bonesiii

Late reply, lol. In a rush, and was going to just finish this later, but it's become clear it's important to get as much of this posted as possible now, so please pardon the unquote-tagged quotes... Defining Terms in Debate No no--all that you need to do is define what you mean by the words off the bat. Everybody defines words differently all the time--that's why in debate it is vital for both sides to explain what they mean by them. Also, it's best to try to use words that most people will think mean about the same thing you mean by them. Again, this is all explained in the debate terms guide... In your case, all you would have needed to add was a "to me" or "personally" to the "unacceptable" to make it clear. You have to realize that unlike Spock, we humans aren't telepathic, and we can't know what you mean unless you actually say what you mean in language that the average standard English speaker is going to understand. Logic vs. Likes and Dislikes Sigh. I thought you were clear on this stuff up already, lol, but I see we need to get back to the basics here. First of all, seriously, do read the debate terms guide if you at all have time, man. This is all cleared up there. Short version though: You're confusing issues of logic with issues of taste and like/dislike. Logic does not apply to like/dislike, DV. (Said this in the guide. ) When you say "I like this/don't like this", I do not object, notice. This is a basic feature of logic; that it does not apply to personal preferences. But when you give a logic-based argument as to why or why it doesn't make sense, that's different, and obviously a matter of logic. Therefore it is valid to logically analyze it. When you say that it doesn't make engineering sense to do something, that's a logic-based statement. So you can't try to defend it by saying logic doesn't apply. If you didn't want logic to apply, all you need say is "I don't like it." You're making my point for me--since this is entertainment, what pleases most fans is more important than technical specifications in a toy. Fans For the record; "admire" means the same thing as like... Dictionary.com: "to regard with wonder, pleasure, or approval." But that's beside the point. Anyways, you're way overthinking this, DV. The point is, that nobody can tell you you aren't a fan. You seem to agree with that, so not sure why you're arguing further.... But for the moment I'll humor you, in case I can clear up any confusion... Translation: The MOCing community caters to your preference more than the "roleplayers" preference (or however you want to label the majority fanbase at this point). Nothing wrong with that. Again, though, notice that your wording -still- seems to be declaring that there's some sort of objective rank/quality system here. I know what you mean--at least if you agree that the "translation" is what you mean. My point is that many others are likely to confuse your statement for a declaration of what is "superior". Hypocrisy? That's sad, DV, because debate-wise, you only dig your own hole deeper that way. If I played that game, I could just turn it back at you. Then you would turn it back at me, lol, and on and on forever, XD. Notice that that avoids the key question--are you guilty of that mistake? "I've read your 'Ruthless Elegance' blog entry. I've read your comments in topics, Bones. And I like you. I think you've got a great writing style, and I like to read it just because it's pretty. Because hey, I'm an English major, and it's what I do. But please, don't insult my intelligence. When you write a blog entry on a term, and then use it as the end-all," I'm glad that you enjoy it, but since I'm never using my own definitions as an end-all, your point is moot. It looks like all you needed to say was "No, I didn't mean to say this was absolute." And then possibly apologize for the confusing wording--it happens. :-P See how that solves things much better? Assuming that is what you mean. Fascinating. First of all, it's not just a "claim" that they sold poorly, lol. Second, it's not just a "claim" that the design was unappealing to most fans. Both of those are well known facts. The only leap being made would be the idea that people, somehow, buy what they like, and not what they dislike. If you honestly think that is false, then... yeah. It's a basic principle of marketing, DV. Sorry, but it's not bizzare at all, nor is it really a leap, XD. "I've seen even my own little brother buy sets he didn't like, just so he could have them all. I've seen numerous BZP members make the same statement." That's fine, but that's the "collecting-fan" minority. Pointing to a relative, or to BZPers who are like this doesn't show that they are common. There's also a ton of BZPers (and relatives, lol) who liked collecting Kanohi--yet those didn't sell well. Besides, it has beenshown to fail with things like brown sets, Kal, etc. "The Rahi were expensive." I expected you'd say that--it's a popular argument used to try to dismiss the Rahi's poor sales. However, we know from other things that Technicism was the culprit (focus groups specifically mentioned that about the large sets like them and Bahrag, for example, also gears, etc). Besides, price is irrelevant; if they were liked by fans, they still should have sold well for their price bracket. But they didn't. The flaw in this argument is that it assumes that by poor sales, we mean compared to cheaper sets. No. Titan sets always sell poorly compared to smaller sets. However, for their bracket, they can sell well if the fans in general like them. Tons of LEGO sets have been way more expensive than Rahi and sold