# Great Debate Revival/New Concept



## Turrin (Jul 25, 2013)

I've noticed that the quality of discussion in the battledome has really gone down hill since the old days. I mean back then we used to have heated debates between fandoms, but they used to at least have a semblance of civility and logic, which I haven't seen in the BD (with a few exceptions) in a long time. Recently this has gotten to the point where any thread involving a fan favorite character devolves into a troll fest and brings about 10 other threads that are just one fandom trying to out troll the other. Now some instances of the above can be funny and lighten things up, but I do think it's a shame that there are just so many instance of this appearing in the BD recently, but there really is nothing I can think of that will resolve that problem, I'll leave that up to the mods.

However I started thinking that while the amount of trolls seems to have increased there are still a-lot of people who genuinely want to discuss character match ups in depth and the one instance where I remember the BD having some really good discussion is back when we did the Great Debate. Now the Great Debate had some major problems (imo at least) and that's probably why we no longer have it. From my perspective the biggest problem was the process just took too dam long and people couldn't maintain their interest in it. For example judges had go through 3 very long posts for each team and than write their own very long post to vote, that's too long of a process for judges and too inaccessible for really any poster who is not part of the debate itself. So needless to say it was a good idea but required a pretty big overhaul. 

So over the last couple of days I've been thinking about how to fix the Great Debate so it will hopefully be more interesting and work out better in practice, and I came up with general format:

*Premise*​
*Spoiler*: __ 



Each thread will be set up as a vs match between two specific posters. These posters will then be assigned 1 character each (maybe later we could due multiple, but let's stick to 1 in the beginning). The goal will than be for each posters to create a single post purposing strategies for how their assigned character can counter thee other character's Jutsu. Each of these post will have 2,100 word count limit, but how a poster decides to use their allowed word count is totally up to them.

These posts will than be scored by a someone who is judging the match who will than decide a winner. That's right there will be no rebuttals and just one judge (though we'll try to avoid pairing judges with matches they might be biased towards; for example Minato/Itachi/J-man-fan on a match they are involved in). This will make it easier for each match to be settled and for these matches to continue on w/o their needing to be someone overseeing things (though we'll probably need some volunteers at first).

Now I'll explain the areas each post will be judged on:

1. *Feasibility* -  25 Points

How likely a strategy purposed is to work. For example if I purpose something basic like someone uses a sound based Jutsu to target someone through Susano'o, that's high feasible since we've seen it done in the manga. However if someone were to purpose an extremely complex strategy like someone bushin fients someone into hitting another bushin, which than paralyzes them so that another bushin can perform x jutsu, than another bushin comes in and does XYZ, well you get the picture; that would certainly score low in this category.

2. *IC* - 25 Points 

Basically how likely it is for that specific character to use the strategy you purpose. For example if I say Jiraiya summons a Toad, that's pretty IC and would be scored highly here. However If I were to instead say Itachi starts a match using Izanami right away i'm going to need a dam good explanation for why this is IC otherwise i'm probably looking at a low score here.

3. *How Well It Works* - 35 Points

The difference between this and Feasibility is that this measures how effective your strategy would be in countering X ability if it worked, while Feasibility simply measures the likelihood that your strategy would in-fact work in the first place. The reason why I gave this a bit higher point value in the score is I want there to be a little extra incentive for people to take some risks once and awhile and be creative with their strategies, thinking outside the box. So this way even if they loose some points in feasibility and IC, they can make some up here.

4. *Post Formating* - 15 Points

Basically how well you put your post together. Is it easy to read, are any links you used accessible, and most importantly did you spend your word count wisely, I.E. did you come up with strategies for jutsu which are defining ones in the match such as how Jiriaya can counter MS techs or did you dick around wasting your word count talking about how Jiriaya's can counter Itachi's base Katons. That sort of stuff. 


And that's all the categories. I don't give a dam if your polite or not, or if you thank everyone; fuck sportsmanship



.
*Rules*

*Spoiler*: __ 



Now there are going to be some ground rules:

1. You can't simply invent a totally new technique for a character your arguing for. You have to use the abilities characters have shown or if you want hype (but keep in mind whose judging your match as some people are more receptive to hype than others)

2. While I don't care if your polite and a good sport, you have to at least be civil enough where the thread doesn't get locked and you can't harass judges that don't vote in your favor. Maybe if you think a judge totally misinterpreted something you could bring up that issue to him/her, but that's it.

3. Again you have to stick to the word count of 2,100 words

4. Whoever the Judge rules for is final, again unless there is some misinterpretation going on and in which case the power to change the ruling is in the judges hands and the judge alone

5. You can not make additional post rebuttaling your opposition your are limited to a single post to argue your case. Unless and only unless a judge asks a question about your original post, than you can answer the judge on that question and that question only

6. The character match ups will be determined in discussion among active community members. Basically what this means is we'll have a discussion thread and we'll discuss what matches are interesting and than we'll assign them to two people who want to have a vs match



.

*Discussion*​
So this is the format I purpose, but I would like to get some discussion and input on the subject. I'm not talking input where someone suggest everything I purpose is wrong and we should do something totally different, because if that's the case that person can just make their own thread. I'm talking about input when it comes to little tweaks here and there to make this a bed concept, not a different concept entirely.

I also would like some discussion about who would be interested in participating and who would be interested in volunteering to be judges and perhaps overseers in general. 

*The Hope*​If there is no interest whatsoever than I guess unfortunately this won't go anywhere. However personally what I would like to see happen is for us to slowly build up a good amount of people interested in this concept and eventually my hope is that after a certain period of time we could have whole tournaments where someone is crowned Master Strategist (I'll work on the title) until they are dethroned in a following tournament. 

But we'll see what happens.


----------



## Nikushimi (Jul 26, 2013)

Too long; didn't read.


----------



## Kakashi Hatake (Jul 26, 2013)

I don't like the great debate, people lose interest to fast.


----------



## DaVizWiz (Jul 26, 2013)

Read it, like it. Unlike the two posters above, I will provide more than just a sentence of uselessness. 

Only thing is, how do we decide who goes first, and are people selected to defend by choice or just randomly?

If by choice, there is a certain level of danger that is associated with the "fanboyism" spectrum. Debaters are more likely to want to defend a character they like, and that bias can still pour over into the debate. That's not something you're going to get rid of, and as a result, you're going to have crap quality posts. 

My final problem is who will the judges be? Those with the most power on the forum aren't exactly the most logical and intelligent posters. Moreover, should this thing go on to be a popular and competitive system, there's a level of familiarity between posters that will fuck it up. In other words, I'm more likely to decide in the favor of a friend or renown poster on the forum just because of association in a competitive atmosphere where people actually care about their scores. 

Consequently, the judge shouldn't be allowed to see the names of the posters and/or should be entirely careless about forum fame and/or friendships. The latter being more difficult than the former. The judge also probably should be someone who doesn't give a shit about the two characters fighting each other, thus not affecting the end score out of bias.

I like the system as an end winner though. (You should work on the title). This suggests you don't have to be approved and acknowledged by other debaters purely on likeability alone- which is exactly what the "Debater of the Month" title is about. For those debaters who could care less about being a "Role Model" or sucking up for popularity, this is a bright light at the end of a tunnel. Pure skill, devotion and manga intelligence will award you the honor- that is how it should be.


----------



## Kakashi Hatake (Jul 26, 2013)

Nothing more needed to be said. The fact is people lose their interest as soon as their battle is over and these great debates has extremely long post that no one will be bothered to read and respond.


----------



## Munboy Dracule O'Brian (Jul 26, 2013)

Its a great idea. I don't see anything wrong with it provided that the judges will be _carefully_ selected.



Kakashi Hatake said:


> Nothing more needed to be said. The fact is people lose their interest as soon as their battle is over and these great debates has extremely long post that no one will be bothered to read and respond.



So the judges can read and respond, others who aren't interested simply don't have to post. It is just that simple.



DaVizWiz said:


> Consequently, the judge shouldn't be allowed to see the names of the posters and/or should be entirely careless about forum fame and/or friendships. The latter being more difficult than the former. The judge also probably should be someone who doesn't give a shit about the two characters fighting each other, thus not affecting the end score out of bias.



Agreed. 

Though that could possibly be solved by having multiple judges (about 3-4).


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jul 26, 2013)

I agree that judges shouldn't be allowed to see the names of the contestants.


----------



## Turrin (Jul 26, 2013)

DaVizWiz said:


> Read it, like it. Unlike the two posters above, I will provide more than just a sentence of uselessness.
> 
> Only thing is, how do we decide who goes first, and are people selected to defend by choice or just randomly?


Well my idea is that we as a community will decide on interesting match ups that aren't onesided. Than when two people want to have a match we'll just randomly select the matchup they get.

Picking the judges is an issue, which is why I'm looking for a good list of people. The KC is able to have fair judges so I think we should be able to work things out. The not seeing a posters name is nice, but I'm not sure how we'd do that in the long run, and i'm pretty sure I could tell who wrote what just from how they are typing shit and i'm pretty sure the judges could as well.

I think worrying about Judge bias is something we should do if it becomes an issue.

Let's see whose up to be judges first. 

Although i'm willing to be a judge for the first few tester matches if people want to get started quickly, just to see how the system works.


----------



## Kisame (Jul 26, 2013)

Kinda skimmed through it, but I got the jist of it. I think it's a great idea.

I have a few things to add:


			
				DaVizWiz said:
			
		

> If by choice, there is a certain level of danger that is associated with the "fanboyism" spectrum. Debaters are more likely to want to defend a character they like, and that bias can still pour over into the debate. That's not something you're going to get rid of, and as a result, you're going to have crap quality posts.


Not necessarily, for example, having Strategos debate for Itachi is a site to behold, as he knows him in and out and is a very good Itachi debater. With that said he is like his biggest fan.

Liking a character I think (for the *debater*) is a good motivation for the debaters to post quality posts.


> Moreover, should this thing go on to be a popular and competitive system, there's a level of familiarity between posters that will fuck it up. In other words, I'm more likely to decide in the favor of a friend or renown poster on the forum just because of association in a competitive atmosphere where people actually care about their scores.


Yeah, I don't think it could be helped much. The better you are here the more you are qualified to be a judge/debater, but at the same time the more popularity you have.

It's just something we'll have to stick with, I guess.
All true and I agree with. 





> The judge also probably should be someone who doesn't give a shit about the two characters fighting each other, thus not affecting the end score out of bias.


I think this is really important. Very good idea.


Turrin said:


> Well my idea is that we as a community will decide on interesting match ups that aren't onesided. Than when two people want to have a match we'll just randomly select the matchup they get.


Like Kakuzu vs Kisame. 

Or Deidara vs Orochimaru.


> Picking the judges is an issue, which is why I'm looking for a good list of people. The KC is able to have fair judges so I think we should be able to work things out.


I think this is the best course of action regarding the judges.





> and i'm pretty sure I could tell who wrote what just from how they are typing shit and i'm pretty sure the judges could as well.





Kakashi Hatake said:


> Nothing more needed to be said. The fact is people lose their interest as soon as their battle is over and these great debates has extremely long post that no one will be bothered to read and respond.


