# The NBD League Revival



## Soul (Apr 29, 2019)

Hi! It seems that activity has died off on the NBD league mainly because of the long format and the wait for both posters to post an initial argument and then a rebuttal. FlamingRain seems to be rather occupied, so I was thinking about stealing his thing and make some changes so I get all the credit for creating this.
Since this is a community, hearing the ideas from the people seems like the way to go, so feel free to discuss that here.

Current format:

Not random nor secret match-ups: people sign up and I (or whoever is organizing (Still me )) pair two of those, then publish the match-up.
One initial argument + one rebuttal. Remember, the quality of your points are going to be evaluated, not how much do you type (Sorry Turrin). Which characters ends up winning the match doesn't matter. The rebuttal is optional, but I'd advise you to try to make it.

Voting should also have a set limit. If no votes are posted there will be a sudden death post (I would try to vote immediately after that if I haven't voted before to avoid the matches to drag).
This thread is to post anything regarding the league. If you want to bait about how Jiraiya routinely dickslaps Shodai in the afterlife, please create a thread for it. If you don't care or want to flame me personally just neg me or something. Please do not derail the thread.

PD:  and .

Thank you for your time.

______________________________________________​
_Previous Matches_​
: Ōnoki *(Shark)* vs Orochimaru (Turrin) | 3-0
: Deidara *(Tri) *vs Hiruzen (SakuraLover16) | 3-1
: Gaara *(Crimson Flam3s)* vs Kisame (Lawrence777) | 3-0
: Pain Arc Kakashi *(NamesClasssified)* vs Hebi Sasuke *(Soul)* | 1-1
: Kakuzu (WorldsStrongest) vs Kisame *(X III)* | X III wins by DQ.
: War Arc Darui *(hbcaptain)* vs Asuma (kokodeshide) | 3-0
: Pain Arc Naruto (Crow) vs Itachi *(~Kakashi~)* | 0-2
: War Arc Kakashi *(Hi no Ishi)* vs Kisame (X III) | 3-0
Match 9: Gai *(Santoryu) *vs Jiraiya (Orochimaru OP) | 3-1
: Kakuzu *(Axiom)* vs Jiraiya (LIBU) | 3-1
: Hebi Sasuke (MaruUchiha) vs Itachi *(hbcaptain)* | 0-3
: Gaara (Grinningfox ) vs Deidara (Shanal) | Double DQ
: Gaara *(LIBU)* vs Animal Realm (Edogawa) | 3-0

Note: I'll count both WS and X III as winners of match 5 in case we make a tournament with the winning contestants, as WS got the only vote of the match.

Character counter: 
Orochimaru, Ōnoki, Hiruzen, Darui, Asuma, Naruto, Gai - 1
Kakashi, Kakuzu, Jiraiya, Sasuke, Itachi, Deidara, Gaara- 2
Kisame - 3

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Sufex (Apr 29, 2019)

I would be very interested in participating this, and possibly being a judge if I meet the requirements; however I will be very busy for the next 2/3 weeks. So if this starts after im all in.

As an idea I like the whole everyone gets a set amount of replies/ word count, because one poster can keep droning on and on just to try and gather more points. 'waffling' if you will. It also forces quality control because you cant just shit out 5000 words and hope something sticks.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## LIBU (Apr 29, 2019)

Sufex said:


> I would be very interested in this, and possibly being a judge if I meet the requirements; however I will be very busy for the next 2/3 weeks. So if this starts after im all in.
> 
> As an idea I like the whole everyone gets a set amount of replies/ word count, because one poster can keep droning on and on just to try and gather more points. 'waffling' if you will. It also forces quality control because you cant just shit out 5000 words and hope something sticks.


I agree...Instead of making long/detailed post, bullet points should be a better option.


----------



## Soul (Apr 29, 2019)

Sufex said:


> I would be very interested in this, and possibly being a judge if I meet the requirements; however I will be very busy for the next 2/3 weeks. So if this starts after im all in.
> 
> As an idea I like the whole everyone gets a set amount of replies/ word count, because one poster can keep droning on and on just to try and gather more points. 'waffling' if you will. It also forces quality control because you cant just shit out 5000 words and hope something sticks.



.
People are taking a month to do this. Match #4 is still waiting for an answer. This way if you can't post the rebuttals the initial argument is enough.

The voters are obligated to read the initial argument, but if the difference between initial arguments is big enough they won't even need the rebuttals. Furthermore, the judges might be turned off by biblical walls of text, so they would either not consider those or just not vote. Since I am a masochist I will read everything I need to, but it's rather obvious that the more you write the more you can be wrong as well.

This is about your ability to debate, not your stamina or how many times you can write "Itachi solos".



LIBU said:


> I agree...Instead of making long/detailed post, bullet points should be a better option.



That's up to the participants.
If you think you can win that way just participate.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## ~Kakashi~ (Apr 29, 2019)

Sure, I'm down to keep helping. I think one thing I liked about the format of the NBD is how the initial argument/rebuttal system worked though. It allowed for equal opportunity in terms of rebutting the opponent, though certainly the lack of timely responses from the debaters has made that idea sour a little, so maybe this idea is better overall, as most here are accustomed to an "endless" number of posts to make their point(obviously this will have an end date, but can cram as many responses in to it as you want).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## LIBU (Apr 29, 2019)

Soul said:


> That's up to the participants.
> If you think you can win that way just participate.


I mean post will still have substance to it but instead of long paragraphs i will try to use bullet points.....let's see...


----------



## Sufex (Apr 29, 2019)

~Kakashi~ said:


> Sure, I'm down to keep helping. I think one thing I liked about the format of the NBD is how the initial argument/rebuttal system worked though. It allowed for equal opportunity in terms of rebutting the opponent, though certainly the lack of timely responses from the debaters has made that idea sour a little, so maybe this idea is better overall, as most here are accustomed to an "endless" number of posts to make their point (obviously this will have an end date, but can cram as many responses in to it as you want).


Maybe a hybrid? So you both write opening statements but maybe there is a hard word cap or something?

With that and the time a limit enforced it might encourage the debtors to be more timely with responses. With the evaluation eventhough @Soul has said its based on quality not quantity i feel as though some of the judges will be more lenient with 'negative marking'. Which means the amount of shotgunned positive points outweigh the bad making who ever writes more 'decent' material the winner over someone who write a short but critically sound argument. Thought this may be a unfounded fear I have. Other wise I have a few questions. how do we decide who we're debating for? Does environment play into account? will the time-frame still be a month? that seems too long to me, I feel


Soul said:


> My line of thought is (assuming the match is posted at 6PM on Monday):
> 6PM Monday - 5:59PM Wednesday: post initial argument.
> 6PM Wednesday- 5:59PM Friday: rebuttals.
> 6PM Friday- 5:59PM Monday: voting.


This is much more timely and astute.

Also read the stickied thread and came across this idea


MShiina said:


> e were prizes involved, people would be more interested


Maybe we could contact a mod to get something like a badge/ rep points or something for winners?


----------



## Soul (Apr 29, 2019)

Sufex said:


> Maybe a hybrid? So you both write opening statements but maybe there is a hard word cap or something?



The hard word cap for the opening statement would stay. Or at least that is what I was thinking all along.



> With that and the time a limit enforced it might encourage the debtors to be more timely with responses. With the evaluation eventhough @Soul has said its based on quality not quantity i feel as though some of the judges will be more lenient with 'negative marking'.



Each voter is different. While that might be correct for some I lean more towards mistakes than wins.
Arguments are already well documented. If you made a mistake is most likely because you didn't research. If you didn't research then I don't see why you want to compete in something like this. Contradicting yourself also starts to become a problem.



> Other wise I have a few questions. how do we decide who we're debating for?



Kakashi and myself made the match-ups. Made a thread for suggestions in the BD a while back.
If a contestant didn't know a lot about the randomized guy we changed the match-up.



> Does environment play into account?



I did consider that in my vote 
We gave a scenario per match. It looked something like this:



> *Battlefield:* Five Kage vs. Madara
> *Starting Distance:* 15m
> *Knowledge:* Manga
> *Mindset:* IC
> ...



The location was added for people to consider it, but some didn't mentioned it.



> will the time-frame still be a month? that seems too long to me, I feel this is much more timely and astute



 we used to do 3 days matches and we had plenty of activity.
A week should be plenty if people are interested and available.


> Maybe we could contact a mod to get something like a badge/ rep points or something for winners?



I am already giving out sparkles and a bigger avatar to whoever has an especially impressive argument.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Sufex (Apr 29, 2019)

Soul said:


> The hard word cap for the opening statement would stay. Or at least that is what I was thinking all along.


I would say around 1000 words is ideal.


Soul said:


> Each voter is different. While that might be correct for some I lean more towards mistakes than wins.
> Arguments are already well documented. If you made a mistake is most likely because you didn't research. If you didn't research then I don't see why you want to compete in something like this. Contradicting yourself also starts to become a problem.


Alright but for this to work the match ups have to be somewhat balanced. It may make arguing for a character inherently more difficult, because versatility lends to getting more points. E.G Poster 1's character has 6 possibly techs that might kill poster 2's ninja, however Poster 2 has a more 1 dimensional character but the one or two methods are probably more effective than poster 1s. Would poster 1 get more points? How would you balance something like that out? theoretically.


Soul said:


> I did consider that in my vote
> We gave a scenario per match. It looked something like this:
> 
> The location was added for people to consider it, but some didn't mentioned it.


Noted. IMO you should always be recognised for taking the environment into consideration as characters regularly do in the manga


Soul said:


> we used to do 3 days matches and we had plenty of activity.
> A week should be plenty if people are interested and available.


Agreed.


Soul said:


> I am already giving out sparkles and a bigger avatar to whoever has an especially impressive argument.


Sweet! keep ya sprarcles im getting dat avi boost.


----------



## Stonaem (Apr 29, 2019)

I myself like the idea


----------



## Soul (Apr 29, 2019)

Sufex said:


> Alright but for this to work the match ups have to be somewhat balanced. It may make arguing for a character inherently more difficult, because versatility lends to getting more points. E.G Poster 1's character has 6 possibly techs that might kill poster 2's ninja, however Poster 2 has a more 1 dimensional character but the one or two methods are probably more effective than poster 1s. Would poster 1 get more points? How would you balance something like that out? theoretically.



We just select even-ish match-ups.
Remember, it's about how you debate, not who wins the match.



> Sweet! keep ya sprarcles im getting dat avi boost.



We already had pretty good posts. If you think you can do better than you should try it.


----------



## ThomasTheCat (Apr 29, 2019)

Soul said:


> so I get all the credit for creating this.


----------



## Turrin (Apr 29, 2019)

@Soul

The posters should be unknown that was the best thing flaming rain did to avoid bias, even you are buthurt and bias against me in the opening. Or alternatively their should be teams as we did with the great debate back in the day.