fine. "Because those are design gaps. The Lehvak-Kal handshields could have easily been replaced with another set of filled-in Bohrok/Kal handshields. There are 10 other designs to choose from, all without this gap. The ones in the upper arms could easily have had a cam (the oval pieces used behind the Bahrag's eyes) placed on top of them, to hide the hole. These are elements of design, and therefore design gaps." Then by the same token, similar gaps in setslike the Manas are bad to you, right? All I ask is consistency--what you say applies as much to older sets as newer ones. But what I am seeing, instead, is people telling me it was OK on Manas and others, but not on Maxilos. I don't buy that. The 'same old thing' I was referring to is, again, set design. He again uses the same basic leg design. Yes; that's a valid complaint, since repetitiveness has been shown to be harmful. Thanks for clarifying. Fenrakk came with Vezon, and therefore doesn't count as an individual set. Just as much as Spinax doesn't. Besides, two examples out of the last, oh, let's count, eleven or so 'Titans' isn't really anything to brag about. It shows that it's a trend towards what you asked for. As for it not counting because of another set with it, I am interpreting that as saying "I would rather Fenrakk be sold seperately", basically, yes? That's fair; I can understand that. You can't just dismiss that it isnt' humanoid though, in my view. I understand that, because it's the story of my Brickshelf too. My problem is that for the first four years, we had only three humanoid boxed sets. Mhm. Well, I would point out that from another POV, there weren't enough humanoids back then. Not saying that's my preference--just sayin, lol. Many of the past characters didn't have much story value as characters. That is what, seems to me, has motivated the move towards humanoids. DV, again you seem to be saying both things at once. You admit it's only your preference. Yet you return to the idea that the majority view is inferior--even calling it a "minority" lol. Doesn't make sense to me. How can a majority be a minority? What you've said, again, amounts to this: "The creations of the minority taste fans do a better job of appealing to the minority tastes." Well.... of course, lol! That doesn't mean that the minority taste is superior. It -still- seems that you're trying to argue that, with this quote. Bad guys got big weapons, lolz. Heroes need to be dark to stop them, give them big weapons, huzzah! Good guys win, but only through a handily-placed plot device, yays! Oh noes, villains escape, new bigger villains, must get more super-powerful, lolz! Repeat until Marvel takes over as the premier comic book company. Faskinating. Would love to discuss, but in hurry by now... maybe later, lol. I'm assuming you understand it's your tastes talking, so no point in disputing. It's true by me. And that's good enough for me, in a blog written by me, in my perspective. Anyone whoever claimed blogs as objective has never read one. Then I am baffled as to how you define "do well"? If a set that appeals to you sells poorly, and if Bionicle did that enough to go out of business, it just plain ain't true by you! Unless Bionicle's actual success isn't part of your definition of success...... I'm confused. 'Unacceptable' means exactly that. It means as a fan, this is not only something I don't like. Thanks for defining it. You might want to take note, though, of the standard definitions, from dictionary.com (ignoring the "not acceptable one, XD): adjective 1. not adequate to give satisfaction; "the coach told his players that defeat was unacceptable" 2. not acceptable; not welcome; "a word unacceptable in polite society"; "an unacceptable violation of personal freedom" [ant: acceptable] 3. used of persons or their behavior; "impossible behavior"; "insufferable insolence" [syn: impossible] 4. not conforming to standard usage; "the following use of 'access' was judged unacceptable by a panel of linguists; 'You can access your cash at any of 300 automatic tellers'" Especially #2 and #4. #1, admittedly, could apply to what you said, if a "personally" or "to me" was including. Otherwise, all of those definitions could apply either individually or as groups (#4 would only apply to a group though, but it's least common). So it again comes down to this: It would be better to include a "personally" in the statement. There's little that says a fan has to like something the company puts out, or even has to overall like what he sees. He's devoted, he follows. But he doesn't have to like it. That is not what my definition said. It said that overall the fan likes the product/service, whatnot. Not that they must like every detail. And it's up to the fan to be the judge of whether they do, overall, like it or not. Still same meaning. Your definition states explicitly that one has to like the 'thing' being 'fanned upon' more than they dislike it. Maybe I like the concept, and the pieces. I liked the story once. I dislike more of the story than I like, and I dislike more of the sets than I like. I dislike more of the designs than I like, and I dislike the overall feel of the line now. But I'm still a fan by the first definition. Not by the second. Lol. Well, if you're going to define yourself as not a fan, then I won't dispute that. It's up to you to decide if you are; that is my point, not me or anyone else. At this point, this reply has been a few days in coming, and I'm not done--I'm going to post this, and try to continue later. You're making several serious mistakes here, and repeating them in the current Gadunka topic. They need put to rest.