The Great Debate is like 10 times more interesting then any BD thread because the quality of the whole thing is much more than that of a normal BD match-up.


----------



## Kisame (Jul 26, 2013)

*Turrin:* About feasibility: Isn't that somewhat dependent on the character though? The smarter a character is the more dynamic he will be and the more chance that he might come up with the proposed unorthodox strategy, (of course IC and his personality counter in as well)?

Like Minato, or Kakashi or Shikamaru.

Also, what about conditions and character knowledge?


----------



## Baroxio (Jul 26, 2013)

As much as I like the Great Debates (having participated in almost all of them), I gotta say, there is a real lack of interest that has been creeping up *everywhere *on Naruto Forums. 

Even in the last debate (The People's Debate) nobody but the organizer himself voted in what should have been an amazing match with a lot being put forward from both debators (match in question was Minato vs Itachi of all things). After all that hard work...that's just not right.


----------



## DaVizWiz (Jul 26, 2013)

> Not necessarily, for example, having Strategos debate for Itachi is a site to behold, as he knows him in and out and is a very good Itachi debater. With that said he is like his biggest fan.
> 
> Liking a character I think (for the debater) is a good motivation for the debaters to post quality posts.


The inability to admit defeat after fully devoting his/her attention in the form of Itachi winning could be a recurrent issue though. People don't want to lose, especially if it's a character they like. If I'm judging a debate, and I choose an average debater over Strategos, it's likely I'm going to suffer the consequences if Strategos decides to call me out on being a shitty judge. Having forum power, people will listen to him. I think, perhaps we may have to make the judges anonymous. 

I can agree that the excitement of defending a character that may be inspirational or more appealing than others can add some level of increased efficiency in the actual product of the post. However, as Turrin has pointed out, the dome is currently full of fanboying trolls. Strategos is a clear outlier and exception to the reality that we debate in, as he generally brings solid points to validate his admiration for Itachi- but 99% of others do not.


> Than when two people want to have a match we'll just randomly select the matchup they get.


As long as the matchups are interesting, I think the quality of the product will remain consistent.

For instance, if you assign a Tenten vs. Chojuro match, I wouldn't expect an interesting or well thought out debate as both characters are relatively limited in versatility, and are far from the manga's most popular matchups. 

However, say Jiraiya vs. Itachi, I would certainly expect a pretty well thought out, well detailed representation of both characters in the matchup as it appeals in almost every way. (Both are versatile, high-level top tier combatants with great fame). 

I can agree that the community would probably select the better matchup in most instances- so that wouldn't have that much of an issue in the "losing interest" department. 


> Although i'm willing to be a judge for the first few tester matches if people want to get started quickly, just to see how the system works.


I would like to see you as the judge for the first few trial matches, I'd certainly be open to competing early on.



> Agreed.
> 
> Though that could possibly be solved by having multiple judges (about 3-4).


Interesting concept. Will these judges have time to mediate between each other and agree on a final scoring, or will they all give their separate scores and we add them up for a final sum?

I'd prefer the latter, as the former might take quite a deal of time based on individual member activity, and the fact that a more popular, more outspoken member might just assume power over the scoring and undermind another less popular judge. I might, however, agree the former if it were say, a championship match or somewhere close to the end of a tournament, and the best judges are chosen for representation.

The only problem with the latter is if say someone destroys the other in the most important point system ("How well it works" [35]), but seemingly loses closely in almost every other category (the closest being 10 points less [25]), 35x3 or 35x4 (3-4 judges) might overlap the fact that the other competitor beat him in every other category by say 5 points. In other words, the dude who scores well in the highest point system, mathematically, can easily defeat someone who may have beat him in every other category but didn't do very well in only that category- which might not be his fault- the character's ability to counter the other character's ability is entirely based on matchups.

In other words, if I were debating for Jiraiya against Killer Bee, and suggested that Frog Song was the best route for him defeating Killer Bee- the problem with that is Samehada will probably break him out of it. It's not my fault as the debater, it's just the way the matchup goes- but in the end- I, as the debater, am the penalized as a result via a loss because my only chance of winning was with Frog Song, an attack that a judge might decide is useless against Samehada- and thus I get a 4 out of 35- while the other guy gets a 30 out of 35. 

Now are we really prepared to give the other competitor the title for working so hard on only one part of the point system and just getting the better end of the matchup, while the other spread out his attention and seemingly looks to be a much more versatile debater? The real question is whether or not the point system should be adjusted, and whether or not there should be some added benefit to how many categories one competitor defeats the other in- regardless of the final point count. Also, the final judge's opinion on which ninja he believes will defeat the other should also be considered, as that opinion can be influenced by the debater- so he/she should be acknowledged for doing that in some form of points or an honorary mention.

With that being said, and having wrote all that shit, the bottom line is we need to agree on a solid judge selection and count system (1-4?), a solid point score system- because after all- that is what determines who wins or loses. And at the end of the day- that's all people are going to care about.


----------



## Puppetry (Jul 26, 2013)

These debates are novelty items to the people in the BD. And like all novelty items, their allure vanishes when the mystique does. It's no wonder the first debate was clearly the most successful - both in terms of essay quality and participation - while every other debate has fallen in popularity, generally with only the first round garnering any real interest.


----------



## Turrin (Jul 26, 2013)

Shark said:


> *Turrin:* About feasibility: Isn't that somewhat dependent on the character though? The smarter a character is the more dynamic he will be and the more chance that he might come up with the proposed unorthodox strategy, (of course IC and his personality counter in as well)?
> 
> Like Minato, or Kakashi or Shikamaru.
> 
> Also, what about conditions and character knowledge?



If you can argue that effectively than there you go, ultimately it's up to the judge.



Baroxio said:


> As much as I like the Great Debates (having participated in almost all of them), I gotta say, there is a real lack of interest that has been creeping up *everywhere *on Naruto Forums.
> 
> Even in the last debate (The People's Debate) nobody but the organizer himself voted in what should have been an amazing match with a lot being put forward from both debators (match in question was Minato vs Itachi of all things). After all that hard work...that's just not right.



I think the problem with the peoples debate is it was far too much too fast. We need to build a dedicated group of people who enjoy the process before doing a huge time consuming tournament.


----------



## Kisame (Jul 27, 2013)

> The inability to admit defeat after fully devoting his/her attention in the form of Itachi winning could be a recurrent issue though. People don't want to lose, especially if it's a character they like. If I'm judging a debate, and I choose an average debater over Strategos, it's likely I'm going to suffer the consequences if Strategos decides to call me out on being a shitty judge. Having forum power, people will listen to him. I think, perhaps we may have to make the judges anonymous.


That isn't an issue for the debate itself though, because the winner will already be decided by the judge, regardless of the losing debater's actions.

I think it depends on who the debater is honestly: Some are passionate and understanding, some are passionate and not understanding, so...



> I can agree that the excitement of defending a character that may be inspirational or more appealing than others can add some level of increased efficiency in the actual product of the post. However, as Turrin has pointed out, the dome is currently full of fanboying trolls. Strategos is a clear outlier and exception to the reality that we debate in, as he generally brings solid points to validate his admiration for Itachi- but 99% of others do not.


Hmm, maybe you are right. I don't know.


----------



## The Pirate on Wheels (Jul 27, 2013)

Interest always dwindles after the first round, where half the people are eliminated.  You can just ask the KC.  That doesn't mean they can't still be successful, or that they aren't good or fun to have.  You can, again, just ask the KC.  

They key is to find a core of people who are dedicated, instead of relying on people who sign up and drop out to judge and review.


----------



## Turrin (Jul 27, 2013)

So anyone interested in setting up a match or judging one.


----------



## Baroxio (Jul 27, 2013)

I'm always interested in participating or judging a match, but I'm not sure how much I like the "create a strategy" aspect of it. Kinda feel a proper debate would be to examine all of their abilities as well as what they are most likely to do in battle. I know the IC segment is supposed to address this, but it still doesn't sit right with me.


----------



## EnergySage (Jul 27, 2013)

We've done debate tournaments before....two of them, I believe. I know I participated in them, so there's no reason we can't reuse that format. Participation slacked after the first round, but that's going to happen in any tournament format.


----------



## Turrin (Jul 27, 2013)

Baroxio said:


> I'm always interested in participating or judging a match, but I'm not sure how much I like the "create a strategy" aspect of it. Kinda feel a proper debate would be to examine all of their abilities as well as what they are most likely to do in battle. I know the IC segment is supposed to address this, but it still doesn't sit right with me.


Well how else would you examine their abilities other than to show strategies for how one ability would trump another.?


----------



## Bonly Jr. (Jul 27, 2013)

This is a great idea, I'm in. In fact, NB (Narutobase) are doing something similar; it's a debate league actually. Anyways, choosing the match ups should be down to us. I say we all, individually post our desired match up and once everyone has left their match up, another thread shall be made in which people decide on which match up they like best. The most voted for match ups will be the ones used in the debates etc..


----------



## Kisame (Jul 28, 2013)

Turrin said:


> Well how else would you examine their abilities other than to show strategies for how one ability would trump another.?


I think you implied a more KC-esque approach to the tournament, which is what he's referring to.


----------



## DaVizWiz (Jul 29, 2013)

Turrin said:


> So anyone interested in setting up a match or judging one.


I'll compete.

Not sure how to set it up, I assume the judge should probably be the one to do that. I recommended you for judging as it's doubtful anyone else with an understanding of your tweaks will step up. 

We need another competitor though.


----------



## Shizune (Jul 29, 2013)

If I'm understanding correctly, it's like a KC match except the contestants are arguing in favor of a single character as opposed to writing commands, and there are elected judges with a scoring rubric.

I'm extremely interested, and I'd love to participate as either a debater or a judge. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help out.


----------



## Alex Payne (Jul 29, 2013)

Count me in.


----------



## Turrin (Jul 29, 2013)

So here' what I'd like to see people interested start doing. 

*Interesting Match Up*
*Post any Match between two characters you find interesting here

*Interested in Judging*
Post your your screen name here if your interested in judging a match

*Interested in playing*
Post Your screen name here if your interested in playing in a match

So I'll go first 

*Interesting Match Up*
Orochimaru (no Edo Tensei or Zetsu DNA) vs Tsunade
Kakashi vs MS Sasuke


*Interested in Judging*
'Turrin

Once I get a solid list together we'll do a few trail matches. 



Nitty Scott said:


> If I'm understanding correctly, it's like a KC match except the contestants are arguing in favor of a single character as opposed to writing commands, and there are elected judges with a scoring rubric.
> 
> I'm extremely interested, and I'd love to participate as either a debater or a judge. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help out.



Yes it's like the KC, but IC is also taken into account here, which isn't in the KC, so watch out for that.


