

This is clearly NOT the case here, as even within single fights we have massive score variations from judge to judge. That means the categories are subjective, which is a serious problem given that we weren't given to understand that the judging would be purely subjective from the get go. We expected coherence and uniformity. In turn, if it is purely subjective, why even score the fights at all? Just provide a 'Win/Lose' verdict and move on.

Clarity, for example, is as concrete a category as you can get. How clear is the writing of the fighter? Is it difficult to read? Is it a bunch of run on sentences? Did he succeed in conveying his actions in a concise and precise manner or is it difficult to visualize? Is it formatted poorly or written in really small font? Did they check their spelling, grammar, and punctuation?

And yet Vintrict's and Boujuka's Clarity scores don't reflect any of the above. Bojuka gets a 4/5 for several posts that display a litany of actions in almost no context, as if he were rapidly reciting a series of moves from a movelist while standing still. Vintrict gets a 2 out of 5 for 'switching styles' in the middle of the fight. Excuse me, but who gives a ********? That's not what clarity is. Could you understand what he was saying, yes/no?! If yes, full marks. If no, what was the impediment?

Saying 'Well I didn't like the fact that you shifted tone halfway through' is about as subjective as you can get, and that s**t is NOT kosher.

The points in that match? All over the place.

The reason? The judges don't agree on what each category actually means.

Even factoring differences in personal opinion there shouldn't be that large of a discrepancy where one judge gives both a failing grade and another gives a B+.

It means that the grading staff isn't in agreement about what they were looking for in the first place.





...that said, meh.

I have to agree with Tres. Some people would say that in an ideal world people would judge objectively and stick to facts, but this isn't a maths tournament. This is writing, and while I admit the subjectivity might have gone a bit overboard, I think a certain amount of personal preference should exist as a bias in a judge. I've never judged anything, but I've read HoH decisions and my favorite parts were where a judge said "I liked X, it made me happy to read". Not "X was strategically consistent and in line with the rules of fair play". The former expresses a subjective enjoyment, while the latter expresses a mere confirmation that you've followed objective rules.

There will always be bias, and it will always be based on subjective likes and dislikes. They will be impacted by personal preference, a person's reputation, and impressions on how they behave. As people we have an innate drive toward our personal sense of justice. Those reasons may seem bogus, but no doubt they represent the excuses the judges made up for their biases.

What matters isn't debating the minutia of those excuses, but finding out why they really made them and adjusting yourself to appeal more to them next time.

Some people might think that's sad, I don't. It's human.

Personally, I have no real ire or grudge toward Vin, though when I'm intoxicated, and I see something that makes me angry, I express it sometimes but it's all bullshit. I don't hate anyone on this site or actually dislike them because quite frankly I don't know most of them, and this is all just a game.

My main issue of the fight, as mentioned, was both players having a few instances of lack of the small details that are actually necessary. For instance, saying one is strong or fast, but not necessarily selling it well enough to know how strong, how fast. Saying 'Athena is the strongest woman in the world' sells that she is peak human, Bojuka surpasses that in a small scale. And even with her Arcane woowoo gem adding prowess, how much?

Both players gave some similar issues, so their scores were in turn similar. But someone had to win. And what tipped the win was the poor defensive choices and failing to live up to them. For instance, trying to avoid that BOJUKA DRILL LOUTS OMOTE RENGE LOLJUTSU! I thought that would have been hilarious to see happen, though regardless, in Vin's position as 'The Strongest Woman in the World', why not try breaking the chains that bind you? Honestly, it would have worked. There is a reason the chain are constructed of a living metal that regenerates. But I guess the simple s**t eludes you when you look into something too hard. He just couldn't accept the assault though he made a poor choice or two that would have made it unavoidable regardless of how cheap or dirty the move could be seen as, I can't say it went out of range of his profile nor that it couldn't work.

Hell, I'm sure it'd delay his a**, but Bishop could get up after that and HULK SMASH a knigga. Then again, he would have just used his immense strength to try and break the chains that sought to bond him.

Bojuka cannot get 'he cane'.

'He cane' is bolted to 'he arena' wall.