Today the Bones Blog brings you the answer to one of the most commonly posted debate tactics on BZP. This is answered already in the Debate Terms Guide, but the answer is somewhat spread out over many entries there and that length can be daunting to read. So this blog entry addresses the idea directly. For clarity, key points will be bolded; don't confuse the bolding for emotionalism. Can Opinions Be Wrong? One of the most common ideas I encounter in debate is this: "These are my opinions. You can have yours too, but in no way am I going to change mine." [slight paraphrase from a current debate.] Usually this comes from someone who posted an opinion that was worded as if saying "I am right, others are wrong", that I or others had then disagreed with. The idea sounds good--that "I have a right to my opinion." Sure! But what if someone uses this to stick to an opinion that logic clearly shows is incorrect? Such as the opinion that the sky is orange, when it is in fact blue, as one example? Well, the answer is more complicated than you might think--what if what they really meant was they wished the sky was orange? That would be okay, right? The fundamental question is not whether you have the right to your opinion, but whether your opinion makes sense. The question is, can opinions be wrong? Two Kinds of Opinion The answer is, "Depends on what they mean by 'opinion.'" We must understand that the word "opinion" is occasionally used where really the word "taste" would be clearer. There are basically two kinds of "opinion": When you talk about what you like, or dislike, or feel, or what your preferences are, that's taste. That is unique to everybody, and nobody should feel that they are wrong for having theirs. These are not about the outside world, but about you. Therefore the outside world shouldn't change your view of who you are and what you prefer. If you dislike a set that was popular, you should not pretend that you liked it or feel pressured to like it. Same if you liked one that was unpopular. Sometimes I call this "taste opinion" to be clear, and it can also be called just "taste" or "preference" in standard English. Taste opinions cannot be wrong--they are individually unique. When you talk about what you think; what you say makes logical sense or is somehow a universal rule or definate truth, that's an opinion. These are not about you, but are basically theories about outside reality. These can be wrong. For example, if you have the opinion that a set didn't sell well, and sales prove you wrong, your opinion was wrong. And thus, you should change that opinion. I call this a "LEGO should" opinion, a "thought-opinion", or just a "logic-opinion" to be clear. Logic opinions can be wrong--truth and logic is not subjective. This is a basic principle of logic (which is the study of human mental processes). Issues of fact and theory, rules, morals, objective quality, common sense, storyline logic, debating, study of majority and minority tastes, sales results, methods of art, and so many others all fall under "logic-opinion". In contrast, personal statements of preference; of taste; statements worded similar to "I like/dislike this" are considered by logicians to be outside the realm of logic, and are not logically debatable. They fall under "taste-opinion". The Answer So the answer is this. "If you mean your tastes, then you're right to refuse to change your opinion. However, if you mean a 'logic-opinion', then you should be willing to consider you might be wrong, and if you're proven wrong, admit it and change the opinion." If it does turn out that the member is holding a "logic-opinion" that someone disagrees with, then that is the time to carry out a debate, look at evidence, and get into what I call "truth-seeking debate". That is, for both sides to be willing to change their minds if it turns out they are wrong. Because in those cases, either one side is wrong and the other is right, or both are wrong and the truth is something else entirely. However, if it turns out they were really holding a "taste-opinion" then there is no reason to debate that taste. Clarity -- Which "Opinion" do you mean? What most people debating me do not realize off-the-bat is that I'm not putting down your tastes. Instead, I am challenging you to word things more clearly, while I'm asking you to clarify your point. To reconsider how you originally worded your opinion, or to try, in the future, to make it clear when you mean your tastes. This can be done in many simple, easy ways. It's done by simply adding a "marker" phrase like these in your statement: "Personally" "To me" "I don't like this" "In my tastes" (I often abbreviate this; "IMT" to differ from "IMO") "In my preference" "In my personal tastes" "Tastewise, I feel" "I feel" "Myself" "Please note, this is just me" Etc. Unfortunately, some people mistakenly think "opinion" is one of these words. It is not--it is confusing, since it can mean both things. If "taste-markers" aren't used, the member often must be asked to explain their point more clearly. As a logician, that rarely confuses me, however, others who aren't logicians often misunderstand, and this can trigger unneeded debating, and sometimes even flame. This is usually how flame wars are started, often without any actual ill-intent by the person who started it! Just a big misunderstanding caused by unclear wording. When you state your tastes as fact or logic-based arguments, it comes across as putting down others' tastes and saying yours is superior, even if that's not what you meant. This can be especially true of younger members, but believe me, it's not limited to age--the same confusion causes flame wars on forums for adults/teenagers too, and I've witnessed this. In short, if you mean your tastes, say so!