Anyway if you want some pointers

I would do it this way:

Allow participants to select a single character from the Chuunin / Jonin level to debate for. Then match each character up and allow participants to debate for that character against their opponent. While keeping it unknown who represents each character. Give each person 1 opening and 1 rebuttal 500 words each. And have the process take 3-4 days and anyone who doesn’t get the i postseason in by the. Is disqualified. Appoint selected judges that have a 300 word count minimum to vote. With set category voting criteria


----------



## Sufex (Apr 29, 2019)

Turrin said:


> The posters should be unknown that was the best thing flaming rain did to avoid bias, even you are buthurt and bias against me in the opening.


----------



## Turrin (Apr 29, 2019)

Sufex said:


>


Thanks for proving my point about the buthurt bias


----------



## Soul (Apr 29, 2019)

Turrin said:


> @Soul
> 
> The posters should be unknown that was the best thing flaming rain did to avoid bias, even you are buthurt and bias against me in the opening. Or alternatively their should be teams as we did with the great debate back in the day.



While that makes sense, anonymity is apparently encouraging posters to not care about it.
Would rather judge them all myself since I don't really care about any of the new posters. Can't think of someone I know is unbiased, has sound logic and has the time to judge consistently other than me and ~Kakashi~, which is on me because I don't know most people posting nowadays. And you know I have never been too fond of you, Munboy, Nikushimi, etc but it's not hate either. You are just neutral in by books.



> Allow participants to select a single character from the Chuunin / Jonin level to debate for. Then match each character up and allow participants to debate for that character against their opponent. While keeping it unknown who represents each character. Give each person 1 opening and 1 rebuttal 500 words each. And have the process take 3-4 days and anyone who doesn’t get the i postseason in by the. Is disqualified.



This is pretty much what we have been doing, but we had participation problem.
If that was the standard, every match would have resulted in a DQ, even with a week instead of 3-4 days.
You do bring up a good point. We could do 1-2 optional rebuttals instead. What we want to accomplish here is to have the better argument. Rebuttals are just to clear up stuff.



> Appoint selected judges that have a 300 word count minimum to vote. With set category voting criteria



The only criteria is how strong the argument is.
The word limit could be good, but finding judges with the prerequisites mentioned earlier in this post is hard.



MShiina said:


>



Been around long enough to know the ropes.



Turrin said:


> Thanks for proving my point about the buthurt bias



Keep it civil Turrin, the guy is new.


----------



## JayK (Apr 29, 2019)

Every debater should be allowed 2 posts with 500 words each.

- 1 opening post

- 1 post as a counter argument to the oppositions opening post

The debaters themselves should be kept anonymous due to bias otherwise you might aswell just toss the entire thing.

Edit: Posts made by the judges should also be thoroughly made and have a certain amount of words as bare minimum as mentioned above. 

There is also kinda nothing stopping debaters and judges *secretly stitching* each other behind the curtain so yeah...


----------



## Soul (Apr 29, 2019)

JayK said:


> Edit: Posts made by the judges should also be thoroughly made and have a certain amount of words as bare minimum as mentioned above.



Yeah, I do agree with that



> The debaters themselves should be kept anonymous due to bias otherwise you might aswell just toss the entire thing.





> There is also kinda nothing stopping debaters and judges *secretly stitching* each other behind the curtain so yeah...



I do wonder why people are so worried about bias. This was never a real problem before.
We are just trying to come up with something fun for the subforum. If people are so worried about it I'll just judge them all myself.


----------



## ThomasTheCat (Apr 29, 2019)

JayK said:


> Every debater should be allowed 2 posts with 500 words each.
> 
> - 1 opening post
> 
> ...


This is essentially the current format


----------



## JayK (Apr 29, 2019)

Soul said:


> I do wonder why people are so worried about bias. This was never a real problem before.


If you'd take a proper look at the current state of the NBD and its factions you would know.

It honestly sucks right now.


MShiina said:


> This is essentially the current format


I feel like the counter post should be more directly focused on the opponents argumentation by including quotes etc.

Essentially trying to absolutely dismantle your opponent.


----------



## ThomasTheCat (Apr 29, 2019)

JayK said:


> I feel like the counter post should be more directly focused on the opponents argumentation by including quotes etc.



I thought that's what a rebuttal was


----------



## JayK (Apr 29, 2019)

MShiina said:


> I thought that's what a rebuttal was


It certainly felt passive af so far from what I've seen.


----------



## ThomasTheCat (Apr 29, 2019)

JayK said:


> It certainly felt passive af so far from what I've seen.


I suppose that's subjective

I personally thought the rebuttals have done well to counter opposing arguments


----------



## Hi no Ishi (Apr 29, 2019)

I'm down to judge and be judged! Let's do it. 


One thing I was thinking of starting was getting pros to pick a fave and then have to argue against them with a character.
For instance I would have to argue against Gaara or Killer B which would cause me great pain but probably force me to thing of a good argument.

We could try that here as well for a match or two to mix things up.


----------



## Turrin (Apr 29, 2019)

@Soul I think the reason that traffics goes down is because people loose their matches and interest dies. That’s why I think instead of a bracket where on advances it should be whoever has the most wins, at the end of a set amount of matches

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Turrin (Apr 29, 2019)

Hi no Ishi said:


> I'm down to judge and be judged! Let's do it.
> 
> 
> One thing I was thinking of starting was getting pros to pick a fave and then have to argue against them with a character.
> ...


This is what I was suggesting too, but I wouldn’t do it with Kage characters as I believe that can lead to bias; I’d do it with Chunin / Jonin


----------



## kokodeshide (Apr 29, 2019)

About judging.
What we definitely can't have is people adding stuff that was not talked about. One judge said something around the lines of, "The first poster didn't think about how tricky X is." When neither side mentioned anything about trickiness.


----------



## Soul (Apr 29, 2019)

JayK said:


> If you'd take a proper look at the current state of the NBD and its factions you would know.
> 
> It honestly sucks right now.



I would be willing to judge them myself, then.
Definitely have no favoritism to any of the current posters except maybe Kakashi, which is helping me oganize.



> I feel like the counter post should be more directly focused on the opponents argumentation by including quotes etc.
> 
> Essentially trying to absolutely dismantle your opponent.



Yup, that's how it works.



Hi no Ishi said:


> One thing I was thinking of starting was getting pros to pick a fave and then have to argue against them with a character.
> For instance I would have to argue against Gaara or Killer B which would cause me great pain but probably force me to thing of a good argument.
> 
> We could try that here as well for a match or two to mix things up.



Yeah, for the most post I would want to completely randomize it but apparently people only read parts of the manga with the characters they like, because I got a few requests to changes characters before.
Letting someone have a list of 5 characters might be good, but match-ups might repeat themselves real soon.



Turrin said:


> @Soul I think the reason that traffics goes down is because people loose their matches and interest dies. That’s why I think instead of a bracket where on advances it should be whoever has the most wins, at the end of a set amount of matches



We haven't had enough matches for that to be a problem, we are at #4.
And remember that no one wants to argue for Chuunin level shinobis, they have less feats and are boring compared with your Sasuke's and Itachi's.



kokodeshide said:


> About judging.
> What we definitely can't have is people adding stuff that was not talked about. One judge said something around the lines of, "The first poster didn't think about how tricky X is." When neither side mentioned anything about trickiness.



That's up to the voter. I certainly include cleverness of an argument in my votes, just look at the ones I made for the league already.


----------



## kokodeshide (Apr 29, 2019)

Soul said:


> That's up to the voter. I certainly include cleverness of an argument in my votes, just look at the ones I made for the league already.


Cleverness of an argument is fine. I'm saying the judge is saying that one of the SHINOBI is clever. Basically adding on to the argument of one side when that side didn't mention it.


----------



## JayK (Apr 29, 2019)

@Soul Imo it might also be a good idea to cut the amount of words allowed to such a point that it's impossible to cover the entire capabilities of a character and instead focus on what the debater believes to be his characters biggest advantage in taking down another character.

Otherwise you're gonna read the same shit about a character over and over again.


----------



## Soul (Apr 29, 2019)

kokodeshide said:


> Cleverness of an argument is fine. I'm saying the judge is saying that one of the SHINOBI is clever. Basically adding on to the argument of one side when that side didn't mention it.



The judge has to take into account how the contestant argued about the character.
Thinking the shinobi is clever is fine as long as it's IC, but that doesn't even matter since that is not being evaluated.
Remember, it doesn't matter who ends up winning the fight, it's about who had the most compelling argument.



JayK said:


> @Soul Imo it might also be a good idea to cut the amount of words allowed to such a point that it's impossible to cover the entire capabilities of a character and instead focus on what the debater believes to be his characters biggest advantage in taking down another character.



Well, yeah. We do have the 1,000 characters limit. Do you want to go down even further? without taking into account concerns that I have about the strategy themselves.



> Otherwise you're gonna read the same shit about a character over and over again



I have read the same shit about a character over and over again for a while now.
Don't see how that is a problem.


----------



## JayK (Apr 29, 2019)

Soul said:


> I have read the same shit about a character over and over again for a while now.
> Don't see how that is a problem.


Well, at some point one would also get used to having hydraulic needles shoved up the ass.

Doesn't necessarily mean thats a good thing and seeing how it could easily be prevented by limiting the debating tools allowed in an NBD league debate would also make things more interesting and diverse for once.

Just my take on it.


----------



## Soul (Apr 29, 2019)

JayK said:


> Well, at some point one would also get used to having hydraulic needles shoved up the ass.
> 
> Doesn't necessarily mean thats a good thing and seeing how it could easily be prevented by limiting the debating tools allowed in an NBD league debate would also make things more interesting and diverse for once.
> 
> Just my take on it.



Oh don't get me wrong I am all for it. It's just that people don't really want to talk about other characters nearly as much.
I would be both surprised and glad to hear that people want to do something different for a change. If the word limit will help that then we should do it.


----------



## kokodeshide (Apr 29, 2019)

Soul said:


> The judge has to take into account how the contestant argued about the character.
> Thinking the shinobi is clever is fine as long as it's IC, but that doesn't even matter since that is not being evaluated.
> Remember, it doesn't matter who ends up winning the fight, it's about who had the most compelling argument.


I completely disagree. That means the person is allowed to come in with a bias for one character over the other AND they can factor that into their decision. That is completely opposite of what is needed to judge. The judge evaluates the argument, not the characters in the argument. 

If they are allowed to address stuff that isn't addressed in either argument, how is it about who had the better argument?


----------



## Hardcore (Apr 29, 2019)

Hi no Ishi said:


> I'm down to judge and be judged! Let's do it.
> 
> 
> One thing I was thinking of starting was getting pros to pick a fave and then have to argue against them with a character.
> ...



having turrin debate against Tobirama would be a golden idea

ck

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Hi no Ishi (Apr 29, 2019)

Turrin said:


> This is what I was suggesting too, but I wouldn’t do it with Kage characters as I believe that can lead to bias; I’d do it with Chunin / Jonin


I hadn't read the thread yet sorry I guess. 
Great minds and all that.

And very few care about chunin and Jonin around here sadly. I find them all pretty interesting.


