Legion_of_Nazareth
I wish you luck with parenting if you think no one should accept authority without question, youll love your kids, they will share that opinion, and youll wih they didnt.
Why would I wish that? I live in the Bible Belt; I'm literally surrounded by willful ignorance and it's pretty ******** disgusting. I'd rather deal with my children asking questions as children if it means they continue to do so into adulthood instead of accepting everything someone else tells them. I'd be disappointed if my kids never asked questions or showed no innate curiosity about the world.
Quote:
What it comes down to though is this, he is putting up the prize money, he should select judges he trusts to make a decision about where that money is going, he should not have a hand in that decision himself cause then its not a contest.
Actually the prize pot is donated by multiple people, which includes but is not limited to, Vintrict.
I have no problem with Vintrict - or any tournament organizer - selecting judges. That's not what I said, at any point, nor did anyone else say it. The issue lies with the capacity for a person to make an informed choice about those judges once they're chosen. And they can't do that without transparency.. ergo, it's required.
Quote:
Your opinion about the judges, and the way they score generally is meaningless. Especially when three separate individuals agree on the issue and you dont.
Which.. I never mentioned in my post? I said that people are entitled to have the requisite knowledge to make informed opinions, and that some degree of accountability to the participants is required, which requires a degree of transparency so that if a mistake is made, said participants can actually make an issue of it.
Quote:
If you dont like a judges call you can choose not accept it and leave, if the judges all agree especially on the point then your screwed.
People always have that right, but they also have the right to argue if they feel that a judge is wrong.. just like the judge ultimately has the last word on the matter. This has nothing to do with transparency or accountability though, so it's kind of moot.
Quote:
Honestly watching sigil and molestia continually pester the judges to manipulate the fight ha been sorta frustrating, as its not why I came here. But realistically its one way as a player to give your character an edge they might not have otherwise.
I both agree and disagree, to an extent. I've always been the kind of player who will let most stuff just "roll off" and I'll go with it - I think other people need to do that sometimes. But at the same time, when an error is egregious, people ought to be able to step up and go "Okay, look, somebody ******** up here."
If no one ever gets criticized or the mistakes are allowed to go on without correction then no one improves.
I just removed some parts of your posts because there wasn't really any context for them in the back-and-forth of our discussion.
KB: By "citizen army", I mean an army that isn't given special privileges. What I mean by that is, that a member of the army is functionally the same as a citizen, except that they are in the armed forces and have certain duties and functions.
The other option is mercenaries - loyalty to money - or when the military becomes a class below the aristocracy/command cadre, but above everybody else. See: Pol Pot in Cambodia, being in his army gave you more food, more rights, more freedom, and that ensured loyalty to some degree. That's the difference between a true citizen army.. and an army loyal to a strong arm or charismatic leader.
I agree that sometimes people need to listen to authority and respect it, but I also believe that the only way you can be respected as an authority figure is to prove that you're a worthwhile leader.. which can often mean being willing to accept questioning and criticism. It's not a black or white thing, you can't go without being questioned and you can't allow people to ignore your authority.