----------



## Shizune (Jul 29, 2013)

*Interesting Match Up*
Kakashi vs Tsunade
Jiraiya vs Itachi
Tsunade vs Sasori
Chiyo vs Yamato
Asuma vs Neji
Pain vs Itachi
Base Sasuke vs Tsunade

*Interested in Judging*
Nitty Scott

*Interested in playing*
Nitty Scott


----------



## Santoryu (Jul 29, 2013)

*Interesting Match Up*
Kakashi vs Itachi
Minato vs Pain
Zabuza vs Hidan
Base Kakashi (MS restricted) vs the Sannin members ( 1 vs 1 obviously)


*Interested in playing*
Santoryu


----------



## Turrin (Jul 29, 2013)

A quick addendum, unless people are really against it I think I'm going to try and steer clear of match ups involving Minato or Itachi, while were in this trail faze, for obvious reasons.

Other than that some good ideas for matches here, keep them coming.


----------



## Jad (Jul 29, 2013)

Is the great debate about debating about the great debate?


----------



## Alex Payne (Jul 29, 2013)

*Interesting Match Up*
Orochimaru(no ET) vs Danzo(no Koto)
Hiruzen(Old) vs Chiyo
Sasori vs Hebi Sasuke

*Interested in Judging*
Alex Payne

*Interested in playing*
Alex Payne


----------



## Edward Nygma (Jul 29, 2013)

I'm always up for a good debate. Find me an opponent and a judge and i'll debate like the devil.

Interestingly, I think the KC tier list will be a helpful resource for this. Looking at a characters restricted techniques would probably help you prioritize what to use your word count on. Plus it just puts all their techniques out in front of you.

*Interested in Playing*
Sloth, AP, Santoryu, NS

*Interested in Judging* 
AP, NS

*Interesting Mach-ups*
Orochimaru(no ET) vs Danzo(no Koto)
Hiruzen(Old) vs Chiyo
Sasori vs Hebi Sasuke
Kakashi (no Kamui) vs Sasuke (No EMS. Basic MS Allowed)


----------



## Turrin (Jul 29, 2013)

A-lot of good Character match ups here, I think what I'll do is put all of these into random.org to pick the character match two people get and the character they are assigned. I'll also use random.org to pick the battlefield. Unless people have a problem with that.


----------



## Axiom (Jul 29, 2013)

I'm not really sure that I have so much experience as I would like to have before participating, but perhaps I could contribute some matches that may be of interest?

*Interesting Match-Ups*
Gaara Vs Gai
Mifune Vs Hidan
Deidara Vs Sasori
Mei Vs Hebi Sasuke
Danzo Vs Tsunade


----------



## Puppetry (Jul 29, 2013)

I'm skeptical about this, but I don't believe it's right to just rally for its demise without attempting to aid it - especially since I do love the concept.

_Interesting Match-Ups_ 

Orochimaru vs Sasori
EMS Sasuke vs Pein
Kakashi vs Tsunade
Hebi Sasuke vs Mei
Danzo vs Tsunade
Chiyo vs Hiruzen
Sasori vs Hebi Sasuke
Hebi Sasuke vs Tsunade
Sage Naruto vs MS Sasuke

And many more. I'm not too particular about matches, really.

_Interested in Playing_
Puppetry


----------



## Kisame (Jul 29, 2013)

*Interesting Match-Ups:*
Kisame vs. Kakuzu
Orochimaru vs. Deidara

*Interested in Playing:*
Baroxio, Puppetry, Shark, Sloth, Alex Payne, Santoryu, Nitty Scott, DaVizWiz.


----------



## Baroxio (Jul 29, 2013)

I already mentioned my interest in playing/judging, did I not?


----------



## UchihaSasukeSama (Jul 29, 2013)

*Interesting Match Up*

Kakashi vs. Itachi 
Nagato vs. Madara (No Perfect Susano'o)
Kabuto vs. Pain (No Edo Tensei)
Sasori and Kakuzu vs. Kabuto (No ET or Hydrification Jutsu)
Orochimaru (No Zetsu DNA or ET) vs. Minato 
Sasuke vs. Kakashi 
Minato vs. Pain
Jiraiya vs. Onoki
Nagato vs. Naruto (Naruto can only use BM for 5 minutes).

Judges should be those who pick match ups and determine the rules of said match ups. Denaters are just giving their opinions and helping to make better matches. If you leave the "picking match ups" thing to debaters, they will choose any match up involving Minato, Jiraiya or Itachi.


*Interested in playing*
UchihaSasukeSama



Turrin said:


> A-lot of good Character match ups here, I think what I'll do is put all of these into random.org to pick the character match two people
> get and the character they are assigned. I'll also use random.org to pick the battlefield. Unless people have a problem with that.




You make a match up (1v1 match) and whoever gets to the thread first gets to chose who they want to debate for. As for the battlefield, you can use random.org.


----------



## Turrin (Jul 29, 2013)

Baroxio said:


> I already mentioned my interest in playing/judging, did I not?



Yes you did, but would you be interested in judging?


----------



## UchihaSasukeSama (Jul 30, 2013)

Can I debate and judge other debates at the same time? If so, I'm in for both judging and debating.


----------



## EnergySage (Jul 30, 2013)

I'm in for both. I'll think of some interesting matches later


----------



## Turrin (Jul 30, 2013)

*Interested in Playing:*
1,Baroxio 
2.Puppetry
3.Shark 
4.Sloth 
5. Alex Payne
6. Santoryu
7. Nitty Scott
8. DaVizWiz
9. UchihaSasukeSama
10. EnergySage
11. Munboy Dracule O'Brian

*Interested in Judging:*
EnergySage, Nitty Scott, Alex Payne, Baroxio, UchihaSasukeSama, Turrin, Munboy Dracule O'Brian

*Interesting Matches:*
1.Orochimaru(no ET) vs Danzo(no Koto)
2. Hiruzen(Old) vs Chiyo
3. Sasori vs Hebi Sasuke
4. Kakashi (no Kamui) vs Sasuke (No EMS. Basic MS Allowed)
5. Gaara Vs Gai
6. Mifune Vs Hidan
7. Deidara Vs Sasori
8. Mei Vs Hebi Sasuke
9. Danzo Vs Tsunade
10. Orochimaru vs Sasori
11. EMS Sasuke vs Pein
12. Kakashi vs Tsunade
13. Hebi Sasuke vs Tsunade
14. Sage Naruto vs MS Sasuke
15. Kisame vs. Kakuzu
16. Orochimaru vs. Deidara
17. Kabuto vs. Pain
18. Jiraiya vs. Onoki
19. Zabuza vs Hidan
20. Chiyo vs Yamato
21. Tsunade vs Sasori
22. Orochimaru (No ET) vs Tsunade

*Distances*

1. Short Range
Is roughly the distance between Sasuke & Deidara + Tobi illustrated in these pages:
7
7

2. Mid Range
Is roughly the distance between Naruto's Toads and Pain illustrated in these pages:
7
7

3. Long Range
Is roughly the distance between Shukaku and Gammabunta illustrated here:
7

*Battlefield Locations*
1. Gaara vs. Kimimaro Battlefield
7
2. Naruto's Wind Training Area
7
3. Chuunin Exam Arena 
Link removed
4. Blue Samurai Bridge
Link removed
5. Forest of Death
Link removed
6. Uchiha Temple
Link removed
7. Amegakuru Ocean
Link removed
8. Iron Country 
Link removed
9. Turtle Island 
Link removed
10. Bone Forest/Akatsuki Hideout 
Link removed

[SasukeSama;47996066]Can I debate and judge other debates at the same time? If so, I'm in for both judging and debating.[/QUOTE]

I don't see a problem with that off the top of my head


----------



## Eliyua23 (Jul 30, 2013)

Pt 1 Orochimaru vs Pain

Gaara vs Konan

Minato vs EMS Madara

SM Kabuto vs Edo Nagato

Obito(MS) vs Edo Itachi 

Killer Bee vs Kakashi(Kyuubi Chakra)

Sick Itachi vs MS Sasuke


----------



## Munboy Dracule O'Brian (Jul 30, 2013)

I'd be interested in judging and playing. Though if I was strictly allowed one choice, then I'd opt for judging.


----------



## Turrin (Jul 30, 2013)

Eliyua23 said:


> Pt 1 Orochimaru vs Pain
> 
> Gaara vs Konan
> 
> ...


So does that mean your interested in playing or just wanted to throw out some match ups?


----------



## Turrin (Jul 30, 2013)

*Matches*

1. DaVizWiz vs Sloth
Orochimaru vs Deidara 
Range - Long
Location - Forest of Death
Judge - Pending 

2. Munboy Dracule O'Brian vs Energy Sage
Kabuto (not ET) vs Pain
Range - Short
Location - Naruto's Wind Training Area
Judge - Pending 

3. Nitty Scott vs Shark
Sasori vs Deidara
Range - Short
Location - Gaara vs. Kimimaro Battlefield
Judge - Pending

4. Santaryu vs Alex Pain
Hebi Sasuke vs Mei
Range - Short 
Location - Bone Forest/Akatsuki Hideout 
Judge - Pending

5. Pupperty vs Baraxio 
Sasori vs Hebi Sasuke
Range - Mid 
Location - Blue Samurai Bridge
Judge - Pending 

6. UchihaSasukeSama vs ????? (Next Person Whose Interested)
Sasori vs Orochimaru
Range - Long
Location - Chuunin Exam Arena 
Judge - Pending

--------------------------------------------------

So I'd like people to take a look at these matches and as long as their aren't any problems with them I think this is a good number to move forward with the Trail Phase; though we need one more person for UchihaSasukeSama's match. Also if anyone see's a match they are interested in Judging (Which isn't their own)  let me know in this thread, worse comes the worse I'll judge all of the matches, but I hope it doesn't come down to that, and I can just judge the ones that other judges might not be specifically interested in, Unless people specifically want me to judge to the first matches so they can get a sense of the scoring system that judges will be using?

Once we get that sorted out and everyone agrees with their match, than i'll post them and tell everyone the deadline for when they have to make their post by and judge the match by. 

I'm hoping that by tomorrow we could potentially get these matches at posted, but we'll see how that goes.

Edit; Also if someone wants to volunteer to PM/VM people to let them know about these matches and what's going on in this thread in general that would help greatly.


----------



## Shizune (Jul 30, 2013)

Isn't Shark that extremely homophobic dude with a penchant for Eminem?

If so I'll need my opponent changed.


----------



## Eliyua23 (Jul 30, 2013)

Turrin said:


> So does that mean your interested in playing or just wanted to throw out some match ups?



I'd be interested in judging right now if it picks up later I would be more interested in playing when I'm less pressed for time.


----------



## Turrin (Jul 30, 2013)

Nitty Scott said:


> Isn't Shark that extremely homophobic dude with a penchant for Eminem?
> 
> If so I'll need my opponent changed.



Shark's the guy that's been posting in this thread other than that I have no clue. 



> I'd be interested in judging right now if it picks up later I would be more interested in playing when I'm less pressed for time.


Alright


----------



## Axiom (Jul 30, 2013)

If you have a shortage of judges, I could possibly judge one.  My preference would be Hebi Sauce Vs Mei but if I'm needed to judge something else I'd be happy to oblige.


----------



## EnergySage (Jul 30, 2013)

Are we applying KC style limits to this, as far as terrain? A la, a flight cieling/Doton floor?


----------



## Turrin (Jul 30, 2013)

EnergySage said:


> Are we applying KC style limits to this, as far as terrain? A la, a flight cieling/Doton floor?