----------



## Turrin (Apr 29, 2019)

Hi no Ishi said:


> I hadn't read the thread yet sorry I guess.
> Great minds and all that.
> 
> And very few care about chunin and Jonin around here sadly. I find them all pretty interesting.


I do too, and people are more open to differing opinions on them I think


----------



## Turrin (Apr 29, 2019)

Hardcore said:


> having turrin debate against Tobirama would be a golden idea
> 
> ck


Do you think Tobirama is my favorite character lol. He’s not even top 10


----------



## Soul (Apr 29, 2019)

kokodeshide said:


> I completely disagree. That means the person is allowed to come in with a bias for one character over the other AND they can factor that into their decision. That is completely opposite of what is needed to judge.



It means the exact opposite? If I am judging your argument and you try to rely on the character smarts it means that you can't debate. And as thus I would think less of your argument even if your character might win the match.



> The judge evaluates the argument, not the characters in the argument.



Yup, that's correct.



> If they are allowed to address stuff that isn't addressed in either argument, how is it about who had the better argument?



They are allowed to, that doesn't mean I am going to factor it positively in my vote.
In all likelihood it will be counter productive to rely on the character's smarts without substance.


----------



## Hardcore (Apr 29, 2019)

sorry for going off-topic, but just out of curiosity



Turrin said:


> Do you think Tobirama is my favorite character lol. He’s not even top 10



who are your top 10?


----------



## kokodeshide (Apr 29, 2019)

Soul said:


> It means the exact opposite? If I am judging your argument and you try to rely on the character smarts it means that you can't debate. And as thus I would think less of your argument even if your character might win the match.


I dont think we are talking about the same thing here. 
Im saying if debater 1 said A, B, C. and debater 2 said D, E, F and judge 1 says well "debator 1 forgot about H" That is introducing their own biases. It isnt their job to refute points of one side.



Soul said:


> Yup, that's correct.


Good.


Soul said:


> They are allowed to, that doesn't mean I am going to factor it positively in my vote.
> In all likelihood it will be counter productive to rely on the character's smarts without substance.


 Again, i think we arent on the same page here. To make sure, Im saying the debaters are doing nothing wrong. I'm only saying the JUDGE is doing something wrong by adding their own bias by saying that debater 1 forgot about character 1's intelligence, something debater 1&2 never brought up.


----------



## Hayumi (Apr 29, 2019)

Hi no Ishi said:


> I hadn't read the thread yet sorry I guess.
> Great minds and all that.
> 
> And very few care about chunin and Jonin around here sadly. I find them all pretty interesting.


 Exactly this. While I have equal interest in lower and higher tier characters, the majority of posters only care about kage tier characters and above in their debates. It would be a nice change of pace to include chunin and jonin characters.


----------



## Soul (Apr 29, 2019)

kokodeshide said:


> I dont think we are talking about the same thing here.
> Im saying if debater 1 said A, B, C. and debater 2 said D, E, F and judge 1 says well "debator 1 forgot about H" That is introducing their own biases. It isnt their job to refute points of one side.
> 
> Again, i think we arent on the same page here. To make sure, Im saying the debaters are doing nothing wrong. I'm only saying the JUDGE is doing something wrong by adding their own bias by saying that debater 1 forgot about character 1's intelligence, something debater 1&2 never brought up.



Ah yeah, we weren't on the same page.
If I, the judge, feel that he missed something then yeah, he might lose points.
It's not bias, it's something that could have helped his argument but he forgot.

Let's say we have an Itachi vs Gaara thread and the guy arguing for Gaara forgets to address Genjutsu.
Wouldn't you as a judge take points from him? You aren't refuting points from one side, you are doing that from both sides. It just happens that debater 1 actually did his homework and didn't forget important aspects of the match.



okeechobee101 said:


> Exactly this. While I have equal interest in lower and higher tier characters, the majority of posters only care about kage tier characters and above in their debates. It would be a nice change of pace to include chunin and jonin characters.



We have tried that without good results.
Making a list of the ones you would rather debate for sounds like a good idea, that way we can make match-ups taking those into account.


----------



## kokodeshide (Apr 29, 2019)

Soul said:


> Ah yeah, we weren't on the same page.


No problem.



Soul said:


> If I, the judge, feel that he missed something then yeah, he might lose points.
> It's not bias, it's something that could have helped his argument but he forgot.
> 
> Let's say we have an Itachi vs Gaara thread and the guy arguing for Gaara forgets to address Genjutsu.
> Wouldn't you as a judge take points from him? You aren't refuting points from one side, you are doing that from both sides. It just happens that debater 1 actually did his homework and didn't forget important aspects of the match.


But as the judge you are supposed to judge the fight at all, only the argument laid out in front of you.

If you were judging a fight. You judge the fight off of punches landed, damage, ring control. you dont judge the fight based off missed opportunities. Some one may or may not have a reason for inserting a point. It isnt up to the judge to decide that. A judge should ONLY judge the arguments that are laid out.

As for your example, it doesnt matter if he does. Here is why. 
Using your logic of losing points for missing stuff.
If the Debater 1 forgets to address Genjutsu. and Debater 2 *doesn't* call him on it, thats a "point loss" for BOTHER competitors.

If the Debater 1 forgets to address Genjutsu. and Debater 2 *does* call him on it, then you would award debater 2 "a point". You wouldn't give debater 1 "a point" and then ALSO take away "a point" from Debater 1. You get what I mean?

It also sets the stage for improper judging as some people "know more" than others. and some people accept different feats that others don't. So one judge could say oh he didnt address X feat when neither talked about it and the bored in general is split on it. Judging MUST remain as unbiased as possible for a proper debate.


----------



## Turrin (Apr 29, 2019)

Hardcore said:


> sorry for going off-topic, but just out of curiosity
> 
> 
> 
> who are your top 10?


In no order

1. Sasori
2. Jiraiya
3. Kankuro 
4. Shino 
5. Konan 
6. Kidomaru 
7. Haku 
8. Hanzo 
9. Shikamaru
10. Rock Lee

To name a few


----------



## Soul (Apr 29, 2019)

Soul said:


> But as the judge you are supposed to judge the fight at all, only the argument laid out in front of you.



This isn't a fight, though.
We aren't evaluating punches, we are evaluating arguments.



> If you were judging a fight.



Which we aren't.



> You judge the fight off of punches landed, damage, ring control. you dont judge the fight based off missed opportunities. Some one may or may not have a reason for inserting a point. It isnt up to the judge to decide that. A judge should ONLY judge the arguments that are laid out.



I can see that point of view, just disagree with it when casting my judgement on some cases.



> As for your example, it doesnt matter if he does. Here is why.
> Using your logic of losing points for missing stuff.
> If the Debater 1 forgets to address Genjutsu. and Debater 2 *doesn't* call him on it, thats a "point loss" for BOTHER competitors.
> 
> If the Debater 1 forgets to address Genjutsu. and Debater 2 *does* call him on it, then you would award debater 2 "a point". You wouldn't give debater 1 "a point" and then ALSO take away "a point" from Debater 1. You get what I mean?



Well yeah, but if I happen to think that his character loses vs Itachi because I have no answer for Genjutsu and he doesn't provide one, how prepared is he in his opening statement?



> It also sets the stage for improper judging as some people "know more" than others. and some people accept different feats that others don't.



Doesn't the fact that people accept different feats than others means that you should be prepared for them all?
I would expect someone that gets to pick who he debates for to know at least as much as the voters.



> So one judge could say oh he didnt address X feat when neither talked about it and the bored in general is split on it. Judging MUST remain as unbiased as possible for a proper debate.



I am evaluating both contestants on the same grounds. Not sure why you think that would be unfair.
If I think that someone expanded more upon important points in the match than the other he definitely deserves a bit more of credit. Otherwise the contestant could mention only strengths and leave out the weaknesses of his characters for them to not be considered by the judges, that way he gets all the advantages and none of the cons while doing considerably less work than a person prepared for every scenario.



Turrin said:


> In no order
> 
> 1. Sasori
> 2. Jiraiya
> ...



Huh, and to think you disliked Sasori by in the day.


----------



## SakuraLover16 (Apr 29, 2019)

@kokodeshide Has a point. If neither has touched upon the subject then neither should be judged for it.


----------



## kokodeshide (Apr 30, 2019)

Soul said:


> This isn't a fight, though.
> We aren't evaluating punches, we are evaluating arguments.


For that point i meant the match up.


Soul said:


> Which we aren't.


Doesnt matter. The logic is that you dont judge outside of the parameters you are judging the fight for.


Soul said:


> Well yeah, but if I happen to think that his character loses vs Itachi because I have no answer for Genjutsu and he doesn't provide one, how prepared is he in his opening statement?


When you have a word limit and are discussing a character that has a plethora of feats you will make cuts. And its not my job to address why I could lose. That's a bad debate strategy. I could purposely leave that out because it does make one character beat another. But the other side should point that out. A judge should never insert his/her opinion on the debate. That is not how judging debates work. Trust me, man. Debate club for most of my school life. Its why i have such debate stamina.


Soul said:


> Doesn't the fact that people accept different feats than others means that you should be prepared for them all?
> I would expect someone that gets to pick who he debates for to know at least as much as the voters.


No, because lets say Sagelight is a judge. In a Itachi vs idk, jj Madara he may think the psychometric destratification of the molecular assembly of the ghost matter that is indubitably Totsuka was not address and then judged one side negatively for it.
So you now have people knocking people for not even making mistakes. I shouldnt lose a point because I forgot to add my characters strongest jutsu. 

If my argument is solid and defeats my opponents, i win. Regardless of who the competitors are. I could have Inari and you could have JJ Madara. If I say Inari has a shot gun in his house, shot guns kill people. and you say Madara cant pee in front of people. I win the debate.


Soul said:


> I am evaluating both contestants on the same grounds. Not sure why you think that would be unfair.
> If I think that someone expanded more upon important points in the match than the other he definitely deserves a bit more of credit. Otherwise the contestant could mention only strengths and leave out the weaknesses of his characters for them to not be considered by the judges, that way he gets all the advantages and none of the cons while doing considerably less work than a person prepared for every scenario.


That's how debate works lol. You don't see presidential candidates mentioning all the bad they will do with certain laws they want passed. I dont have to, nor should I try to address my characters weaknesses. That's my opponents job. If they fail to do that, I win. plain and simple. Debate 101. It isn't about who is right or wrong. Its about who won and lost.


----------



## Hardcore (Apr 30, 2019)

Turrin said:


> In no order
> 
> 1. Sasori
> 2. Jiraiya
> ...



weird

how can Hanzo, Kidomaru, and also arguably Kankuro and shino be in anyone's top 10


----------



## Turrin (Apr 30, 2019)

Hardcore said:


> weird
> 
> how can Hanzo, Kidomaru, and also arguably Kankuro and shino be in anyone's top 10


Their character designs are some of the most unique and creative expressions of Ninja arts


----------



## Soul (May 1, 2019)

SakuraLover16 said:


> @kokodeshide Has a point. If neither has touched upon the subject then neither should be judged for it.