Sorry but wrong, P. Bionicle sets are action figures, with a quick build. That's because roleplayers are main fanbase.... The finished product IS worth the while of the tastes of the main fanbase. If you aren't as satisfied by it, that simply means that you're not quite like the fans that the sets are targeting. Which is OK. Just don't assume that if it isn't satisfying for you, it must not be for others. LEGO is a construction toy, plain and simple. And it was once not even that, so ultimately it's a toy company. I've been over this countless times before, don't really feel like rehashing lol. I'm planning a blog entry coming up on this very subject, so I'd rather wait till then to write up tons of stuff on it. And for the record, if you like to build at all, you're a MOCer in at least some way. :-P But yes, that term can also mean a MOCer like DV, sorry if that was confusing... I in hurry. I would consider myself a MOCer in the sense that I enjoy MOCing (and virtually all my sets are MOCs now lol). I wouldn't consider myself a MOCer in the sense of DV or others who are obviously focused on that aspect very much and have much experience in it. Anyways.... As an example... Response to DV really still pending. I got half of it typed up and saved, but was busy with top secret stuff today. Maybe tommorrow....

LEGO toys have always been about constructing from an instruction manual, so not really sure I see your point, Pennywise. What your post boils down to is that you are a MOCer and you enjoy building other things. That's great. But you should know that most Bionicle fans aren't MOCers; they're roleplayers who prefer a quick build only. As far as hugely complicated, that's a surprising comment, because most BZPer have complained that they aren't complex enough--that is, most Bionicle fans saw things like Rahi and Bahrag as too complex... So to sum up--it's great that you prefer MOCing. Hopefully you can understand why Bionicle can't market primarily to MOCers, though. Reply to DV's post forthcoming...

Yeah, it's usually like that around this point in the year. Bores even me.

Advocate, please read this part of my reply: That's where I'm coming from. Saying "this is what I like/dislike and why" is fine. Saying "this is unacceptable" is going beyond that, though, don't you think? Thank you. For the record, mine is my personal definition of it designed to make it clear that people aren't "false fans" just because they complain. Same meaning though. Again, first of all I want to hear DV tell me that the gaps in the Manas were bad. That would tell me that he is looking at this consistently. But what I've heard him say many times in the past is that he liked the 2001 look. Gaps are a significant part of that look, and of Technic sets before it. Once that is cleared up, we can discuss further. So far I don't have a clear sense of where DV is coming from on the gaps subject. Secondly, if you worry about filling every gap, you've got to take pieces away from other parts of the set; limited budget. So what you've got to show is that most fans dislike gaps so much that it's worth harming other areas of set quality to fill up gaps, piece-made or not. how many robots have a hole running straight down their leg?), Yet again, you're making the mistake of looking at the real world to judge what should be in a science fantasy toy. That makes no sense--how many robots have gaps for connector pieces (that aren't filled, notice), wear Kanohi masks, focus on style of pieces more than practicality, etc. etc. How many real world robots would even work as a toy for roleplayers? Bionicle shows that they wouldn't. So looking at something is known to be poor quality for Bionicle to decide how Bionicle should be is folly. You need to look at what the fans want. I'm asking for evidence that most fans (not most BZPers, mind you) dislike gaps. Keep in mind that this is 2007, and if they did hate gaps, LEGO would avoid them as they're avoiding gears. Still waiting... As for what's popular on BZP, I said several times that BZPers are a minority in many ways. How is that relevant? Of course the stronghold of a minority taste is going to show evidence that it is that minority taste. That is not related to the majority taste. Again and again we have seen that the style DV likes is not liked by most fans, so where are you getting the idea that most fans would "probably like it too"?