Nope. The only thing is if you purpose a strategy where a character flies to insane heights or dotons to insane depths, your probably going to score poorly on the IC portion unless you can really sell a judge on it, since most characters don't do that. 



> If you have a shortage of judges, I could possibly judge one. My preference would be Hebi Sauce Vs Mei but if I'm needed to judge something else I'd be happy to oblige.


You can judge Mei vs Sauce so long as you think your clear on the criteria to score someone on.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jul 30, 2013)

TL;DR

Give us the summary.


----------



## EnergySage (Jul 30, 2013)

Next question. Are all 6 bodies of Pain going to be out at the start of my match?


----------



## Axiom (Jul 30, 2013)

I think I understand the criteria.

If I understand this correctly, feasibility is just how reasonable your strategy is in that you're not doing a bunch of stupid things that your character is not likely to do successfully, while how well it works judges how well your strategy will mesh with the opponent's strategy to bring home a victory for your character.

Am I close, right, way off the mark?


----------



## Alex Payne (Jul 30, 2013)

Judging 1. DaVizWiz vs Sloth
 Orochimaru vs Deidara


----------



## EnergySage (Jul 30, 2013)

> 4. Santaryu vs Alex Pain
> Hebi Sasuke vs Mei
> Range - Short
> Location - Bone Forest/Akatsuki Hideout
> Judge - Pending



I'll judge this one. I think it's going to be the match of this batch.


----------



## Axiom (Jul 30, 2013)

In that case, I'll take Sasori Vs Deidara.


----------



## EnergySage (Jul 30, 2013)

Oh shit. I didn't realize you picked that one Axiom. I can pick another if you like



> 5. Pupperty vs Baraxio
> Sasori vs Hebi Sasuke
> Range - Mid
> Location - Blue Samurai Bridge
> Judge - Pending


----------



## Axiom (Jul 30, 2013)

Naw it's cool.  I volunteered 5 match-ups for the tournament and 2 of them got picked, so it's not a big deal.  I'm pretty interested in seeing arguments for the both of them.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jul 30, 2013)

I'd be interested in judging Sasori vs Deidara if you don't have a volunteer yet.


----------



## Turrin (Jul 30, 2013)

Axiom said:


> I think I understand the criteria.
> 
> If I understand this correctly, feasibility is just how reasonable your strategy is in that you're not doing a bunch of stupid things that your character is not likely to do successfully, while how well it works judges how well your strategy will mesh with the opponent's strategy to bring home a victory for your character.
> 
> Am I close, right, way off the mark?


The opponents strategy doesn't really matter as the strategies aren't clashing against each other.

What matters is if someone say purposes a strategy for how a character can beat Tsukuyomi, if that strategy is effective in what it does. By the way would you want to match up against UchihaSasukeSama, since we need one more person.



EnergySage said:


> Next question. Are all 6 bodies of Pain going to be out at the start of my match?


Yeah, we'll have all 6 out for just the sake ease in this match up. 

----------------------------

So basically we have 

*Matches*

1. DaVizWiz vs Sloth
Orochimaru vs Deidara 
Range - Long
Location - Forest of Death
Judge - Alex Payne 

2. Munboy Dracule O'Brian vs Energy Sage
Kabuto (not ET) vs Pain
Range - Short
Location - Naruto's Wind Training Area
Judge - Pending 

3. Nitty Scott vs Shark
Sasori vs Deidara
Range - Short
Location - Gaara vs. Kimimaro Battlefield
Judge - SubtleObscurantist

4. Santaryu vs Alex Pain
Hebi Sasuke vs Mei
Range - Short 
Location - Bone Forest/Akatsuki Hideout 
Judge - EnergySage

5. Pupperty vs Baraxio 
Sasori vs Hebi Sasuke
Range - Mid 
Location - Blue Samurai Bridge
Judge - Pending 

6. UchihaSasukeSama vs Anxiom
Sasori vs Orochimaru
Range - Long
Location - Chuunin Exam Arena 
Judge - Pending


----------



## Axiom (Jul 30, 2013)

Give Sasori/Deidara to Subtle Obscurantist, I only volunteered to judge because I feared you may not have enough judges.  I wouldn't want to keep someone more qualified from judging a match in which they take interest.

And sure, I'll face UchihaSasukeSama.


----------



## Turrin (Jul 30, 2013)

SubtleObscurantist said:


> I'd be interested in judging Sasori vs Deidara if you don't have a volunteer yet.





Axiom said:


> Give Sasori/Deidara to Subtle Obscurantist, I only volunteered to judge because I feared you may not have enough judges.  I wouldn't want to keep someone more qualified from judging a match in which they take interest.
> 
> And sure, I'll face UchihaSasukeSama.



Okay Subtle gets judging Sasori vs Deidara. Anxiom faces off against UchihaSasukeSama.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jul 30, 2013)

Haha, I actually chose that match of all matches not just because it was interesting, but because I think that is the match I am the least certain of who the victor would be ahead of time.


----------



## Baroxio (Jul 30, 2013)

5. Pupperty vs Baraxio 
Sasori vs Hebi Sasuke
Range - Mid 
Location - Blue Samurai Bridge
Judge - Pending

Looking at the competitors and who they are arguing for, this almost could not have been RNG. 

I mean, it's one thing for me to be arguing for an Uchiha, but Puppetry actually gets Sasori of all people? lol 

At any rate, when does the match go up, and how long do we have to post a "strategy"? Furthermore, what are knowledge conditions like, and are there any restrictions in play? I'm sure most of this is explained in the OP, but I'm feeling particularly lazy.


----------



## αce (Jul 30, 2013)

puppetry gets sasori
my ovaries won't handle all the awesome


----------



## EnergySage (Jul 30, 2013)

Pretty sure it's first come first serve on who you use


----------



## Munboy Dracule O'Brian (Jul 30, 2013)

Baroxio said:


> Furthermore, what are knowledge conditions like, and are there any restrictions in play?



Turrin has outlined some restrictions for the characters. For example I can't incorporate ET in my strategy (even though Edo Tourne would be awesome to use ). 

As for rules:


*Spoiler*: __ 





			
				Turrin said:
			
		

> Now there are going to be some ground rules:
> 
> 1. You can't simply invent a totally new technique for a character your arguing for. You have to use the abilities characters have shown or if you want hype (but keep in mind whose judging your match as some people are more receptive to hype than others)
> 
> ...


----------



## Turrin (Jul 30, 2013)

Baroxio said:


> 5. Pupperty vs Baraxio
> Sasori vs Hebi Sasuke
> Range - Mid
> Location - Blue Samurai Bridge
> ...


It was all done with Random.org, I couldn't believe that Pupptry got Sasori as well. Though there were a ton of Sasori match ups, guess people are mostly interested in Sasori vs X character.

I'd like to post the matches tonight, but I haven't seen everyone check in yet, so it might not be till tomorrow. I'll PM everyone when I posted the matches. 

As for time, I'm thinking that each person will have 2 days to make their post and than the judge will have 2 days to declare a winner. Unless people have a problem with that. 



EnergySage said:


> Pretty sure it's first come first serve on who you use


No you get the character under your name .


----------



## Kisame (Jul 30, 2013)

Nitty Scott said:


> Isn't Shark that extremely homophobic dude with a penchant for Eminem?
> 
> If so I'll need my opponent changed.


I don't have a problem with this.

Turrin find someone else for Nitty Scott, you can put me in the next batch if that is okay.


----------



## Turrin (Jul 30, 2013)

Shark said:


> I don't have a problem with this.
> 
> Turrin find someone else for Nitty Scott, you can put me in the next batch if that is okay.



If anything it would be better if someone just offered to switch with you


----------



## Puppetry (Jul 30, 2013)

Sasori!  


Also, I'm interested in judging Munboy Dracule O'Brian vs Energy Sage. Kabuto vs Pein isn't a match I have an informed opinion on.


----------



## UchihaSasukeSama (Jul 30, 2013)

Munboy Dracule O'Brian vs Energy Sage, please.



> 2. Munboy Dracule O'Brian vs Energy Sage
> Kabuto (not ET) vs Pain
> Range - Short
> Location - Naruto's Wind Training Area
> Judge - Pending



Is there a judge for this match? :c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My match is Sasori vs. Orochimaru, when can I pick a character from these two?

By the way, how much combatant A knows about combatant B (Intel/Knowledge) is a very important factor in the match up. You should specifiy the intel each combatant has.


----------



## Turrin (Jul 31, 2013)

UchihaSasukeSama said:


> Munboy Dracule O'Brian vs Energy Sage, please.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your combatant is the one underneath your name. I think Puppetry is going to judge that match. 

Knowledge doesn't matter so much for the purpose of this. I mean if you purpose a strategy for how a character can deal with a Jutsu that requires them to have knowledge they don't in the manga than that will hurt your IC score and perhaps feasibility score to certain extent, but it's not like you'd be messing yourself up in every category

Anyway you can assume manga knowledge in all cases if that helps.

BTW would you be willing to switch matches with Shark?


----------



## UchihaSasukeSama (Jul 31, 2013)

Turrin said:


> BTW would you be willing to switch matches with Shark?



I actually hate debating for Sasori/Deidara  Besides, there's so many Sasori in this tournament (in almost every match), and Deidara as well. 

If you could replace Sasori from Nitty Scott vs. Shark match up, I will gladly switch with Shark


----------



## Turrin (Jul 31, 2013)

UchihaSasukeSama said:


> I actually hate debating for Sasori/Deidara  Besides, there's so many Sasori in this tournament (in almost every match), and Deidara as well.
> 
> If you could replace Sasori from Nitty Scott vs. Shark match up, I will gladly switch with Shark



Your already debating for Sasori though in your current match and I'd rather not change picks around as it kind of ruins the honor system. I could however recast an an entire match for you via random.org


----------



## DaVizWiz (Jul 31, 2013)

Is our matchup going first? 

1. DaVizWiz vs Sloth
Orochimaru vs Deidara 
Range - Long
Location - Forest of Death
Judge - Alex Payne 

If so, am I waiting on alex to set it up and PM me?

EDIT: Everything below explained it.


----------



## Turrin (Jul 31, 2013)

*Final Matches*

1. DaVizWiz vs Sloth
Orochimaru vs Deidara 
Range - Long
Location - Forest of Death
Judge - Alex Payne 

2. Munboy Dracule O'Brian vs Energy Sage
Kabuto (not ET) vs Pain
Range - Short
Location - Naruto's Wind Training Area
Judge - Puppetry  

3. Nitty Scott vs Anxiom
Sasori vs Deidara
Range - Short
Location - Gaara vs. Kimimaro Battlefield
Judge - SubtleObscurantist

4. Santaryu vs Alex Pain
Hebi Sasuke vs Mei
Range - Short 
Location - Bone Forest/Akatsuki Hideout 
Judge - EnergySage

5. Pupperty vs Baraxio 
Sasori vs Hebi Sasuke
Range - Mid 
Location - Blue Samurai Bridge
Judge - Turrin

6. UchihaSasukeSama vs Shark
 Sasuke (No EMS. Basic MS Allowed) vs Kakashi (no Kamui)
Range - Long
Location - Iron Country 
Judge - Turrin 

I switched Anxiom with Shark and re-random.orged their battle, hopefully everyone's cool with this.