Oh yeah, of course. If no one touches the subject why would I care about it?
However, we aren't discussing that scenario.



kokodeshide said:


> Doesnt matter. The logic is that you dont judge outside of the parameters you are judging the fight for.



Agreed. However, I would argue that missing something is within the parameters I may be judging on.
Some points are part of the responsibility of the debater. The more complete, well-put and thorough the debate is, the better it has to be ranked.



> When you have a word limit and are discussing a character that has a plethora of feats you will make cuts.



Why would you have to cut stuff?
I have seen people write a well structured knowledge section, mention every relevant move, add some finer details and draw a fair conclusion in less than the word limit.



> And its not my job to address why I could lose. That's a bad debate strategy.



I agree. What you should add is countermeasures to help you survive your weaknesses.
Ignoring your weaknesses is a very easy way to lose.



> I could purposely leave that out because it does make one character beat another.



Of course, That is a valid strategy.
I actually mentioned something like that in this vote I made for the first match.


*Spoiler*: _Abstract for vote in Match 1 of the NBD League_ 




Additional Notes:

Links. Links. Links. Links. Everyone loves links to the moves. It helps your argument 99% of the time. Certainly helped you here

Seems like you are underestimating Ohnoki to me, but it might be a tactic you are using to discredit him in the judge's eyes.

Not buying your weight manipulation section, but it's not a con per se. It was worth a shot.

Not a single mention of how the location helps or hinders either character.
Definitely not your first time doing something like this. Nicely done.







> But the other side should point that out. A judge should never insert his/her opinion on the debate. That is not how judging debates work. Trust me, man. Debate club for most of my school life. Its why i have such debate stamina.



This is why we have one opening statement and one rebuttal.
This isn't about outlasting your opponent, is about making the best possible argument for your character within the limit. Otherwise why would we impose a limit at all?

A vote is literally an insertion of the judge's opinion on the comparison between opening statement 1 and 2.



> No, because lets say Sagelight is a judge. In a Itachi vs idk, jj Madara he may think the psychometric destratification of the molecular assembly of the ghost matter that is indubitably Totsuka was not address and then judged one side negatively for it.
> So you now have people knocking people for not even making mistakes. I shouldnt lose a point because I forgot to add my characters strongest jutsu.



No, but you should definitely lose points for not addressing vital points of the battle.
Otherwise you would just not mention any flaw and wouldn't possibly lose.



> If my argument is solid and defeats my opponents, i win. Regardless of who the competitors are.



I agree. What I am saying is that sometimes it will be close enough when not mentioning an important detail might make me think someone did a better job than the other. Matches can be hard to interpret sometimes.

.



> I could have Inari and you could have JJ Madara. If I say Inari has a shot gun in his house, shot guns kill people. and you say Madara cant pee in front of people. I win the debate.



That is correct, yes.



> That's how debate works lol. You don't see presidential candidates mentioning all the bad they will do with certain laws they want passed. I dont have to, nor should I try to address my characters weaknesses. That's my opponents job. If they fail to do that, I win. plain and simple. Debate 101. It isn't about who is right or wrong. Its about who won and lost.



Well of course. That's simple. And it would be ill-advised from me to not do that.
But what happens when two competent strategists battle? What will split the two of them if they all made solid points and counterarguments? What if one is _barely_ better?
At the highest levels of competition, the difference between victory and defeat is often the slightest of margins. Adding countermeasures for reasonable IC actions, knowledge sections, additional notes and subtle details can tip the match one way or another.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## kokodeshide (May 1, 2019)

Soul said:


> Agreed. However, I would argue that missing something is within the parameters I may be judging on.
> Some points are part of the responsibility of the debater. The more complete, well-put and thorough the debate is, the better it has to be ranked.


No, that isn't how a debate works. Debate is a bottom up kind of grading. You start from 0 and then go up. You HAVE to leave your opinions out of it. One of the very first things they teach you as a debate judge is to leave your opinions out of it, the ONLY facts are the ones presented in the debate.


Soul said:


> Why would you have to cut stuff?
> I have seen people write a well structured knowledge section, mention every relevant move, add some finer details and draw a fair conclusion in less than the word limit.


Depends on the person and how they phrase things.


Soul said:


> I agree. What you should add is countermeasures to help you survive your weaknesses.
> Ignoring your weaknesses is a very easy way to lose.


No, ignoring your weaknesses is a fantastic strategy. Because, if you yourself know that your character has no answer for it, you should focus on the strong parts of your debate. Not waste time trailing through the mud.


Soul said:


> Of course, That is a valid strategy.
> I actually mentioned something like that in this vote I made for the first match.
> 
> *Spoiler*: _Abstract for vote in Match 1 of the NBD League_
> ...


The colored line is a problem. That isn't neutral. That is an opinion. A judge should never bring an opinion into a debate.


Soul said:


> This is why we have one opening statement and one rebuttal.
> This isn't about outlasting your opponent, is about making the best possible argument for your character within the limit. Otherwise why would we impose a limit at all?
> 
> A vote is literally an insertion of the judge's opinion on the comparison between opening statement 1 and 2.


You are missing my point.

A vote is a grade of the DETAILS of the *debate, *judged SOLELY on the information put in the debate. You don't lose points for failing to bring something up because what happens when the opponent doesnt address that? That means you got away with it. That means you did GOOD. You don't "take" points, you give them.



Soul said:


> No, but you should definitely lose points for not addressing vital points of the battle.
> Otherwise you would just not mention any flaw and wouldn't possibly lose.


Only if the opponent mentions them. What you are saying is basically you do the job of the debater as a judge.

Nagato vs lets say water dragon jutsu.
If i say Nagato isnt losing to a water dragon. And they say that it can kill him because X, if i Dont mention Preta, that isn't a knock on me. Cause as the judge, you shouldn't know about preta cause no one said anything about it. you dont get to take points, you simply give points to the other side for proving Nagato cant tank a water dragon.


Soul said:


> I agree. What I am saying is that sometimes it will be close enough when not mentioning an important detail might make me think someone did a better job than the other. Matches can be hard to interpret sometimes.
> 
> .


wow, that brings me back!

That match is very complicated. lots of individual pieces. And some judges made errors in their assessments and addressed stuff not brought up.


Soul said:


> Well of course. That's simple. And it would be ill-advised from me to not do that.
> But what happens when two competent strategists battle? What will split the two of them if they all made solid points and counterarguments? What if one is _barely_ better?
> At the highest levels of competition, the difference between victory and defeat is often the slightest of margins. Adding countermeasures for reasonable IC actions, knowledge sections, additional notes and subtle details can tip the match one way or another.


Yes, but it tips it naturally. If I left something out, that is a point for the other person ONLY if they address it. Otherwise it doesn't exist.
If the debate is even, you need to go over again and pick points that stood out more and judge them a little bit more harshly. if after ALL that, it is still even, sure, add extra judging criteria. The chances that that happens is fairly low though.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Soul (May 1, 2019)

Ah, now this makes sense. It seem that you are fixating on the word debate, when this isn't exactly that. Or at least that's not how I interpreted it.
The way I see it you only have an opening statement because that's what we are evaluating. The rebuttal is to clear up some things about what your opponent is doing. If you were debating you would allow more rebuttals about it to actually discuss it. You would also be able to rebuttal the judges.

A debate is a discussion on a topic. This isn't even a discussion, is how you see this going (and why it will go your way) AKA the opening statement and one rebuttal to clear up whatever you might have missed. Sorry for the confusion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Mad Scientist (May 2, 2019)

Soul said:


> While that makes sense, anonymity is apparently encouraging posters to not care about it.
> Would rather judge them all myself since I don't really care about any of the new posters. Can't think of someone I know is unbiased, has sound logic and has the time to judge consistently other than me and ~Kakashi~, which is on me because I don't know most people posting nowadays. And you know I have never been too fond of you, Munboy, Nikushimi, etc but it's not hate either. You are just neutral in by books.
> 
> 
> ...



I think *not keeping it anonymous* will be better.

1. Reflects the real world
2. When it comes to tournament level debates, people generally will try to be unbiased. The majority of posters anyway. Otherwise, their posts will reflect it.
3. It might actually increase competition.
4. Judges cannot be biased because they are held accountable by writing their own evaluation. If they're biased, it will show.
5. It'll be more fun! (and can reduce stigma when people debate in a professional light)

@~Kakashi~
@Soul
@FlamingRain


----------



## Mad Scientist (May 2, 2019)

kokodeshide said:


> No problem.
> 
> But as the judge you are supposed to judge the fight at all, only the argument laid out in front of you.
> 
> ...



I disagree with one point. I believe not pointing out significant missed opportunities is a crucial point to notice, if it's, like I said, significant to the debate. It's like all evidence needs to be considered even the ones overlooked. 

Let me give you a short example. 

Minato vs Might Gai. Both sides put up great arguments. But Poster For Minato doesn't mention FTG at all. Missed significant opportunity.


----------



## kokodeshide (May 2, 2019)

Mad Scientist said:


> I disagree with one point. I believe not pointing out significant missed opportunities is a crucial point to notice, if it's, like I said, significant to the debate. It's like all evidence needs to be considered even the ones overlooked.


Nope, that isn't how debate works though. A judge is not supposed to used facts outside the facts presented in the debate. It also completely disregards the concept of a debate.



Mad Scientist said:


> Let me give you a short example.
> 
> Minato vs Might Gai. Both sides put up great arguments. But Poster For Minato doesn't mention FTG at all. Missed significant opportunity.


Yes, you are right, it is a missed opportunity. BUT, if the other poster doesn't take advantage of that, then it doesn't matter. If i dont mention FTG, you have a better chance to win because I failed to bring the best point, NOT because the judge takes points away for you missing that opportunity. a judge should NEVER take points from someone for something they didnt say. You ONLY go up in points, you never go down.

I think the issue you and soul are having with this is you are looking at the right and wrong aspect of it, not the win and lose aspect of it. A debate should only ever be judged for what the person has said. If they didnt bring up FTG, oh well. They have less of a chance to win. not because you took points, but because they didn't gain enough points.

To say it in more mathematical terms, If i have 6 points i could talk about. and i only talk about 3, that means i have 3 points. If my opponent talks about 6 points of his 6, he has 6 points. If I debunk all 6 of his points and he doesn't debunk mine. I win 9-6(or 3-0). But in the way you are saying it, i lose 3 points for not saying those 3. and he loses none cause he missed 0. I now have 0 and he has 6. I debunk his points, he not either has 0, if you take his points away cause they were dunked or give me 6 points. for debunking his points. then its a tie. thats ridiculous.

There is not a single professional debate league that works that way. No sports judging works that way. court judging doesnt work that way. Imagine if you were suspected of a crime and the judge is like, i see you didnt mention the time of day that proves your innocence. Only evidence X that proves it. I dock you points, you are now guilty. You also open the possibility for bias when you do that.

Sorry to make this so long.


