Welcome to Gaia! ::

Don't worry, Afton is waaaaaaaaay too strong for that to happen. Just getting grazed by his attack could cleave ten cows, cubed.

emotion_bandaid

You can't objectively (i.e. factually, without relying on opinion or subjective taste) call it good OR bad.

Good and bad are opinions. What's good to Jim might be bad to Tom. There is no objectivity; something is good because you like it or it's bad because you dislike it. You could talk maybe about the animation quality, or the production values, or something like that, but as to whether something is good or bad is just one's opinion.

When someone says something is bad or awful, that's just their opinion. There's nothing objective about it; it's silly to pretend otherwise.

And it doesn't matter how long a series is; see the book analogy I made. If I crack open a five hundred page book and read the first chapter and don't really care much for the way the book is written or the way a couple of the main characters are portrayed, then I'm probably not going to enjoy the other ten chapters of the book because there's not going to be a complete turn-around. If I have some fundamental issue with what I'm reading or watching, it makes absolutely no sense to keep wasting my time to see if it gets any better. If there's no draw, nothing piquing my interest.. then I'm not going to waste my time with it.

For example: Twilight. I don't know much about the story. I picked it up, read about five pages. I found Meyer's writing style completely atrocious. Reading more of the book isn't going to change that because I fundamentally don't like it.

It's the same way with an anime. It can have five or fifty or five hundred episodes, but if I don't like the main protagonist or the story that's being put in front of me, then none of that matters because I'm not going to invest the time to find out if something is enjoyable if I've already found my first foray into it to be unpalatable. Again, if I pick up a three hundred page book and read fifteen pages and hate it, I'm not going to keep reading to see if it gets better. I'll go read something I do like. It's a better investment of my time. It doesn't make sense to keep watching/reading something if you don't derive any enjoyment from it.

Bleach is another anime I didn't like. I thought I would when I saw the first episode, honestly, but after watching about fifteen or so I wasn't interested enough to continue watching. Again, investiture of time - I'd rather invest my time doing something I find enjoyable or productive, rather than invest it in doing something I don't.

That being said, I don't watch a huge amount of anime anyways. The only anime I can think of that I can honestly say I really, REALLY liked was Cowboy Bebop, because I'm a huge fan of jazz and with the general character/art/story direction that series took. That and the Akira movie.

EDIT:: There's quite a few manga I've enjoyed though. Grappler Baki, Vagabond, Fist of the North Star, Historie, Hellsing, probably some others I can't recall.

EDIT2:: ******** SHAMO. Favorite manga ever.

It doesn't really matter how she describes her opponent, because we don't dictate anything about the person we fight.

If someone ducks or dodges an attack, I don't get to dictate that it was a close dodge. That's for them to dictate, and if they don't.. then nothing I say really matters.

Otherwise you'd have people constantly talking about how much of a bumbling retard their opponent is. Well, more than they do already.

Point being, it has no real impact. A person can describe their opponent or their opponent's actions however they like, it really doesn't - or shouldn't - have any real influence on how things are viewed; that should be determined by what's actually happening in the fight. The fact that my character finds something an opponent does to be cowardly, for example, doesn't mean anything. If my character thinks they're fighting like a complete novice.. it doesn't mean anything, no matter how much or how consistently I try to describe them as such.

EDIT:: Also, just a suggestion: if you can't seriously have a good fight, then you both might as well call it right now and just leave it to the judges, because things will go nowhere but down, and there's no point in continuing if you can't work together without constantly bickering or without mutual respect.

I can tell you right now, from a judge's perspective, that there's nothing worse than reading a fight that's going downhill fast and where neither person is doing anything worthwhile.

Yeah. Forewarning for HoH, that doesn't fly. Using the general you here (as in, talking broadly, not about you specifically, FF) Telling your opponent how their character works or thinks or acts is a no-no, even if they leave it out. Your character can THINK or CONSIDER their opponent to be a clumsy git, but you cannot write in your own posts "John is fighting Jim, who is clearly a clumsy ******** git." Their character, their right to describe him/her/it. Consider it a "writer's right" - they can choose to exercise it or to NOT exercise it, and the latter isn't permission for the other person to do so. Their character, it's for them to dictate the particulars of their character, not yours.