Here are the final matches for the Trail/Beta test of this format. I'll Pm everyone on the list when their matches get posted. Contestants will have 2 days to make their post and judges will have 2 days to make their post scoring each competitor and declaring a winner. 

I'll probably have the matches up in a few hours so just a general heads up.



DaVizWiz said:


> Is our matchup going first?
> 
> 1. DaVizWiz vs Sloth
> Orochimaru vs Deidara
> ...


I'll set it up and PM you for this first trail, hopefully later on the judges of each match will do that, but this time i'll take on that responsibility. All matches are going up at the same time since their are only six matches, unless people have a problem with that.


----------



## Edward Nygma (Jul 31, 2013)

Turrin said:


> *Final Matches*
> 
> 1. DaVizWiz vs Sloth
> Orochimaru vs Deidara
> ...


I would split it into two batches of three, for two reasons. 1) So we aren't spamming the BD. 2) I think having that many matches at once could really hurt participation. I know technically you only need three people for a match to work, but just having the input of the judge and the participants could be kinda dull. 

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.


----------



## Axiom (Jul 31, 2013)

I agree with Sloth in that it should be split up into two batches.

Also, boo, I got switched out of debating for Oro.  I was so sure I could take that debate :X

Oh well doe


----------



## Turrin (Jul 31, 2013)

Sloth said:


> I would split it into two batches of three, for two reasons. 1) So we aren't spamming the BD. 2) I think having that many matches at once could really hurt participation. I know technically you only need three people for a match to work, but just having the input of the judge and the participants could be kinda dull.
> 
> Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.



I could really careless about spamming the battledome with quality threads and pushing down fandom-war threads to the bottom. 

You could be right about that participation, but for the purpose of this trial I think its best to test the waters with 6 matches and see how it goes. Because in theory this should be able to run like the KC and in the KC they usually post around 6 matches at a time. Also this is trial so it's mostly about testing things and I kind of want to test the threshold for amount of matches that can be up at one time.

However if everyone still wants batches of 3, than my hand is kind of forced lol.


----------



## Edward Nygma (Jul 31, 2013)

Turrin said:


> I could really careless about spamming the battledome with quality threads and pushing down fandom-war threads to the bottom.
> 
> You could be right about that participation, but for the purpose of this trial I think its best to test the waters with 6 matches and see how it goes. Because in theory this should be able to run like the KC and in the* KC they usually post around 6 matches at a time*. Also this is trial so it's mostly about testing things and I kind of want to test the threshold for amount of matches that can be up at one time.
> 
> However if everyone still wants batches of 3, than my hand is kind of forced lol.


The KC *NEVER* posts more than 4, for the exact reason I stated. I was surprised when Kinjishi started putting up four at at time, it's usually three. Having several matches kills voting like a freaking plague, that isn't a problem here, but we would still see a serious dip in participation.


----------



## Turrin (Jul 31, 2013)

Alright batches it is then


----------



## Ennoia (Jul 31, 2013)

I dont really like the one judge format simply because no one is 100% objective, it seems to make more sense to have at least two and average that score.


----------



## Turrin (Jul 31, 2013)

Ennoia said:


> I dont really like the one judge format simply because no one is 100% objective, it seems to make more sense to have at least two and average that score.



Well were hoping that the judges are objective as possible, if we see signs of clear bias than that person obviously won't be judging matches anymore. Though if we get more interest I would like to incoperate more Judges per match and perhaps give some measure of power to none judges to vote, like 20%, it wouldn't be much but it could sway close matches. Though since were in our trail phase now I'm keeping things simple.

Edit: However if you want to score the posts or give your thoughts on the competitors post for fun, that is encouraged. I'll probably try and give my thoughts on posts even though i'm not a judge for any of the first 3 matches. Also as perhaps an incentive to do so, if you show good commentary I think it's going to be more likely that you'll be picked as a Judge in the future if you want to be one, than someone who has never participated before and has unknown judging potential so to speak lol


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jul 31, 2013)

Ennoia said:


> I dont really like the one judge format simply because no one is 100% objective, it seems to make more sense to have at least two and average that score.



Well both Puppetry and I chose to judge the matches we will be judging because we don't have a preconceived favorite or a clearly formed opinion on who is stronger or who beats who.

I really don't know how to figure out Deidara vs Sasori. It used to be that Sasori was stronger than Deidara back when he described C3 as his highest leven, but then he developed C4. So I have actually stuck away from the last couple Deidara vs Sasori threads in Battledome. I also don't have any strong opinions on either of the posters as people or as thinkers. 

So it's now on them to convince me.


----------



## Ennoia (Jul 31, 2013)

Turrin said:


> Well were hoping that the judges are objective as possible, if we see signs of clear bias than that person obviously won't be judging matches anymore. Though if we get more interest I would like to incoperate more Judges per match and perhaps give some measure of power to none judges to vote, like 20%, it wouldn't be much but it could sway close matches. Though since were in our trail phase now I'm keeping things simple.
> 
> Edit: However if you want to score the posts or give your thoughts on the competitors post for fun, that is encouraged. I'll probably try and give my thoughts on posts even though i'm not a judge for any of the first 3 matches. Also as perhaps an incentive to do so, if you show good commentary I think it's going to be more likely that you'll be picked as a Judge in the future if you want to be one, than someone who has never participated before and has unknown judging potential so to speak lol





SubtleObscurantist said:


> Well both Puppetry and I chose to judge the matches we will be judging because we don't have a preconceived favorite or a clearly formed opinion on who is stronger or who beats who.
> 
> I really don't know how to figure out Deidara vs Sasori. It used to be that Sasori was stronger than Deidara back when he described C3 as his highest leven, but then he developed C4. So I have actually stuck away from the last couple Deidara vs Sasori threads in Battledome. I also don't have any strong opinions on either of the posters as people or as thinkers.
> 
> So it's now on them to convince me.



Im not really trying to call anyone bias or anything I mean like me and you may have different interpretations of feats; I could look at and argument and say it makes no sense and you could see it as a good counter. Or someone could say a person would do a certain jutsu IC and we could have totally different opinions on that matter.

I do understand that its just the testing phase but its just something that crossed my mind. However like Turrin said people could post their thoughts on it too, I was unsure whether or not that was acceptable so that makes that clear. I am looking forward to seeing how this goes because they are interesting match ups.


----------



## Turrin (Jul 31, 2013)

Ennoia said:


> Im not really trying to call anyone bias or anything I mean like me and you may have different interpretations of feats; I could look at and argument and say it makes no sense and you could see it as a good counter. Or someone could say a person would do a certain jutsu IC and we could have totally different opinions on that matter.
> 
> I do understand that its just the testing phase but its just something that crossed my mind. However like Turrin said people could post their thoughts on it too, I was unsure whether or not that was acceptable so that makes that clear. I am looking forward to seeing how this goes because they are interesting match ups.



The above is true, but that would be unavoidable no matter how many judges we have, since were not robots. I also personally feel like the perception of feats is not that different among posters as long as fandom is not involved in some way, so if we get judges that aren't all that partial to fandoms or can set that aside I don't think we'd see a huge difference. 

Though again I do hope we get more judges eventually. Hell if this is successful I'd like to see it get it's own sub-form eventually like the KC and become open to everyone to vote, but that is way in the future.


----------



## Bonly Jr. (Jul 31, 2013)

I wanna join.

U guys think I won't win??

Iyte kool.


----------



## Shizune (Jul 31, 2013)

Turrin, what're the rules on having other people look at your strategy before you post it?


----------



## Turrin (Jul 31, 2013)

Nitty Scott said:


> Turrin, what're the rules on having other people look at your strategy before you post it?


I don't see why it would matter, they aren't allowed to rebuttal your strategy as per the rules. Also they aren't designing a strategy around your strategy, but around how one character would counter another characters Jutsu. 

Though if i'm overlooking something let me know.


----------



## Shizune (Jul 31, 2013)

Turrin said:


> I don't see why it would matter, they aren't allowed to rebuttal your strategy as per the rules. Also they aren't designing a strategy around your strategy, but around how one character would counter another characters Jutsu.
> 
> Though if i'm overlooking something let me know.



I meant in terms of having other people help you revise your work.


----------



## Bonly Jr. (Jul 31, 2013)

Alright, whoever wants to debate, please holla.


----------



## Edward Nygma (Jul 31, 2013)

Turrin said:


> I don't see why it would matter, they aren't allowed to rebuttal your strategy as per the rules. Also they aren't designing a strategy around your strategy, but around how one character would counter another characters Jutsu.
> 
> Though if i'm overlooking something let me know.


Seeing what you focused on trying to convince people the most, would tell your opponent what to focus on themselves. I don't know if it's much, but it could be construed as an unfair advantage.


----------



## Bonly Jr. (Jul 31, 2013)

For another person to check someone elses' post is entirely unfair man. They could point out mistakes, tell you to make additions, tell you to change your format etc..

But me? I ride solo homes. Aint got no frends up in dis.

Someone debate me, don't gimme attitude, just do it.


----------



## Turrin (Jul 31, 2013)

Nitty Scott said:


> I meant in terms of having other people help you revise your work.



Oh....well it's suppose to be your work, so no you can't have a team of people helping you to put together a post as that would be unfair if the other person can't put together a similar team of people. Maybe eventually we could have Team match ups, where both sides have 3 people working on a post together, but that would be something we'd do as spin off if people enjoy this.

You can however look up previous vs matches between these characters (as i'm sure they have all been done before) as a research reference. 

Basically if I were participating and I was assigned your match I'd do a general search on Sasori vs Deidara and read through a few of the old match up threads, to become familiar with the Jutsu-abilities that Deidara uses which people think Sasori would have a hard time countering and I'd focus most of my word count on creating solid strategies for how Sasori could use his abilities to counter them. I'd also probably take a look at what people generally consider IC or OOC for Sasori if I was having trouble deciding if I was going to crazy with a certain strategy. Than I'd also take a look at what strategies informed posters have purposed for Sasori to counter Deidara's techniques in the past and I'd try and figure out how to present these strategies in a well worded manner with scans, if necessary supporting them, than perhaps add in some other interesting applications of these strategies to try offer something new and interesting while not straying to far away from the plausible.

But that's all the advice I can give you, I can't for instance look at your post and say I agree or disagree with certain strategies, and give your pointers on how to adjust your strategies. 

Now after you post your strategy I will probably do that and I encourage others to do the same. Than you can keep in mind what people said and if your assigned Sasori in a future match, you can apply what your learned, well at least I would.



Sloth said:


> Seeing what you focused on trying to convince people the most, would tell your opponent what to focus on themselves. I don't know if it's much, but it could be construed as an unfair advantage.


I'm not sure how that would work I mean if I had Kisame and someone had Killer B. And I spend time focusing on how Kisame counters V2, that really doesn't really help my opponent, because he/she has to think of ways to counter Kisame's Jutsu, not Killer B's. 