----------



## ThomasTheCat (May 2, 2019)

kokodeshide said:


> Nope, that isn't how debate works though. A judge is not supposed to used facts outside the facts presented in the debate. It also completely disregards the concept of a debate.


I definitely see where you're coming from, but if it was something like missing a character's ability entirely, I think it should be noted


----------



## kokodeshide (May 2, 2019)

MShiina said:


> I definitely see where you're coming from, but if it was something like missing a character's ability entirely, I think it should be noted


You are right, by the debater himself. If he doesn't, the other debater has a better chance to win based of of that fact ALONE. Not because the judge happens to know he missed something. Debate is structured that way for a reason. 
If you know more about minato, you may see that i missed 3 things, if you dock me points for it in a close match, I could lose EVEN IF my argument was better. another judge might know nothing about Minato and give me the win. about Judging wieghs one argument against another. Thats it, plain and simple.

Best way to put it is if You and I were in a one line debate.
Minato vs Konohamaru, Pain arc.
I say:
Konohamaru uses Rasengan to kill Minato.

You say:
Minato uses Rasengan, which is the biggest of all base Rasengan, to kill konohamaru.

Using your system. I win. Why? Because you didn't use Minato's best move. You missed an opportunity to have Minato win even easier. 
I win with Konohamaru over Minato. 

Any of this make sense?


----------



## ThomasTheCat (May 2, 2019)

kokodeshide said:


> If you know more about minato, you may see that i missed 3 things, if you dock me points for it in a close match, I could lose EVEN IF my argument was better.


The quality of the arguments is, of course, still the most valued aspect. I also believe points need only be docked if very basic abilities are completely missed, since there is a lot of space to apply the different techs, and it shows that the debater may not have properly researched. 


kokodeshide said:


> Best way to put it is if You and I were in a one line debate.
> Minato vs Konohamaru, Pain arc.
> I say:
> Konohamaru uses Rasengan to kill Minato.
> ...


1 - The big difference is that the debates at hand will be MUCH more than one line, and the focus of the judging will most likely be the first posts, as they have been, since the first post contains the most information and actual defense of their character. 
2 - Here we return to the quality of the argument > a missed ability. Minato still had a better argument, so he wins.


----------



## Mad Scientist (May 2, 2019)

kokodeshide said:


> Sorry to make this so long.


No problem at all.



kokodeshide said:


> I think the issue you and soul are having with this is you are looking at the right and wrong aspect of it, not the win and lose aspect of it.


For all I know, Soul might disagree with what I said too - in fact, I don't think what I'm saying is something he even said.



kokodeshide said:


> A debate should only ever be judged for what the person has said. If they didnt bring up FTG, oh well. They have less of a chance to win. not because you took points, but because they didn't gain enough points.


I disagree. If Person A brought up a very strong point and the Person B _didn't_ respond to that, then by "only ever [judging them for] what the person has said" and not on what they didn't, the judge would effectively be neutral to both sides even though Person A brought up a very strong point and Person B couldn't refute it (because they didn't even talk about it). Apologies if I'm interpreting what you're saying incorrectly.



kokodeshide said:


> Nope, that isn't how debate works though. A judge is not supposed to used facts outside the facts presented in the debate. It also completely disregards the concept of a debate.


Withholding crucial facts/evidence known to the judge would be criminal in a court of law.



kokodeshide said:


> Yes, you are right, it is a missed opportunity. BUT, if the other poster doesn't take advantage of that, then it doesn't matter. If i dont mention FTG, you have a better chance to win because I failed to bring the best point, NOT because the judge takes points away for you missing that opportunity. a judge should NEVER take points from someone for something they didnt say. You ONLY go up in points, you never go down.


While it's true that the debate will/should focus on what the people _have_ said, I don't think I necessarily said points should be subtracted for not mentioning very significant points that were left out. What I mean to say is that it just looks less favourable to one's side. How you qualify/quantify that weight is a separate matter, but everyone is allowed to have different impressions. I'm not necessarily saying that debate arguments shouldn't be solely judged on the merits of their own arguments, but I am highlighting the fact that leaving out _important_ facts makes an argument look not as strong as it should be and a judge should take that into account (kinda sounds like portrayal).



kokodeshide said:


> To say it in more mathematical terms, If i have 6 points i could talk about. and i only talk about 3, that means i have 3 points. If my opponent talks about 6 points of his 6, he has 6 points. If I debunk all 6 of his points and he doesn't debunk mine. I win 9-6(or 3-0). But in the way you are saying it, i lose 3 points for not saying those 3. and he loses none cause he missed 0. I now have 0 and he has 6. I debunk his points, he not either has 0, if you take his points away cause they were dunked or give me 6 points. for debunking his points. then its a tie. thats ridiculous.



I don't think I said one should necessarily _lose_ points for not contributing critical information, so while I get where you're going with this analogy, I don't see its application to my point.



kokodeshide said:


> There is not a single professional debate league that works that way. No sports judging works that way. court judging doesnt work that way. Imagine if you were suspected of a crime and the judge is like, i see you didnt mention the time of day that proves your innocence. Only evidence X that proves it. I dock you points, you are now guilty. You also open the possibility for bias when you do that.


No, that's not what I'm saying, but that's an interesting way of looking at what you're arguing against. In the end, I think this example is flawed because:
1. Not mentioning the date and time that would prove someone's innocence doesn't necessarily mean they're guilty - in fact, I don't know how someone would even jump to that conclusion
2. Not mentioning the date and time just means that there's critical evidence that still needs to be presented to the table.

Maybe I'm going way off, but please correct me if I'm saying something incorrect or plain dumb.


----------



## Soul (May 2, 2019)

@kokodeshide 
You are looking at it one way (which isn't wrong, really) that differs from mine and apparently Mad S'.
We are to focus in the opening statement. This isn't really a debate per se, although is fairly similar.

Make the best argument you can on your OStatement, then use your one rebuttal to discredit your opponent with a logical approach.


----------



## kokodeshide (May 3, 2019)

Mad Scientist said:


> For all I know, Soul might disagree with what I said too - in fact, I don't think what I'm saying is something he even said.


its not the exact same, but its in the same vein.


Mad Scientist said:


> I disagree. If Person A brought up a very strong point and the Person B _didn't_ respond to that, then by "only ever [judging them for] what the person has said" and not on what they didn't, the judge would effectively be neutral to both sides even though Person A brought up a very strong point and Person B couldn't refute it (because they didn't even talk about it). Apologies if I'm interpreting what you're saying incorrectly.


Nooo, you're a bit mistaken.
If you bring up a good point. and I dont respond, you win. Flat out. The judge would rate your response as a 0.
I'm saying a Judge can't look at you and then say, "well he could have made a better point, docking points. I judge this match a tie!"


Mad Scientist said:


> Withholding crucial facts/evidence known to the judge would be criminal in a court of law.


Depends. If you arent asked the question, you don't have to answer. AND, you also have to right to not self incriminate. so its not exactly what you said.


Mad Scientist said:


> While it's true that the debate will/should focus on what the people _have_ said, I don't think I necessarily said points should be subtracted for not mentioning very significant points that were left out. What I mean to say is that it just looks less favourable to one's side. How you qualify/quantify that weight is a separate matter, but everyone is allowed to have different impressions. I'm not necessarily saying that debate arguments shouldn't be solely judged on the merits of their own arguments, but I am highlighting the fact that leaving out _important_ facts makes an argument look not as strong as it should be and a judge should take that into account (kinda sounds like portrayal).


2 major problems.
1. As a judge, you are supposed to be a blank slate, coming in with no prior information basically. So to even SEE a missed opportunity means you violate the very ESSENCE of judging a debate.
2. This is a potato potahto situation, but you are spelling it wrong. if you can get what im saying. You are SO close to right.When someone leaves out information that could have helped them, that DOESNT matter. why? Because if the other side has a stronger arguement, they win. If not, they lose. Its literally that simple. Missing an opportunity should not lead to losing points, or just doesnt win you points.




Mad Scientist said:


> I don't think I said one should necessarily _lose_ points for not contributing critical information, so while I get where you're going with this analogy, I don't see its application to my point.


then I'm confused at the exact nature of your point.



Mad Scientist said:


> No, that's not what I'm saying, but that's an interesting way of looking at what you're arguing against. In the end, I think this example is flawed because:
> 1. Not mentioning the date and time that would prove someone's innocence doesn't necessarily mean they're guilty - in fact, I don't know how someone would even jump to that conclusion


what I mean is like, if the defense has 2 points and the prosecutor has 2 points, and so it's like a 50 50 if the guy is guilty. The judge/jury wouldn't be like well you forgot this one point so I'm leaning guilty now.



Mad Scientist said:


> 2. Not mentioning the date and time just means that there's critical evidence that still needs to be presented to the table.


Yup, and it is up to the defense to present it. The judge/jury should have NO prior knowledge. 


Mad Scientist said:


> Maybe I'm going way off, but please correct me if I'm saying something incorrect or plain dumb.


 No, not dumb, just slightly wrong. Or, you are explaining what I am saying but adding an opinion into the mix.


----------



## kokodeshide (May 3, 2019)

Soul said:


> @kokodeshide
> You are looking at it one way (which isn't wrong, really) that differs from mine and apparently Mad S'.
> We are to focus in the opening statement. This isn't really a debate per se, although is fairly similar.
> 
> Make the best argument you can on your OStatement, then use your one rebuttal to discredit your opponent with a logical approach.


If judges can use their bias, it's not a debate at all. It's a knowledge test.



MShiina said:


> The quality of the arguments is, of course, still the most valued aspect. I also believe points need only be docked if very basic abilities are completely missed, since there is a lot of space to apply the different techs, and it shows that the debater may not have properly researched.


It isn't a debate then. Literally. That leads to the worst possible outcome. Judge variables and bias. 



MShiina said:


> 1 - The big difference is that the debates at hand will be MUCH more than one line, and the focus of the judging will most likely be the first posts, as they have been, since the first post contains the most information and actual defense of their character.


I'm simplifying the concept. 



MShiina said:


> 2 - Here we return to the quality of the argument > a missed ability. Minato still had a better argument, so he wins.


This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Why does a missed point matter if one side has the better argument? This perfectly describes a debate.


----------



## Soul (May 3, 2019)

kokodeshide said:


> If judges can use their bias, it's not a debate at all. It's a knowledge test.



I honestly do not understand why it is bias.
We are evaluating how well poster A presented his argument vs how well poster B presented his argument.
How do you suggest we do that? Ignoring mistakes they make doesn't sound like a good method of evaluation in my eyes.


----------



## kokodeshide (May 3, 2019)

Soul said:


> I honestly do not understand why it is bias.
> We are evaluating how well poster A presented his argument vs how well poster B presented his argument.
> How do you suggest we do that? Ignoring mistakes they make doesn't sound like a good method of evaluation in my eyes.


I'll PM you something to explain a bit better. I have a feeling you will agree after that.