If I have the right to bear arms, but choose to not buy a gun.. you don't get to decide to do so for me, in my name, simply because I chose to NOT exercise that right. The right is still mine - I exercise it when I want to, and if I don't want to then I don't. Same concept with a car. If we both own cars, you don't get to tell me how to drive my car; it's MY car, I'll drive it how I want unless I break the law. It's not even logical, to me.

This isn't a game of fill in the blanks. It's competitive, but it's also collaborative. If you're opponent chooses to be sparse in their fluff descriptions.. that's their choice in writing style. It's not your place to dictate otherwise. They write how they want, unless it actually interferes with your ability to discern what's happening. If it doesn't do that, then it's not your business to say who their character is, what they do, or how well they do it.

A worse offense - and one likely to earn punishment via the Sportsmanship category in HoH - is when an opponent doesn't provide important details of how or why an attack or defensive maneuver was made, and their opponent goes "Oh it wasn't explained so it didn't happen."

Good way to watch your score plummet, that.

The reason for this is that, regardless of how often we butt heads or argue, we're still supposed to be reasonable adults. Good sportsmanship is supposed to exist between players, even players who might not necessarily like each other. Dictating details of another person's character is a good way to piss someone off because it's their character, not yours, and frankly it serves no other purpose beyond creating antagonism. Conflict leads to resolution, but antagonism just leads to more issues. Former can be good, latter is almost always bad.

I mean, we can all be pretty antagonistic as s**t towards each other, and if you've been around you've seen some of us (especially Vin and I if you look at the original GTB V thread that got closed) will really butt heads pretty vociferously. We definitely don't coddle people, but when it comes to being participants in tournaments, there is a certain amount of respect that people are expected to adhere to, if not because it's useful in avoiding unnecessary bullshit, then because people ought to act like reasonable adults without pettily sniping at each other in their posts.

If person A doesn't think person B gave enough relevant details, then that would be an instance where person A should request a judge.

If the judge says that more detail is needed, then person B ought to oblige.

However. If the judge rules that there IS enough detail, then person A should go ahead and post as best they can.

If the judge rules in favor of person B, that's not an excuse for person A to just fill in the blanks as they see fit just because the judge didn't see it their way.

That's the thing with going to a judge. It can go either way. Now, a judge can be wrong; they're only human, but unless it's a really serious issue, then I've always believed that it's best to try and roll along with what you're given if the judgment doesn't fall in your favor.

It's the same thing with winning or losing a close fight. Personally, I can't stand when someone loses a fight and decides that the judges are wrong because the judges didn't deem said person the winner. If you lose and there's no outstanding, glaring mistake made on the part of the judges, then accept it with some modicum of good sportsmanship and grace.

That being said, if there's a clear lack of logic or a big mistake in reasoning that contributed to the judges' decision in a fight's outcome or in a particular situation, then that would be a reasonable time to argue. If a judge makes a decision based on misreading something, for example. People have a right to argue to their case, but only to a certain point. At some point you're either going to have to go "No I don't agree and I'm not going to continue" or go with the decision.

I've always been a proponent of people being allowed to defend their points or statements and that while authority has the last say, it ought to be willing to accept that it's made a wrong decision, and it ought to consider popular opinion. However, like I said, in the end if the judge is adamant in their decision the only viable options are a) to drop the topic and continue or b) consider the issue to be important enough to warrant ceasing your participation. I'm not in favor of absolute authority when it comes to things of this nature; I've always been more in favor of classical liberalism and a democratic, flexible approach.

Just saying, it really boils down to those two options when you agree to abide by a judge's decisions.

Also, my suggestion still stands. If they're just going to be antagonistic towards each other, they're better off mutually agreeing to stop the fight where it is.