Now granted perhaps if someone kept using a single ability of a character as their purposed way to counter every ability of the opponents character (or most of them), than I could say gee maybe I should spend some time saying how my character focuses on countering that ability. However if a character has such an apparent ability that can be argued to counter everything or dam near everything of the opposing character it seems pretty much unbelievable to me that someone would not be aware of that going into the match. For example In future Minato match ups I'm sure a-lot of strategies will revolve around FTG being used to counter the oppositions ability, but honestly who is going to go up against Minato and not think they need to focus on how their character counters FTG.

Now okay, maybe the counter that is constantly purposed is something more obscure that isn't as apparent as FTG, and by reading my opponents post I become aware of this more obscure ability a character possess that I wouldn't otherwise be aware of. Okay maybe that's an advantage, but at the same time it could royally screw you over, because chance are if this is some obscure or really speculative combo the judge might not even consider it too work all that well and now by spending my word count on how a character countered this ability I have just diminished the quality of my post just as much as the opposition if not more since you didn't even think up this obscure ability, so at least the other person might get some points for creativity. Now you've lost the match, when if you had just stuck to what you were going to do before you probably would have won because your opposition f'd up.

So to me it's ether obvious or if not obvious it's a big risk that can blow up in your face.


----------



## Puppetry (Jul 31, 2013)

Question: Is Orochimaru allowed to emerge from Hebi Sasuke in my match?

____________________________________​
Regarding asking other members for assistance... I don't believe it's right. The posts should be a reflection of _your_ abilities as a debater as well as _your_ knowledge of the manga. Having others influence your argument essentially makes it 2 vs 1 or 2 s 2, which isn't what we signed up for.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jul 31, 2013)

I think we can safely assume Hebi Sasuke vs Sasori is not Hebi Sasuke and Orochimaru vs Sasori.

Especially since we already have an Orochimaru vs Sasori.


----------



## Turrin (Jul 31, 2013)

Puppetry said:


> Question: Is Orochimaru allowed to emerge from Hebi Sasuke in my match?



No otherwise I would have labeled it Hebi Sasuke + Orochimaru vs Sasori. I mean granted someone could argue some strategy where Sasuke releases Orochimaru, but I fail to see how that would help them win a match, considering once Orochimaru is released it than becomes Orochimaru doing shit and countering Jutsu, not how Sasuke could counter Jutsu. So it wouldn't do anything for them, but waste some of their word limit and if I was judging (which incidentally I am) drastically lower their IC score because it's really OOC for Sasuke to release Orochimaru from his body in almost any scenario.

Might be unfair of me to give out how I would judge this when I am the judge, but this would just be such a silly move where I don't think I'm crossing a line here. 

But if people are really worried about it I will restrict it entirely in your match, but if I were you i'd hope my opponent was silly enough to try that and just mess up his post.


----------



## Puppetry (Jul 31, 2013)

When will the next batch of matches be posted?


----------



## Turrin (Jul 31, 2013)

Puppetry said:


> When will the next batch of matches be posted?



Assuming everything goes well 4-5 days


----------



## Sans (Aug 1, 2013)

I was inactive during most of the discussion for this, but I'll be willing to judge if that's acceptable.


----------



## Atlantic Storm (Aug 1, 2013)

Excellent work, Turrin. 

I'll see if I can participate in this when I have more free time available, assuming this will still be active by then.


----------



## Turrin (Aug 1, 2013)

Komnenos said:


> I was inactive during most of the discussion for this, but I'll be willing to judge if that's acceptable.


Sure if you want to judge ether one of these let me known:

5. Pupperty vs Baraxio 
Sasori vs Hebi Sasuke
Range - Mid 
Location - Blue Samurai Bridge
Judge - Turrin

6. UchihaSasukeSama vs Shark
Sasuke (No EMS. Basic MS Allowed) vs Kakashi (no Kamui)
Range - Long
Location - Iron Country 
Judge - Turrin 

Because I don't need to judge both. Personally I'm a bit more interested in Sasori vs Hebi Sasuke though, so if you'd want Sasuke vs Kakashi, that would be ideal.



> Atlantic Storm said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent work, Turrin.
> ...


That would be great and I don't know if you'd have free time in 4 days, but bonely Jr wants a match, so if you'd be willing to go up against him in 4 days that would be pretty cool.


----------



## Atlantic Storm (Aug 1, 2013)

I'll actually be incredibly busy for the next seven days. As much as I would really like to, I honestly wouldn't be able to make it on top of all the other things I have going on as well. I'll have to decline, I'm afraid.


----------



## Turrin (Aug 1, 2013)

Atlantic Storm said:


> I'll actually be incredibly busy for the next seven days. As much as I would really like to, I honestly wouldn't be able to make it on top of all the other things I have going on as well. I'll have to decline, I'm afraid.



That's alright, no worries.


----------



## Sans (Aug 1, 2013)

Turrin said:


> Because I don't need to judge both. Personally I'm a bit more interested in Sasori vs Hebi Sasuke though, so if you'd want Sasuke vs Kakashi, that would be ideal.



I like both Puppetry and Baroxio, so I'm not really keen on having to pick a winner and loser from them. I find Sasuke versus Kakashi to be more interesting as well, so that works well.


----------



## Shizune (Aug 1, 2013)

Turrin, I'm so sorry to do this but can I be replaced? I didn't expect it to start so soon and I've got a KC match and two mafia games going right now. I can't keep everything up. Very sorry to do this, I'm still interested in participating at a later date when I'm freer.


----------



## Turrin (Aug 1, 2013)

Does anyone want to replace nitty? If not ill be replacement if no one else can be found but if someone has issues try and tell me before the match is posted.


----------



## Axiom (Aug 1, 2013)

Lol, I haven't actually started working on my debate yet.  If you think it would be okay you could put in a match from the 2nd batch and then try to work things over with our match later.

And, don't get the wrong idea, I plan to do the strategy, I just haven't started the actual typing yet so if you want to postpone it and throw out two people who are ready to go then I won't complain.


----------



## Turrin (Aug 1, 2013)

Axiom said:


> Lol, I haven't actually started working on my debate yet.  If you think it would be okay you could put in a match from the 2nd batch and then try to work things over with our match later.
> 
> And, don't get the wrong idea, I plan to do the strategy, I just haven't started the actual typing yet so if you want to postpone it and throw out two people who are ready to go then I won't complain.



I think it's better if we just roll with it and do the match now if you don't mind me as your opponent becAuse I think I could get nitty a match with someone else in the second batch Anyway


----------



## Axiom (Aug 1, 2013)

Alright, that's cool too


----------



## Turrin (Aug 6, 2013)

Hey guys sorry for the delay on batch 2 matches, I'm trying to find someone to judge my match with Anxiom, due to subtle having to drop out due to family issues, so it's taking a little longer to close out batch 1 than I had hope for, but hopefully people are still interested in competing in batch 2.


----------



## UchihaSasukeSama (Aug 7, 2013)

If you need another judge then I can be that judge.


----------



## Munboy Dracule O'Brian (Aug 7, 2013)

In the event where there are disputes over how the judges score... couldn't a simple solution be getting another judge's to score both strategies? Well, I'm only suggesting this because I've just read in my thread (and the Orochimaru vs Deidara thread) that some may think the scoring isn't done particularly well.


----------



## EnergySage (Aug 7, 2013)

@Munboy

That one person is complaining about the scoring, because in his mind, the match should apparently be decided by who is the "winning" character, instead of the post. I wouldn't mind if we had another judge in our match, but I wouldn't want it based on Viz's skewed logic.

These contests are for improving and reviving QUALITY OF DEBATES, not for debating a winner or loser. That is a relatively small portion of the scoring. A significant margin of the scoring is about the quality of the post.

Knowledge of the character and their personality is 25%. Knowledge of their abilities and what they can do is 25% of the score. 15% of the score is whether or not your post looks good, or is just a random combination of thoughts. The remaining 35% is based on whether or not your proposed strategy would work. In essence, only 35% of the score is about the battle itself,  which DaVizWiz seems to have a problem with. He continues ( for some god-awful reason) to think that this is about the outcome of the match.

65% of the score is "DaVizWiz vs Sloth" and 35% is "Orochimaru vs Deidara", but DaVizWiz thinks he should win by a significant margin because Orochimaru "is the clear victor"


----------



## Turrin (Aug 7, 2013)

Munboy Dracule O'Brian said:


> In the event where there are disputes over how the judges score... couldn't a simple solution be getting another judge's to score both strategies? Well, I'm only suggesting this because I've just read in my thread (and the Orochimaru vs Deidara thread) that some may think the scoring isn't done particularly well.


In essence that thread did have another person who posted a judge style write up (Me) and the conclusion I came to was very similar to Alex's, that it was a close match which Dav won, by a small margin.


----------



## Ennoia (Aug 7, 2013)

I think I would like to give this debate thing a shot, I wanted to see some other peeps do it and it dosent look too hard


----------



## Turrin (Aug 12, 2013)

Hey I'd like to start batch 2 match ups soon, if everyone still wants to do this. Sorry it took so long to get to this point, but it's hard for me to keep track of everything on my own. Would love if someone else wants to help organize things.


----------



## Axiom (Aug 12, 2013)

I'd be happy to help post matches, VM contestants, and  randomize match-ups or w/e else it is that you need done, if you require assistance


----------



## Turrin (Aug 12, 2013)

Axiom said:


> I'd be happy to help post matches, VM contestants, and  randomize match-ups or w/e else it is that you need done, if you require assistance


That would be awesome Axiom. If you want to post the remaining trail matches and VM people in them that would be a huge help to me as I have to read whole 600 page book today for class tomorrow and I while I can post I don't really have time to look up images and make the OP look nice.


----------



## Axiom (Aug 12, 2013)

Alright mang, I'm on it


----------



## Ennoia (Aug 12, 2013)

So many Sasuke threads, I was expecting some variety.


----------



## Axiom (Aug 12, 2013)

Originally the last match was Sasori Vs Oro but it got changed to a Sasuke match so we've got triple Sasuke this round.

Of course, had we instead had Sasori in the 6th match, it would have been double Sasuke and double Sasori, with 3 matches with Sasori involved in both batches combined.

But no worries, there are plenty of interesting match-ups we've yet to debate.


----------



## Turrin (Aug 12, 2013)

Thanks man you did a great job


----------



## WolfPrinceKiba (Aug 15, 2013)

I'd be interesting in judging a few matches here and there if you need any judges.


----------



## DaVizWiz (Aug 15, 2013)

No changes to the judging or scoring system, Turrin.

Good to see you're taking feedback from participants seriously.


----------



## EnergySage (Aug 15, 2013)

DaVizWiz said:


> No changes to the judging or scoring system, Turrin.
> 
> Good to know you're taking feedback from participants seriously.



Or we could wait til more than half of it is done before changing anything. The 2nd batch hasn't even been scored yet.


----------



## DaVizWiz (Aug 15, 2013)

EnergySage said:


> Or we could wait til more than half of it is done before changing anything. The 2nd batch hasn't even been scored yet.


Further testing isn't required. The inconsistencies in judging and the scoring system itself is flawed. 