But, for this thread.
No, a debate is evaluating Poster A's ARGUMENT vs poster B's ARGUMENT. NOT the presentation. Seriously, look up how to judge a formal debate(Not saying this in a rude way). It isn't what you are saying. It is not about who is right or wrong, it's about who wins and loses. You don't EVER judge the quality of an argument, you only judge whether or not it beats the other argument. If it does, it DOES NOT matter what kind of shit he left out. And if it doesnt beat the other poster argument then he lost and it again DOES NOT matter what he left out. There is no need to judge the quality of a debate, only judge if it beats the other.

Basically, If what poster A said shows that he wins and poster B loses, who gives a fuck what Poster A failed to mention?


----------



## Mad Scientist (May 3, 2019)

kokodeshide said:


> I'll PM you something to explain a bit better. I have a feeling you will agree after that.
> 
> But, for this thread.
> No, a debate is evaluating Poster A's ARGUMENT vs poster B's ARGUMENT. NOT the presentation. Seriously, look up how to judge a formal debate(Not saying this in a rude way). It isn't what you are saying. It is not about who is right or wrong, it's about who wins and loses. You don't EVER judge the quality of an argument, you only judge whether or not it beats the other argument. If it does, it DOES NOT matter what kind of shit he left out. And if it doesnt beat the other poster argument then he lost and it again DOES NOT matter what he left out. There is no need to judge the quality of a debate, only judge if it beats the other.
> ...



I agree that the debate should be judged on the merits of the arguments made. For instance, Minato vs PA Konohamaru, if poster B argued for PA Konohamaru better, then poster B wins.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Soul (May 3, 2019)

kokodeshide said:


> I'll PM you something to explain a bit better. I have a feeling you will agree after that.



Sure, that would be appreciated.



> No, a debate is evaluating Poster A's ARGUMENT vs poster B's ARGUMENT. NOT the presentation. Seriously, look up how to judge a formal debate(Not saying this in a rude way). It isn't what you are saying. It is not about who is right or wrong, it's about who wins and loses. You don't EVER judge the quality of an argument, you only judge whether or not it beats the other argument. If it does, it DOES NOT matter what kind of shit he left out. And if it doesnt beat the other poster argument then he lost and it again DOES NOT matter what he left out. There is no need to judge the quality of a debate, only judge if it beats the other.



This is exactly what I tried to say to you before, and I did write this. _This isn't a debate per se_. We are not pitting two people in a discussion at all. The rebuttal is for them to make their case about what the other contestant said on his opening statement.
We want to evaluate the quality of the argument, who made a better one. Which character wins the fight isn't what we are looking for as judges. I understand that, since the matches are trying to be set up as even match-ups, the winning and the better debater will usually align.

This is how I interpreted Flaming Rain's idea, and that's what I am looking to respect as this was primarily his show. If you want to judge using your interpretation of how this should be judged I am not opposed to it, either. More than 90% of the matches will end up with the same result if we think similarly.



> Basically, If what poster A said shows that he wins and poster B loses, who gives a fuck what Poster A failed to mention?



I care if poster B made a better case of why his character should win.


----------



## kokodeshide (May 3, 2019)

Mad Scientist said:


> I agree that the debate should be judged on the merits of the arguments made. For instance, Minato vs PA Konohamaru, if poster B argued for PA Konohamaru better, then poster B wins.


Yes, regardless of whatever was left out of the debate.


----------



## Soul (May 3, 2019)

kokodeshide said:


> Yes, regardless of whatever was left out of the debate.



Then yeah, we just have a slight misunderstanding on what a good opening statement is.
I have no problems with that.


----------



## kokodeshide (May 3, 2019)

Soul said:


> I care if poster B made a better case of why his character should win.


Well that kind of goes against what i said. What i said was if A presented the proof he wins, who cares what A left out? You cant say if B had the better proof he wins. uhh yeah. I'll make it more clear in the PM


Soul said:


> Then yeah, we just have a slight misunderstanding on what a good opening statement is.
> I have no problems with that.


 We have nearly no disagreement on what a good opening statement is, the disagreement is whether that factors into judging. Formal debate says it should never ever be factored in. If this isn't a debate I don't know what you would call it lol. A debate skills class/tournament?


----------



## Soul (May 3, 2019)

kokodeshide said:


> If A presented the proof he wins, who cares what A left out? You cant say if B had the better proof he wins.



Well of course I can. Whoever has the best argument will win. That's the point of the contest.
"Proof" isn't quite as simple in a match where many factors are important.



> We have nearly no disagreement on what a good opening statement is, the disagreement is whether that factors into judging.



If you missed out on stuff your opening statement isn't as good as if you don't miss a thing.
I, as a judge, feel the need to take that into account.



> Formal debate says it should never ever be factored in. If this isn't a debate I don't know what you would call it lol. A debate skills class/tournament?



The very definition of debate is discussing about stuff. We aren't really discussing here, are we?
You are fixating on the rules of what a formal debate does when this isn't _quite _that. Even though it's pretty similar.


----------



## kokodeshide (May 3, 2019)

Soul said:


> Well of course I can. Whoever has the best argument will win. That's the point of the contest.
> "Proof" isn't quite as simple in a match where many factors are important.


No no no. You are missing my point here. I'm saying poster A has CONCRETE proof he wins. In that case, why does it matter if he left something out.


Soul said:


> If you missed out on stuff your opening statement isn't as good as if you don't miss a thing.
> I, as a judge, feel the need to take that into account.


And not all judges know everything as I will show you. So you are trusting your judge to have a perfect knowledge of the manga when they judge the debate, that opens up a HUGE chance for mistakes.
And in what case would that even change your opinion on who won? It doesnt make sense, it is literally the opposite of debate. You are turning it into who is right and wrong, not who wins and loses.


Soul said:


> The very definition of debate is discussing about stuff. We aren't really discussing here, are we?
> You are fixating on the rules of what a formal debate does when this isn't _quite _that. Even though it's pretty similar.


Formal debate and informal debate are very similar, this on the other hand, is not debate whatsoever, this is a class and whoever is more right about what they said wins, not who presented the winning argument. If this isn't a debate, let's be 100 percent clear. Just make sure you put "this is not a debate" and I have no problems. But as others have said, you should be judged on the merits of what you said. not what you didnt say.


----------



## Soul (May 3, 2019)

kokodeshide said:


> No no no. You are missing my point here. I'm saying poster A has CONCRETE proof he wins. In that case, why does it matter if he left something out.



Then you are missing the point here, too.
There is no concrete proof that a character wins. There is no way. It's like talking sports, upsets happen all the time. Jiroubou could lose vs CE Naruto even if he is way better than him in pretty much every way.

We are making educated guesses in who wins and loses based in both our knowledge and our interpretation of the manga. You can know all the manga and reach different conclusions about a match. It happens so often than people have talked about some of those match-ups for over a decade.



> And not all judges know everything as I will show you. So you are trusting your judge to have a perfect knowledge of the manga when they judge the debate, that opens up a HUGE chance for mistakes.



I am trusting judges to be unbiased in who they think will win based on what both contestants posted.
They can disagree with me if they thing that's best.



> And in what case would that even change your opinion on who won?



It's a case by case basis thing, you can look at some of the matches we have had.
. Sakura got a vote even though he got outclassed by Tri (in my opinion). That doesn't mean I'll void Turrin's vote, because it shows that he read the match and that he felt that way about it.



> You are turning it into who is right and wrong, not who wins and loses.



It isn't either of those. It's who did better.
That's what I will be evaluating.



> Formal debate and informal debate are very similar, this on the other hand, is not debate whatsoever



I agree. I also told you this before.



> this is a class and whoever is more right about what they said wins, not who presented the winning argument. If this isn't a debate, let's be 100 percent clear. Just make sure you put "this is not a debate" and I have no problems.



Thought I had been 100% clear on what this is before.
Judges are to evaluate the opening statement and the rebuttal of both contestants to determine who did a better job.



> But as others have said, you should be judged on the merits of what you said. not what you didnt say.



Who else has said that?


----------



## kokodeshide (May 3, 2019)

Soul said:


> Who else has said that?


I'll just list the most important 2.


FlamingRain said:


> A formal debating format will be used





Soul said:


> EDIT: We'll be going with the formal style.


So when you say this,


Soul said:


> Thought I had been 100% clear on what this is before.


and


Soul said:


> You are fixating on the rules of what a formal debate does when this isn't _quite _that. Even though it's pretty similar.


It DIRECTLY goes against what the NBD league is, a FORMAL debate. as said by YOU and Rain. So forgive me if I seem confused as you are literally going against what is said on page 1 of NBD league. So when you are saying this is Flaming rains idea/baby, then say its not what that is, thats a bit confusing.


----------



## Soul (May 3, 2019)

kokodeshide said:


> It DIRECTLY goes against what the NBD league is, a FORMAL debate. as said by YOU and Rain. So forgive me if I seem confused as you are literally going against what is said on page 1 of NBD league. So when you are saying this is Flaming rains idea/baby, then say its not what that is, thats a bit confusing.



By that I meant a formal posting style instead of your run of the mill post in the NBD.
We want this to be a bit classier than your average thread.


----------



## kokodeshide (May 3, 2019)

Soul said:


> By that I meant a formal posting style instead of your run of the mill post in the NBD.
> We want this to be a bit classier than your average thread.


Well that's all cool to say, but flamingrain says formal debate style. So for matches 1 through 6, They should have been judged in the formal way. If you dont want to do that for this next one, thats all fine, I'm just saying that since every single rule has changed don't say its basically the old NBD League. This is completely different.


----------



## Soul (May 4, 2019)

kokodeshide said:


> Well that's all cool to say, but flamingrain says formal debate style. So for matches 1 through 6, They should have been judged in the formal way.



Yeah, if you want to be that strict about it you are correct.
This, however, was never enforced, which is why I am allowing a bit more of freedom on how each person can vote.



> If you dont want to do that for this next one, thats all fine, I'm just saying that since every single rule has changed don't say its basically the old NBD League. This is completely different.



The old NBD league worked this way too, though. I can tell you that because I myself judged a few matches using the same logic explained on my posts throughout this discussion and Flaming Rain didn't once warned me about this. He only thanked me for my time and insight on said judgments.

You are taking a stance on the topic because you know formal debating. I am telling you that, in the strict way of looking at this, this was never intended to have that kind of a format. At least that's what I interpret from this.


----------



## kokodeshide (May 4, 2019)

Soul said:


> The old NBD league worked this way too, though. I can tell you that because I myself judged a few matches using the same logic explained on my posts throughout this discussion and Flaming Rain didn't once warned me about this. He only thanked me for my time and insight on said judgments.
> 
> You are taking a stance on the topic because you know formal debating. I am telling you that, in the strict way of looking at this, this was never intended to have that kind of a format. At least that's what I interpret from this.


