Bellanox Fatalis
Well Darth hun, [rant] I have already stated my reasoning and it is redundant to repeat it at length yet again. (And Hypotheticals aside, I still think it's a valid point, seeing as it is essential to keep the judges in line as well as the competitors. Even more so. Higher standard and all that rott.)
I'm not so a**l as to pick apart your post and refute your 'machine logic' as you call it. Of course I might point out that such stark machine logic doesn't often work very well in Human situations.. Hell, Example: bare bones machine logic would tell us that if we(humans) really wanted to end all Rape, crime, war, famine ect. ensuring the survival of the planet as a whole,(World peace= highly improbable) we would all just kill ourselves and be done with it! Seeing as humans are what is killing the planet anyway. Drastic? Yes. Would it work? Yes. Planet saved! Hoowah! (Until the sun goes supernova...>>) But a solution like that doesn't work in a human world. Would we reject such an idea? In a heartbeat! We are not machines. But if you would like to promote that kind of bare bones necessity only "Machine Logic" type of thinking be my guest. It is your right to do so.
And when I call it 'blinders on' logic what I mean is that from my prospective, you are looking only at the ribbon across the finish line and getting to it as fast as you can. Rather than letting the path itself, (obstacles included) dictate how best to run the course under your feet. Not to mention that since these are canon events, comments help to know what it is thought that you did right or wrong so that you can incorporate it (Story, injuries, victory, humiliation) into your canon rp. (I mean, it is about the rp. Right?) Rather than playing it so vague. "Oh yeah well... I lost, but I'm not sure how...." Or "Hey yeah I won! ...How? -shrug- Who cares?! I won!" [/end rant]
Oh, and I didn't mean that you were vehement about winning, although I know you to be so after watching you (And diverse others) compete in 3 tourney's this year. To clarify, I meant your vehemence in the argument itself. You are coming across (to me) as someone in desperate need of blood pressure medication I get the whole hostile, vein popping in the forehead picture. Like in Scanners. Tis almost comical.
Aaaaand it's bed time here too. I'm done.
Nighty night
zzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzZZZZZzzzzzz
That's not actually what I mean by "machine logic." I mean; the idea of something operating as a machine, the fact that it needs essential parts. The 'logic' you applied to the analogy of humans and a 'cure' for war and the like wasn't the same at all. And it does work very well, especially when you have people (read: participants and staff) intelligent enough to not act like asshats and thereby require extra variables or additions to the process. Again, via your own logic (and even mine), we both know that commentary or not, nothing keeps the judges in line but our assumption that they're fair and the responsibility of their position. That's why I don't see commentary as essential, it doesn't actually DO anything.
If you paid attention to what I've been saying, I'm using the bare-bones logic to point out that there's nothing wrong without cutting out comments if they risk making the tournament fail by waiting for them. Tournament advancing > comments. I've always supported the commentary system, but it's not THAT important based on the fact that, hey, if you remove it for a round or two to stay on time, the tournament
keeps running; it doesn't grind to a halt. That, in and of itself, proves my point and is the entire thing I'm getting across by even suggesting, then elucidating upon this logic.
And blinders on might be a good way to describe it, because I'm not using very much in the ways of extraneous variables. I'm keeping it simple because, contrary to popular belief, K.I.S.S. - Keep It Simple, Stupid - works very well in these sort of situations. However, the entire thing is just to point out what I've been saying, that comments aren't essential and if you have to forgo them for the betterment of the tournament (by keeping it from flopping), there's nothing wrong with that.
Again: I LIKE the commentary system. Love it, in fact. I plan on running a tournament, and intend to make it a primary focus of the judging, as relevant as the win/loss decision because the tournament will revolve around the participants' betterment as players and their cooperativeness. However, in this case, I do understand that it's not so essential that we can't cut it out for ONE ROUND to get things started. I'd rather cut a little than lose the entire tournament.
And if you think I care about winning on an OOC level, I'll have to lol at your ability to "understand" people or their motives. You're the only person I've met to think that I care about winning on an OOC level. Do I like to see my character succeed? Sure, everyone does. However, always winning is a boring story and doesn't provide too much character growth. For someone who likes winning, I'm sure not fitting the bill by having my most successful character
murdered after this tournament.
And then I'll lol some more. I'm an extremely laid back person, however when I discuss something very concrete like this, I do so as concisely as possible. Does it gives some impression of hostility? I don't know, I've never thought so. However, I rarely feel anything other than maybe a bit of frustration when discussing a topic ad naseum. The only time I've ever really flipped out and just started lashing out guns ablazing was once when I had an extremely bad day in real life and someone(s) made themselves good targets. I only separated your post up into smaller bites to make it easier to address because I don't like having a huge glob of words like you do where it takes forever to sort and differentiate between points.
Otherwise, pretty much always relaxed. I'm just a very wordy person, and one who likes to discuss/debate things at length. Last night we were discussing this at.. what, 10, 11 pm? I was half-asleep by then. To the point that I was using the discussion as a mechanism for inducing sleep by talking. I wish I did get the vein on the forehead popping though, but I've never had that tick when I'm angry.
Naota: What would you call something like that, then? If not concussive, then what? Just "invisible force" or something? I've seen people use stuff like "pure kinetic force", but that's not really correct either.
Also, school.
Reply