Those two problems don't require more results, they're prevalent and will not change.

There's really no reason for further trial matches with the same system if tangible claims have already been brought about. A discussion needs to be made about possible changes, that was the entire point of these matches.


----------



## EnergySage (Aug 15, 2013)

I don't see anything wrong with the system. For some reason, you believed the victory was based on the matchup, and which character would win, where the OP clearly states that the entire purpose is about quality of debating.

Then, for some crazy reason, you decided to tell *the person who came up with the concept* that they didn't know what their own "competition" was supposed to be about.

Just because you were wrong about the concept of these debates doesn't mean that anything needs to change. 

The scoring system works because it judges the criteria for what the entire thing is supposed to be about?

Suppose you got 3 judges, and each one gave you a total score of 81.

But, each judge gave you the following scores-

A- 30, 15, 35, 1

B-16, 25, 20, 20

C- 6, 35, 5, 35

There would be a vast variance in the scores, but it's based on each person's opinion. The fucking Olympics are scored that way. If the dive didn't happen at the exact angle the judge wanted, there's points off for that judge. Maybe you dive was perfect, as far as the second judge was concerned.

Would you ask for 5 judges instead of 3?

Just deal with the fact that you were wrong about the concept, and that the judging system isn't horribly flawed.

I'm not saying more judges are a bad thing, just that it won't solve the problem that you, personally, have with it


----------



## UchihaSasukeSama (Aug 15, 2013)

Is the judge of my match inactive? If so, can someone judge instead of him? Like Turrin.


----------



## Axiom (Aug 15, 2013)

No, I don't believe he is.  I sent him a VM about the match when I posted it and he replied and acknowledged it.  I'd expect him to judge it at some point in the near future.


----------



## Turrin (Aug 15, 2013)

I'd judge the match if Kemenos doesn't respond soon and people (I.E Shark) is okay with that. Though i'm being a little more lenient with the deadlines since this is trail and I'm still trying to figure out what a good deadlines for each match is. It seems like 2-days for posting strats & 2-days for judging is too much to hope for. Maybe we'll extend it to 3 & 3 or 4 & 4. What do you guys think. 

Edit: Actually 3 to Post & 4 to Judge is what i'm thinking now, because honestly it took me longer to do my mock judging post in Daz and Sloth's match than it did to make my post in my match vs Anxiom. Anyone whose been on both sides of this let me know if you agree. 



DaVizWiz said:


> No changes to the judging or scoring system, Turrin.
> 
> Good to see you're taking feedback from participants seriously.


I have taken feedback on what the actual matches are, doing things in batches, etc... & we aren't even done with the trail yet. I just don't take your feedback seriously because you still don't understand the basic core concepts at play here, if you showed that understanding instead of accusing me the person who made the rules up doesn't know them, than I'd hear you out, but until than it just seems to me that your just trolling, which is a shame because your initial post was good for the first trail ever.


----------



## Kisame (Aug 16, 2013)

I'm fine with any judge.


----------



## Turrin (Aug 16, 2013)

Alright well if Kemonos doesn't show up by tomorrow I'll step in then.


----------



## DaVizWiz (Aug 16, 2013)

> Then, for some crazy reason, you decided to tell *the person who came up with the concept* that they didn't know what their own "competition" was supposed to be about.


The competition initially was to improve the quality of debating by ruling out fanboyism and one-liner replies, and taking on difficult debates that the general public did not have a consensus on.

That was a purpose. Among many that Turrin had, including the concept of improving debating altogether by disallowing replies, having a grading system that suited the debater instead of the matchup, and a 2100 character recommended post count. 

My initial conflict was the fact that Deidara nearly defeated Orochimaru by a variation of 1%, that in itself was a problem for me. In no system should that ever be possible, nor would that EVER be an example of an improved quality of debating. If Alex had scored Deidara a win, I probably would have immediately dismissed the entire system itself as I want nothing to do with a scoring system that condones a win for a debater defending someone who stands no chance.

It's commonly understood this system favors the debater over the matchup, however, that specific matchup was so far deviated in power based on the location and overall setup that the fact that Deidara scored so close to Orochimaru drew a red flag for me. Which is why I suggested better matchups be made so the concept of either ninja winning is a valid one. Deidara winning was not valid in that debate, had he won- that would not be improved debating- that would be a decline in debating. 



> Just because you were wrong about the concept of these debates doesn't mean that anything needs to change.


I wasn't wrong.



> The scoring system works because it judges the criteria for what the entire thing is supposed to be about?


I explained why it's wrong- if you cannot trace back and read english than that is your problem. 



> Suppose you got 3 judges, and each one gave you a total score of 81.
> 
> But, each judge gave you the following scores-
> 
> ...


My point exactly. If there was a clear cut scale for how to judge- there would be less variation. 



> There would be a vast variance in the scores, but it's based on each person's opinion. The fucking Olympics are scored that way. If the dive didn't happen at the exact angle the judge wanted, there's points off for that judge. Maybe you dive was perfect, as far as the second judge was concerned.


Yes, but the olympics have specific criteria. If you make a mistake in a dive, you are scored more harshly then if you didn't. That is a criteria. 

This is a 100 point scoring system with no clear cut scale for how it's supposed to be scored. It's flawed, and based entirely on the judge's opinion. For every scoring system there should be specific criteria for every level of a score. In other words

1 star movie- terrible overall concept, bad acting, illogical story, terrible spec effects
2 star movie- ok concept, decent acting, ok story, not much spec effects
3 star movie- good concept, above average acting, interesting story, good special effects
4 star movie- great concept, all star cast, emotionally gripping story, amazing special effects, a great ending

That is how the cable critics grade movies on my television. There is small scale, and a clear cut criteria for that small scale- leaving little room for overall opinion. The present scoring and judging system in place for the GD lacks this. All Turrin provides is a paragraph of explanation on each category which deviates from 15-35 points, with no clear concept on how to give an exact end score in each category. He essentially gave all the power to the judge without any real explanation on why a participant should be scored 30 instead of 35 in a category.  



> Would you ask for 5 judges instead of 3?


This isn't my choosing, but the more judges there are the more likely a consistent medium will be brought about. 



> Just deal with the fact that you were wrong about the concept, and that the judging system isn't horribly flawed.


You presented nothing to suggest I was wrong, or that the judging system isn't flawed- because it is.

I've presented what I have because I want it to be better. I didn't ask your opinion, nor do I care for it. You have no power in changing the system that I'm interested in debating in further, so please don't bother replying again.



> I have taken feedback on what the actual matches are, doing things in batches, etc... & we aren't even done with the trail yet. I just don't take your feedback seriously because you still don't understand the basic core concepts at play here, if you showed that understanding instead of accusing me the person who made the rules up doesn't know them, than I'd hear you out, but until than it just seems to me that your just trolling, which is a shame because your initial post was good for the first trail ever.


In other words, because I think your current system is garbage, flawed, and unjust, you outright ignore the criticism that I was approved and asked to give as a participant in this debating system, call me a troll, and lie by insisting I said you don't understand your own rules.

Are you unaware of what needs to be changed?

1. You need more judges
2. You need less points
3. You need more clear-cut criteria 
4. You don't need further trial matches

These aren't just my suggestions, they're how any scoring system should be designed. They're pretty standard and have nothing to do with the "Character over Debater" concept I prefer. 

I provided the proof in my own thread. *The variation in several scoring categories between you and Alex, an appointed judge, was 28-35%*. That's all you need to know before making changes. If you fail to make changes, you are pretty much accepting the fact that people will be fucked over based entirely on the judge, and you will change nothing in this section aside from pissing people off.

If you're going to attempt to suggest I go off and make my own thread with my own system again, don't bother. I don't have the time and I'm generally inactive, which is why I'm asking you to implement the changes. If you feel I'm spending the only time of day I have on your threads typing paragraphs of flame instead of sincere logic, then there's no point in me continuing this. I'll go back to debating in the regular dome debates and you may continue in peace. I'm only here attempting to make suggestions for improvements to a system I believe can succeed, but that is not mine.


----------



## Puppetry (Aug 16, 2013)

_This is nonsense,_ so I'll be frank: nobody here agrees with your perception of the purpose of these debates, including the person who structured them. Because of this, So you have three options: You can either

1) Continue to assert how right you are and achieve nothing.
2) Participate anyway despite your proposals being rejected.
3) Withdraw from the competition. 

Do as you wish, but I suggest accepting that your changes won't be implemented and moving on from there.


----------



## DaVizWiz (Aug 16, 2013)

Puppetry said:


> _This is nonsense,_ so I'll be frank: nobody here agrees with your perception of the purpose of these debates, including the person who structured them. Because of this, So you have three options: You can either
> 
> 1) Continue to assert how right you are and achieve nothing.
> 2) Participate anyway despite your proposals being rejected.
> ...


Thank you for the suggestions, but in your words, "To be frank", you, energy and Turrin have disagreed with my points, you are not everyone. If you can count, that's 3 people. In other words, there could be "somebody" who agrees, as there are more than 3 people in the world. 

With that being said, I don't really care if "somebody" agrees. I never really did. It is my opinion, it will not be subjugated by your bold attempt to provide "options" that every man alive is aware they have. 

The only thing that pisses me off more than stupidity is the appearance of a random dude attempting to quiet someone's well-thought-out opinion with a scrub post or comment. You, and Energysage are those random dudes. I suggest you back off.

If you take anything from this post, it should be simple: Please don't address me again in this thread. In fact, that goes for anyone who is not Turrin, as he is the person I initially came here to speak to. If he no longer wants to speak to me, then I have no choice but to leave. But until then, it is too much to ask that you mind your own business?


----------



## EnergySage (Aug 16, 2013)

DaVizWiz said:


> 1. Why did you type this?
> 
> Thank you for the suggestions, but in your words, "To be frank", you, energy and Turrin have disagreed with my points, you are not everyone. If you can count, that's 3 people. In other words, there could be "somebody" who agrees, as there are more than 3 people in the world.
> 
> ...



Then address him in a PM/VM to speak to him directly. This thread, specifically, is for discussion and discourse of the current trial and concept. That is what we are doing. We all have a vested interest in making this thing work. If you don't want to have a public discussion, don't post in the discussion thread. Speak with whomever you want to speak to privately, not in a public forum.


----------



## Puppetry (Aug 16, 2013)

We are "everyone"; we are ones that have given opinions and thus the only ones with influence. Just like voting, your beliefs mean nothing if you don't express them. Now, if others reveal themselves, then their opinions should be factored into this discussion as well.

All I want is for this debate to end because it's nonsense detracting from _actual_ matters such as what the time limits on posting strategies and judgements should be. My options aren't suggestions, they are the only three routes this discussion will take. One of them will come to pass, as the possibility of the change occurring has diminished nearly to zero. 

Our opinions _do_ matter. This debate may have been constructed and led by Turrin, but it does maintain some semblance of democracy; Turrin is open to hearing our suggestions as he has been to yours and if the majority doesn't want to alter anything, then I'll doubt he'll do so. This is collaborative effort to improve the Battledome, not a singular one. As many opinions as possible should be factored into the decision, particularly from participants.