Meh, that's murky logic there. You list a ruleset then amend it later to fit how some people followed it. If you and everyone are cool with that, no problems here.
If everyone would prefer essay discussions instead of a debate, I'm honestly, genuinely, glad, needs of the many matter more than me, but count me out. WAY too much room for bias with this format.
(Salt free)


----------



## Soul (May 4, 2019)

kokodeshide said:


> Meh, that's murky logic there. You list a ruleset then amend it later to fit how some people followed it. If you and everyone are cool with that, no problems here.
> If everyone would prefer essay discussions instead of a debate, I'm honestly, genuinely, glad, needs of the many matter more than me, but count me out. WAY too much room for bias with this format.
> (Salt free)



Alright. If we get more activity an actual debate might be good, but right now we don't have continued interest on the idea. It's hard enough to put together one opening statement and one rebuttal. Lengthy replies would take far longer.
Good thing that this was clarified.


----------



## kokodeshide (May 4, 2019)

Soul said:


> Alright. If we get more activity an actual debate might be good, but right now we don't have continued interest on the idea. It's hard enough to put together one opening statement and one rebuttal. Lengthy replies would take far longer.
> Good thing that this was clarified.


Honestly, you would have more interest if it wasn't anonymous. Once your name is attached to it, you will show up and you will participate.


----------



## Soul (May 4, 2019)

kokodeshide said:


> Honestly, you would have more interest if it wasn't anonymous. Once your name is attached to it, you will show up and you will participate.



Yup, I'll try that if this doesn't take off.
A few people complained about bias and I can see why, some people here do change their posting style when replying to a few posters for whatever reason.


----------



## kokodeshide (May 4, 2019)

Soul said:


> Yup, I'll try that if this doesn't take off.
> A few people complained about bias and I can see why, some people here do change their posting style when replying to a few posters for whatever reason.


That is very true. But, appointing a head judge who is viewed as the most "unbiased" can help sift through the bias. And/or making the judges anonymous so they don't have to publicly feel bad for not voting for someone they are "friends" with. OR, make the judges 3 generally unbiased people. and those 3 will judge every debate. Just some thoughts. Shit, if you want to really go crazy, appoint a single judge, the Judge Dredd of the NBD league.


----------



## Soul (May 4, 2019)

kokodeshide said:


> That is very true. But, appointing a head judge who is viewed as the most "unbiased" can help sift through the bias. And/or making the judges anonymous so they don't have to publicly feel bad for not voting for someone they are "friends" with. OR, make the judges 3 generally unbiased people. and those 3 will judge every debate. Just some thoughts. Shit, if you want to really go crazy, appoint a single judge, the Judge Dredd of the NBD league.



Yeah, could judge them all myself.
I am obviously more experienced in this kind of things that anyone else here because of my time around here and in the Colosseum. Have hosted more tournaments and debate contests than pretty much everyone here combined. I am also the less likely to be unbiased because all the regulars that used to participate with me have been inactive for years, and even they know I don't care about your user name or join date. Just ask the few regulars back in the early 2010s when they post.  
Some might think it's a no brainer to have me judge all the matches. They would be wrong.
Different opinions are important in a community. Involvement by many people is preferred to only one judge, no matter how logical he might be.
The point of this is to involve as many users into a good kind of posting as we can, to make this section a better place; one where people value actual discussion instead of baiting or trolling.

This league is for the people that want this section to be a better place, not for me (or anyone else) to call the shots as we might see fit.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## kokodeshide (May 4, 2019)

Soul said:


> Yeah, could judge them all myself.
> I am obviously more experienced in this kind of things that anyone else here because of my time around here and in the Colosseum. Have hosted more tournaments and debate contests than pretty much everyone here combined. I am also the less likely to be unbiased because all the regulars that used to participate with me have been inactive for years, and even they know I don't care about your user name or join date. Just ask the few regulars back in the early 2010s when they post.
> Some might think it's a no brainer to have me judge all the matches. They would be wrong.
> Different opinions are important in a community. Involvement by many people is preferred to only one judge, no matter how logical he might be.
> ...


I agree. More people being involved is great, so long as we stick to the rules. I don't mind helping with judging, or at least helping the judging stay on track, if that debate league ever happens. I've done formal debates since grade school, was ranked nationally in middle school and most of high school believe it or not. So the shit is in my blood. I love it more than most things.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Soul (May 4, 2019)

kokodeshide said:


> I love it more than most things.



Yeah it shows, you have pretty decent stamina.
A shame that you didn't post as often back in the day.


----------



## kokodeshide (May 4, 2019)

Soul said:


> Yeah it shows, you have pretty decent stamina.
> A shame that you didn't post as often back in the day.


I stuck to the OBD for the most part, calcing and shit. I stayed away from the NBD as things were a bit...different back then.


----------



## Soul (May 4, 2019)

kokodeshide said:


> I stuck to the OBD for the most part, calcing and shit. I stayed away from the NBD as things were a bit...different back then.



Well, you missed out on the golden days.


----------



## kokodeshide (May 4, 2019)

Soul said:


> Well, you missed out on the golden days.


I hear ya. I was young and full of, "da OBD is king of da world" Bias.
Wait, wasnt Nikushimi around at that time?


----------



## Soul (May 4, 2019)

kokodeshide said:


> I hear ya. I was young and full of, "da OBD is king of da world" Bias.
> Wait, wasnt Nikushimi around at that time?



We might as well take this talk somewhere else. But yeah, he was.
Pretty funny guy. it would be him and Grimmjow vs Turrin, both would pull a great deal of nonsense back in the day.
I wonder what happened to him.


----------



## ThomasTheCat (May 4, 2019)

@kokodeshide 
We seem to be nearly on the same page

I just think that if both debates are of equal quality, something like missing a big character ability could be a deciding factor


----------



## kokodeshide (May 4, 2019)

MShiina said:


> @kokodeshide
> We seem to be nearly on the same page
> 
> I just think that if both debates are of equal quality, something like missing a big character ability could be a deciding factor


I agree, ONLY if that is the VERY last deciding factor.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Symmetry (May 5, 2019)

I’d definetly love to participate
Gotta preach my sanin wank somehow


----------



## Soul (May 5, 2019)

Just for the record.
No one has sent their opening statements as of now. Less than 24 hours remaining.


----------



## ~Kakashi~ (May 5, 2019)

Soul said:


> Just for the record.
> No one has sent their opening statements as of now. Less than 24 hours remaining.



I would have figured with 500 word stipulation, post would be submitted pretty quickly, especially seeing as posters got to pick a group of characters they would like to debate with. Shame.


----------



## Mad Scientist (May 5, 2019)

~Kakashi~ said:


> I would have figured with 500 word stipulation, post would be submitted pretty quickly, especially seeing as posters got to pick a group of characters they would like to debate with. Shame.


I think 500 as a maximum limit is a little too low. 

I have over 900 words currently and this is just for judging a single match. 

But yeah, best to keep experimenting to see what works and anything to increase the speed is highly appreciated


----------



## Soul (May 5, 2019)

Yup, I'll adjust as we move along. 750 might be better for the next round.


----------



## Mad Scientist (May 5, 2019)

Soul said:


> Yup, I'll adjust as we move along. 750 might be better for the next round.


Oh yeah, I published my judgement on


----------



## Soul (May 5, 2019)

Yup, I saw.
Will clean up those throughout the week. Right now I am focused on this other format.

Thank you!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Sufex (May 6, 2019)

So people just not posting their opening stamtents then? Even if if its just 500 words. I actually had a lot of time too for judging this week


----------



## ThomasTheCat (May 6, 2019)

Doing the Asuma/Darui judging tonight

I seem to get busier when I have things to do and it's obnoxious

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Soul (May 6, 2019)

So, everyone bar X III is disqualified.
Who is actually interested enough to type 500 words?


----------



## Mad Scientist (May 6, 2019)

Soul said:


> So, everyone bar X III is disqualified.
> Who is actually interested enough to type 500 words?


I would but way too busy right now. I also think activity has fallen this month - I suspect work and school increasing to be the common denominator. Or perhaps my hunch is off the mark.


----------



## ThomasTheCat (May 6, 2019)

A lot of people are getting near final exams, so I would assume that has something to do with it.

And props to @X III for actually doing it 

Now if you'll excuse me; I'm gonna go do that Asuma/Darui judging


----------



## ThomasTheCat (May 6, 2019)

And I have now realized that there are 3 voting for Asuma already, so I needn't 

Now I feel bad because I was late and I can't even contribute... Whatever

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Mad Scientist (May 6, 2019)

MShiina said:


> And I have now realized that there are 3 voting for Asuma already, so I needn't
> 
> Now I feel bad because I was late and I can't even contribute... Whatever


Haha no worries - it's probably better you didn't actually, since there kinda are enough judgements already indicative of the winning post, that particular debate's kinda in the past now, and it means your stamina would be reserved for the more now-important battles. 

On another note, thanks for the rep, everyone who gave


----------



## kokodeshide (May 6, 2019)

Soul said:


> So, everyone bar X III is disqualified.
> Who is actually interested enough to type 500 words?


Time to remove anonymity? 

Also, @X III  congratulations, grand champion. I shall print you a trophy and give you a rose.


----------



## Soul (May 6, 2019)

kokodeshide said:


> Time to remove anonymity?



Yup.
Next step is to do just that.



> Also, @X III  congratulations, grand champion. I shall print you a trophy and give you a rose.



Oh no, he doesn't get off that easy.
I'll probably write something for him to compete against and actually get some experience out of it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Soul (May 11, 2019)

Not letting this die just yet by the way.
Just waiting for people to finish up school so we can get the show underway.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Symmetry (May 23, 2019)

I still wanna participate in some capacity

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Soul (May 23, 2019)

Orochimaru op said:


> I still wanna participate in some capacity



Yup I'll open up a registration thread.
We could normally do it whenever but right now people aren't willing to participate for some reason.
It's like they have a life or something.


----------



## ThomasTheCat (May 23, 2019)

Soul said:


> It's like they have a life or something.




The mere thought...


----------



## Soul (May 23, 2019)

MShiina said:


> The mere thought...



It's not even that good. I still have it but find some time to post here.
Can you imagine how terrible it is?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Soul (May 25, 2019)

Wow, turns out it did revive.
Both opening posts have been posted in . It's ~Kakashi~ vs Crow.
Match 5 also has a winner, and it's hbcaptain! (A week or 4 later, but I'll be better about that from now on).

After a few of these I will arrange for some kind of prize (like a big avatar or sparkles for a month), but we'll have to give a few more opportunities to other people to play as well.

Also updated the Opening Post with the contestants of the matches going on.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Symmetry (May 25, 2019)

Soul said:


> Wow, turns out it did revive.
> Both opening posts have been posted in . It's ~Kakashi~ vs Crow.
> Match 5 also has a winner, and it's hbcaptain! (A week or 4 later, but I'll be better about that from now on).
> 
> ...


kudos to both competitors!


----------



## JiraiyaFlash (May 26, 2019)

Soul said:


> free to rebuttal as much as you want


Not a good idea, ı can say that even now. (oh ı see its changed ok )

Old version was simplier and lot easy to catch up, vote and judge. And also old 700 word limit was better imo.

All this secret thing not working imo.


----------



## Atlantic Storm (May 26, 2019)

I'm in the middle of exams, but I'd be happy to procrastinate.