If you want to talk to him privately, then perhaps you should use the PM functions instead of posting in a public discussion thread only to be offended when people rebut your arguments. Seriously, what did you expect to happen when your proposal will affect all participants?


----------



## Axiom (Aug 16, 2013)

I don't have a real problem with the current scoring system; it seems sensible to me, it leaves room for strategists to sacrifice a few points in one category to gain points in another, and generally, I think the better strategist with the better strategy will be crowned; never do I think the debate should be a closed case before the actual strategies are posted.

If we were going to change the scoring system, the only suggestion I would put forth is to get rid of it altogether and let the judges decide which strategy is better by their own criteria, with their own opinion which of course they would support in their judgment.  I imagine their judging post would reference each strat and highlight areas which they like and areas which they don't.

But, as I said, the current scoring system doesn't strike me as unsatisfactory.


----------



## DaVizWiz (Aug 16, 2013)

> We are "everyone"; we are ones that have given opinions and thus the only ones with influence. Just like voting, your beliefs mean nothing if you don't express them. Now, if others reveal themselves, then their opinions should be factored into this discussion as well.


You are not. You are a previous judge in a competition with the scoring format that I am currently emphatically trashing. You agree with the system, I don't. Your previous post was an attempt to quiet my opinion, the problem is you do not reserve that power. Your intent is bleeding clear, you're upset that I'm questioning the system you're okay with. 

"Everyone" includes those who did not participate, judge, or create this system as well. So no, you are not everyone. There could not be a clearer lie. 



> All I want is for this debate to end because it's nonsense detracting from _actual_ matters such as what the time limits on posting strategies and judgements should be. My options aren't suggestions, they are the only three routes this discussion will take. One of them will come to pass, as the possibility of the change occurring has diminished nearly to zero.


You don't get to say when a debate ends between two other people. I don't care what you want, is that not understood? 

Your entire post was essentially a lighter way of saying "Shut up, we don't care what you have to say. No one is going to agree with you."



> Our opinions _do_ matter. This debate may have been constructed and led by Turrin, but it does maintain some semblance of democracy; Turrin is open to hearing our suggestions as he has been to yours and if the majority doesn't want to alter anything, then I'll doubt he'll do so. This is collaborative effort to improve the Battledome, not a singular one. As many opinions as possible should be factored into the decision, particularly from participants.


Your opinions do not matter to me. I did not address either of you in this thread, I came in here with a sarcastic comment because I did not see any changes to the system. 

Yes, I came here with the intent of discussion with Turrin- not you, not EnergySage.



> If you want to talk to him privately, then perhaps you should use the PM functions instead of posting in a public discussion thread only to be offended when people rebut your arguments. Seriously, what did you expect to happen when your proposal will affect all participants?  [/FONT]


The thread was specifically created for the purpose of relaying opinions to Turrin about possible changes. You presented no rebut, what the fuck are you talking about? You essentially told me to shut up or fall in line. 

I reserve the right to outright ignore your opinion. You do not reserve the right to suggest I no longer voice my opinion to another person. You're not god, if you were, I'd probably blow my brains out and take my chances below.  

For the second time, do not address me again in this thread. I came here only to speak to Turrin, now you're turning it into a drama fest that I don't really care for.


----------



## Puppetry (Aug 16, 2013)

Obviously, I was speaking within the context of this discussion when talking about "everyone." Yes, if you want to take it literally then I suppose I'm a liar, but that isn't what my post meant nor would it make much sense if it did, as you pointed out.

My post was me reading between the lines of this discussion; you're not going to get what you want, so why continue? That was the meaning of my original post, and even then I acknowledged my own limitations by saying you're free to do whatever you wish, which unfortunately includes speaking nonsense.

Whether you or care about my opinion doesn't matter. What does matter is that my opinion - and everyone else's - will aid in determining what will happen to the scoring system. Ignoring something won't diminish its influence, so if you would like to dismiss my opinion, then do so. It affects nothing.

No, this thread was for discussion about everything pertaining to the Great Debate. That is made clear by Turrin's opening post and how this thread is used. If you didn't want feedback, then don't post in a thread designed for it. It wouldn't have changed anything - the suggestion would likely have been presented before everyone prior to its implementation.

I think you would have realized - based on your perception of me as well your own statements - that you're not in a position to say what I do or don't address. If you don't want a reply, then give me nothing to reply to. Aside from that, I'll decide when to withdraw from this thread, should I feel the discussion is becoming stagnant.


----------



## Turrin (Aug 16, 2013)

DaVizWiz said:


> Thank you for the suggestions, but in your words, "To be frank", you, energy and Turrin have disagreed with my points, you are not everyone. If you can count, that's 3 people. In other words, there could be "somebody" who agrees, as there are more than 3 people in the world.


The list is actually Language of Life, EnergySage, Akito, AlexPayne, Pupptery, and myself, essentially anyone you have discussed this with and nearly all the judges, disagree with you. Though amount of people should not matter anyway. I made up the rules, if I say the core concept is X, literally everyone." in the entire world", can say it's Y, & they'd still be wrong. 



> n other words, because I think your current system is garbage, flawed, and unjust, you outright ignore the criticism that I was approved and asked to give as a participant in this debating system, call me a troll, .


Unjust...really? You sound like someone robbed you blind or scammed you. It's a game were playing over the internet, one that you incidentally won. 



> and lie by insisting I said you don't understand your own rules


LOL...how am I lying when multiple other people who have discussed this with you, come to the same conclusion that your accusing me of not understanding my ownrules/coreconcepts behind making this thread.



> 1. You need more judges


As I have told you multiple times I would love to have more judges for each match, the problem is we don't have enough people willing to judge that many different matches. So instead of sitting around halting the whole process to try and pull judges out of my ass, I think it makes more sense to trust the integrity of 1 judge who is a veteran poster around here and work to drum up interest in the idea in the mean time, & add judges as resources become available to us.



> You need less points


This is what the trail is for, to test the point system. I have already said to you multiple times that when the trail is over, I will open up discussion for changes to the point system. I'm not going to stop in the middle of a trail or change the rules half way through, because one person is discontented and is not patient enough to wait until the trail is over to discuss the points.



> You need more clear-cut criteria


I haven't seen anyone struggle to understand the criteria, but you. People will have differing opinions no matter what type of criteria with judge on. If I could build an emotional less computer that evaluated matches w/o any personal opinion involved, that would be fantastic and I'd love to have one. I'd ask it who would win between Itachi vs Jiraiya/Minato/etc... to end the debate forever, but since that doesn't exist, were only human, zero opinion factoring in is not possible.



> You don't need further trial matches


Even if in some crazy bizarro world where all the other shit your claiming was correct, this would be wrong. Why? Because the way that you realized the "flaws" in the system your asserting was through the trail lol. That's why we need a trail to see the potential flaws and a few more trail matches may expose more flaws that need to be addressed. I mean is it causing you physical pain to wait 3-4 more days for the trail to be over?



> If you're going to attempt to suggest I go off and make my own thread with my own system again, don't bother. I don't have the time and I'm generally inactive, which is why I'm asking you to implement the changes. If you feel I'm spending the only time of day I have on your threads typing paragraphs of flame instead of sincere logic, then there's no point in me continuing this. I'll go back to debating in the regular dome debates and you may continue in peace.


I'll say it's highly unlikely every single one of your changes will be implemented, so if that's going to be an issue for you, that is going to cause you to keep spamming threads complaining about the system, than I'm probably going to ask a mod to delete your posts as off topic anyway, so in that case maybe it would be best if you left us in peace.



> I'm only here attempting to make suggestions for improvements to a system I believe can succeed, but that is not mine.


That's fine, but you've been doing so in an overly hostile way, at inappropriate times, and have been giving off it's my way or i'm ether going to keep spamming threads or not debate at all, type of attitude, which does not help get you point across or make me take you seriously. I mean the only rule you have really made me think about amending is the poor sportsmen rule, whereby before I didn't give a shit, but not I'm thinking it needs to be reinforced to the point where carrying on like this would have made you loose by default and name Sloth the winner. Because it would just run peoples fun if this type of thing happened in a tournament where you'd be moving onto round 2 with this attitude. 

So that's one thing I will be bring up to people after the trail is over for sure.


----------



## Sans (Aug 17, 2013)

I'm really sorry I haven't written up my judgement for the match you assigned, Turrin. 

When I first offered, I had plenty of free time. I didn't realise how long it would be until the match was posted (and sorta forgot about it), and it came up during the start of my new job. Including transit, that normally takes up 8am to 7-8pm, so I've just not had the time or inclination to get around to it.

I do have the weekend free, if getting something late is fine with you.


----------



## Turrin (Aug 17, 2013)

Komnenos said:


> I'm really sorry I haven't written up my judgement for the match you assigned, Turrin.
> 
> When I first offered, I had plenty of free time. I didn't realise how long it would be until the match was posted (and sorta forgot about it), and it came up during the start of my new job. Including transit, that normally takes up 8am to 7-8pm, so I've just not had the time or inclination to get around to it.
> 
> I do have the weekend free, if getting something late is fine with you.


If you can post it by tonight or tomorrow that would be fine. Some of the other matches are delayed as well anyway.


----------



## Munboy Dracule O'Brian (Aug 17, 2013)

Maybe you could post a couple example "dummy" strategies (one good and one bad) and show how each criteria would be graded?

It would further cement the idea that the quality of the post is what's grades as opposed to what's likely to happen in the manga/anime. An example or two would really help a lot of people 'get it' and may possibly encourage more people to participate.


----------



## Kisame (Aug 17, 2013)

Munboy Dracule O'Brian said:


> Maybe you could post a couple example "dummy" strategies (one good and one bad) and show how each criteria would be graded?
> 
> It would further cement the idea that the quality of the post is what's grades as opposed to what's likely to happen in the manga/anime. An example or two would really help a lot of people 'get it' and may possibly encourage more people to participate.



I agree with this.


----------



## Turrin (Aug 17, 2013)

Munboy Dracule O'Brian said:


> Maybe you could post a couple example "dummy" strategies (one good and one bad) and show how each criteria would be graded?
> 
> It would further cement the idea that the quality of the post is what's grades as opposed to what's likely to happen in the manga/anime. An example or two would really help a lot of people 'get it' and may possibly encourage more people to participate.


This is not a bad idea, when I get around to it, I'll try and add this to the OP.


----------



## Kisame (Aug 19, 2013)

We need a judge in our match.


----------



## Turrin (Aug 19, 2013)

Shark said:


> We need a judge in our match.


I'll judge it by later tonight, no worries.


----------



## Kisame (Aug 19, 2013)

That's great.


----------



## Samehadaman (Aug 19, 2013)

DaVizWiz said:


> If you take anything from this post, it should be simple: Please don't address me again in this thread.
> ...
> But until then, it is too much to ask that you mind your own business?





DaVizWiz said:


> I reserve the right to outright ignore your opinion.
> ...
> For the second time, do not address me again in this thread.



_Hey, I just met you. 
And this is craaazy. 
But there's an "Ignore" function. 
So use it, maybe._


----------