----------



## Soul (May 26, 2019)

JiraiyaFlash said:


> Not a good idea, ı can say that even now. (oh ı see its changed ok )
> 
> Old version was simplier and lot easy to catch up, vote and judge. And also old 700 word limit was better imo.
> 
> All this secret thing not working imo.



Yeah, we are now doing a 500 word opening statement and then one 500 word rebuttal.



Atlantic Storm said:


> I'm in the middle of exams, but I'd be happy to procrastinate.



This isn't the sign-up thread, please read the OP (That I will edit for it to show you should go to the sign up thread )


----------



## Hi no Ishi (May 28, 2019)

We humbly await judgement!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Soul (May 28, 2019)

Hi no Ishi said:


> We humbly await judgement!



I'll do mine on the weekend if needed. Already asked 5 possible judges to go ahead.
Thanks for playing!


----------



## Atlantic Storm (May 29, 2019)

I can't wait to crush you, Soul.


----------



## Symmetry (May 29, 2019)

I’m itching to start a battle tbh


----------



## Soul (May 29, 2019)

Atlantic Storm said:


> I can't wait to crush you, Soul.



Would be nice. Maybe I could start considering my actual rival.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Symmetry (May 30, 2019)

Can we use things stated in the databooks?


----------



## Symmetry (May 30, 2019)

Also omg I'm having such a hard time explaining all of Jman's options cuz he has so many Jutsu's and I have so little words.


----------



## Soul (May 30, 2019)

: Pain Arc Naruto (Crow) vs Itachi (~Kakashi~) is ready for voters. Let me know if you are interested in voting.



Orochimaru op said:


> Also omg I'm having such a hard time explaining all of Jman's options cuz he has so many Jutsu's and I have so little words.



Yeah, you even went a bit above the soft cap, but within the 550 allowed.
I'll wait for the rebuttal then most likely vote around Sunday.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Symmetry (May 30, 2019)

Soul said:


> : Pain Arc Naruto (Crow) vs Itachi (~Kakashi~) is ready for voters. Let me know if you are interested in voting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yea I noticed, and that was me cutting it down to the max lol.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Soul (Jun 5, 2019)

All 3 active matches are ready for voters to do their thing. Pretty sure all 6 contestant would appreciate some input.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ~Kakashi~ (Jun 5, 2019)

What's going on with the removal of links in our threads? After seeing your post @Soul on how your links got removed, and how @Orochimaru op  links got changed/removed as well, I checked my debate and some of my links were removed(such as my link to scans of Itachi using his katon and suiryudan, plus the scan that showed Kabuto unable to avoid it).

@LostSelf @Blu-ray Any idea why this could be happening? 

I know the forum has some domain blocks set up for some websites that host manga/"competing forums"/etc, however if that was what was causing it, why wouldn't it block it immediately when posted, and if the domain block was the issue, it usually shows that([Domain blocked] or something similar appears where the website URL would be), where as in my case the hyperlinks are just straight up removed, Orochimaru OP's were changed to a quote("No way, that's impossible...! But he shouldn't have the Sharingan anymore..." was the quote) and I'm not sure what happened to Soul's exactly, but I'm sure he can explain.

When I noticed Oro's links missing, I checked to see when he had lasted edited it, and it had been on like the Thursday before I checked the post, and I had checked the post just the day before and the links were there, so I know he didn't edit them out(and obviously with mine and Soul's being removed, its further proof that it's not just the poster editing it).

It's been quite a while since I ever moderated a forum, but on previous versions of both vBulletin and Invision(and I think this forum is ran on Invision software? Though I haven't kept up with their updates over the years), moderators could view the history of edits for posts, and could also "ghost edit"(as in it wouldn't show that they edited the post to regular members) posts. I'm assuming that's still a feature, and given how our links have been removed, the only real explanation that comes to mind for me is some staff member doing it, cause if this were a filter(which of course is done by the forum software and not a person), then it would work immediately or at lease would remove all instead of just some(and I can speak that both mine and Oro's links came from the same source/used the same source for each link).


----------



## Blu-ray (Jun 5, 2019)

~Kakashi~ said:


> What's going on with the removal of links in our threads? After seeing your post @Soul on how your links got removed, and how @Orochimaru op links got changed/removed as well, I checked my debate and some of my links were removed(such as my link to scans of Itachi using his katon and suiryudan, plus the scan that showed Kabuto unable to avoid it).
> 
> @LostSelf @Blu-ray Any idea why this could be happening?


Link me to some of those posts or the threads that they're in. If they were edited, I should be able to see the edit history. Removing links from posts without warning is an Mbxx thing as far as I know, but unless I see them I can't be sure as to what caused it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ~Kakashi~ (Jun 5, 2019)

Blu-ray said:


> Link me to some of those posts or the threads that they're in. If they were edited, I should be able to see the edit history. Removing links from posts without warning is an Mbxx thing as far as I know, but unless I see them I can't be sure as to what caused it.



Mine: 

Oro's: 

Soul's: 

Oro and Soul edited there's back in. Haven't touched mine yet.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Blu-ray (Jun 5, 2019)

~Kakashi~ said:


> Mine:
> 
> Oro's:
> 
> ...


Yeah, I have no clue as to what caused that. Soul's and Oro's posts only have their own usernames under their edit history, and your post has no edit history whatsoever. I even checked the moderator actions tab in those threads and nothing came up bar the times they were stickied. I edited your reply to me a while ago to confirm some things (making sure edits by mods appear under moderator actions and whether or it can be hidden) so it seems the links weren't removed by anyone editing them out. 

So my guess is that either an Admin did it or the site was having a brainfart.


----------



## Soul (Jun 5, 2019)

What's even weirder is that my links were gone, but my opponent quoted a section of my argument and the links stayed there.
Oh well.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jun 11, 2019)

@Soul

Do you think it might be better to keep the posters anonymous from now on?


----------



## Soul (Jun 11, 2019)

Don't see the point of it. Bias hasn't been a problem at all in my opinion. I obviously can't check for bias on my own match, so I'll ask someone else for that. Maybe @~Kakashi~

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ~Kakashi~ (Jun 11, 2019)

Soul said:


> Don't see the point of it. Bias hasn't been a problem at all in my opinion. I obviously can't check for bias on my own match, so I'll ask someone else for that. Maybe @~Kakashi~



Haven't personally noticed any.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JiraiyaFlash (Jun 12, 2019)

Well compare to the older tournaments this one is not properly scheduled imo. Also why there is few manga or databook pages, scans and images in posts ? Its mostly talk.

Well If ı wasnt busy lately (damn summer work) ı would love to participate but this format looks a bit unaware to me. 

And about unseen links, u need "https" url links. And for that use postimage.org for create links for your images guys.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ~Kakashi~ (Jun 12, 2019)

JiraiyaFlash said:


> Well compare to the older tournaments this one is not properly scheduled imo. Also why there is few manga or databook pages, scans and images in posts ? Its mostly talk.
> 
> Well If ı wasnt busy lately (damn summer work) ı would love to participate but this format looks a bit unaware to me.
> 
> And about unseen links, u need "https" url links. And for that use postimage.org for create links for your images guys.



There have been tons of scans included, though either an admin or the forum itself has removed a lot of them in numerous posts. And I can't speak for others, but the source I use does use secured links(https), so that's not the issue.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Soul (Jun 13, 2019)

JiraiyaFlash said:


> Well compare to the older tournaments this one is not properly scheduled imo. Also why there is few manga or databook pages, scans and images in posts ? Its mostly talk.
> 
> Well If ı wasnt busy lately (damn summer work) ı would love to participate but this format looks a bit unaware to me.



Believe me, that's well documented. I ran the Rookies' tournament back in 2011. 32 contestants, 3 day matches with only 48 hours allowed for strategies. Tried running it like that but activity just wasn't there. Now that I loosened up the rules we have more people playing, so we will be stick to this format until it's safe to be more strict about it.

Also, I had +30 links in my opening post and someone or something took them down. Some haven't posted a lot of scans but it's because there aren't any veterans around anymore. The Colosseum was closed a few years ago for that same reason.

Let me know if you have any ideas to improve upon what we have and we'll go from there.


----------



## JiraiyaFlash (Jun 13, 2019)

Soul said:


> Let me know if you have any ideas to improve upon what we have and we'll go from there.


Well firstly, thnx for information and explanations.

And about my "ideas" , ı only got one and that aint an idea but more like a thought.

And that is schedule. Schedule must be neat, orginazing and we need to announced it way before in a fashionate way.

Like;



And we could use "rematches" since the participating aint crowded enough .


And also you must announced judgementship way earlier, and explained clearly. 

Like; are we need to recorded my names for being judge/voter or any nbd member can involve with it immideatly ? 

Older days, these things looks way more clear to me. Of course this is also a mistake that on me. Cuz ı wasnt active enough lately but still ı had very tought times to figured it out latest 2 nbd tournaments and their rules or conditions.

All ım saying is you/we need better PR (purchase request) work.


----------



## Soul (Jun 13, 2019)

The toughest issue with a schedule like that is that no one will make the deadline.
I tried 3 matches like that with weeks of prep in advance and 1 person sent me their opening post out of six possible contestants. The thread is called the NBD League Revival for a reason, it took me many tries to find something that works. The other problem with judging is that we just don't have enough good judges that can be consistent,  or at least that was the problem before. Back in the day this wasn't an issue because we had a pretty neat community, but now people are really concerned about biased votes, so much that I was requested to try to make this an anonymous thing which complicated matters even further.
In my opinion everyone should be able to vote, but I could understand if people want votes to be good. Didn't appreciate getting subpar votes in my matches back in the day, especially going against me.

Rematches are all nice and easy but I want to get at least 16 contestants for a seeded tournament later on to give out prizes (big avatar, sparkles, rep prize, etc). This League thing is not only a trial to get a better kind of discussion that "ITACHI SOLOS", It's also a way of knowing who is interested in this to make that schedule idea easier for said tournament. I would agree that it seems that I am not running this thing in an organized fashion, but there are many reasons behind what's going on.


----------



## X III (Jun 13, 2019)

@Soul Actually, I won't be able to participate. I'll be on vacation for around a month, so I won't have time to write/judge opening statements and rebuttals. I'll continue when I come back, though.


----------



## Soul (Jun 14, 2019)

X III said:


> @Soul Actually, I won't be able to participate. I'll be on vacation for around a month, so I won't have time to write/judge opening statements and rebuttals. I'll continue when I come back, though.



That's fine. Thanks for letting me know by the way.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Soul (Jun 23, 2019)

Just for the record, I'll be replacing this thread with the one I just created for the tournament shortly.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edogawa (Jun 24, 2019)

I would like to join the tournament.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Soul (Jun 24, 2019)

Edogawa said:


> I would like to join the tournament.



Could you post in the tournament thread? Since spots for the preliminary matches will be assigned a first come first serve basis, it's easier to get them for that thread. I'll unpin this one soon, so it will be a bit harder to find.

Thanks in advance.


----------