DV--I have no idea why you've been acting so combative lately, but point to the part where I said that. That's a Straw Man fallacy there, my friend. "To each his own" means that I'm not saying you should share my tastes. How many times do I have to say this? Your tastes are "I don't like these gaps." Calling them "unacceptable" is going beyond that, DV, as you well know. What I am objecting to is you or anyone else turning a dislike (or a like) of something into an absolute rule, in what you say. This is the second time this year you've tried to defend your own "absolutism in taste" argument by accusing me of doing the same thing. Nice try, ain't flyin. And with that out of the way, please take a deep breath, calm down, and realize there's no reason to be so combative. We can disagree on what we like and still discuss whether it actually works in the set intelligently. There's no reason to accuse me of things I did not say. It makes you seem desperate, as if you know you've lost an argument and won't admit it--and besides, anybody can just read my post to see what I actually said, lol. I'm objecting to the use of a minority personal preference as the claimed definition of what's acceptable and what isn't. Besides, the Manas gaps are with some of the exact pieces DV circles as "unacceptable" in Maxilos. I think it's important to have a good understanding of what actually sells and what doesn't; that's what I'm saying. I see zero evidence that gaps hurt sales, lol. It's the pieces themselves that make or break the set. "We've come too far to be making the same, forgivable mistakes. Additionally, the Rahi have one more thing that separates them. They were good sets for their time." That's purely subjective. Most fans saw them as poor sets, which is why they didn't sell well. This is old news here--why is this myth that the Rahi were great still going around? In 2007? They sold poorly, guys. To most fans, Max is way higher quality than any of the three I pointed out. Point being, don't just assume something is a mistake just because you don't like it, or a buncha people on BZP don't like it. We're a minority here, as has been proven over and over again. "Lego shouldn't be putting out sets like that anymore." Careful with the "should" opinions--can you explain why they should not? This is a matter of preference, so you'd need to show that your preference on this one is a majority among the Bionicle fanbase (not just BZP). Doubtful. Have you considered that there's a good reason LEGO is still using this element? They don't just do things at random, lol. Come on, DV, that's silly. They buy what they like. That statement completely ignores market reality as seen for seven years now; sets that haven't been liked by most fans have sold poorly. You make it sound like they'll buy anything, so might as well give them what you like. That's pure fantasy. If it was true, the Rahi should have sold well, the Bahrag should have sold well, the Kal should have sold well, the Vahki should have sold well, etc. But they didn't. If there's one thing I have a right to criticize as a MOCist, it's actual set design. You absolutely have the right to criticise design that doesn't please you, especially on your blog. My issue is when it appears that you're going beyond just defining why you don't like it, and saying that it's a universal rule that must apply to everybody, whether they like it or not. Look at my "Ruthless Elegance" entry in my blog for example; I make it clear at the start that it's only a matter of preference and shouldn't be mistaken for a universal rule. (Although, yes, in general that style does seem to be popular, but that's not my fault. ) Remember these are toys here, not machinery with a purpose. If you wanted to say that a jackhammer had to have certain technical specifications, and as an engineer you could define them, that's one thing. But a toy need not have any technical specifications. It simply needs to please most fans, so that makes everything about it a matter of taste. (Besides things like child safety of course, but that's not the issue here.) Pennywise: "You might work for LEGO if [y]our fans know more about set design than you do." In most cases, the opposite seems to be true; that LEGO knows more about what works in set design than many BZPers, lol. Look at gears, for example. BZPers were wrong on that. They've been wrong on Technicism, etc. etc. It's really just minority preferences being different from majority preferences. DV: "1- Gaps in the pieces themselves =/= Construction gaps" Then why did you circle a few examples of that? Four of the eight circles in your image are gaps in the pieces. Two of them the same pieces as in the Manas, ironically. "2- That was 2001, and as people keep telling me, things aren't supposed to stay the same." Thank you for stating that. We agree there--but you also have to understand why things should or should not change. You can't just change everything to any old thing and expect it to sell. Look at the Hordika. "3- I think it's time you got off the 'it's just your preference speaking' high-horse. Cool, your preference is one that's being dug right now. Fans are in. Sweet. I'm glad for you." I'm glad to see that--and I would be happy for you if things were switched, as I was in 2001 (not you personally, but anyone who liked the Technicism style, which I just assumed must have been popular). You're on the right track here. Consider, though, avoiding wording things like "unacceptable" if you want to convey the impression that you are OK with others differing from you. Words like that don't give the idea that you're glad for them. As for a "high horse", I'm not going to stop being logical, sorry. I'm going to put everybody to the same standards of logical analysis equally, because this is important. I want Bionicle to do well, and if there were good reasons beyond your personal taste for LEGO not to do this, then there'd be a real problem here. That is why it's vital to point out where arguments seem to be based on individual taste alone and where there seems to be more to it. "But I'm tired of having not only my preference, but the preferences of many other members and fans out there belittled" Show me one instance of it being "belittled" by me. Some members on my "side" have done that, and I have been the FIRST to chastise them, DV. And the loudest voice doing so. In fact, since I'm being objective about it, I'm one of a few who can do so with credibility. As for me, what I have done is pointed out that (at least on some things) your preference is in the minority. That is not belittlement; that's a statement of reality. Real world market forces dictate how LEGO then has to react to them. I don't blame you for being tired of the real world forces, believe me. I am tired of excessive homework even though I know I must do it, etc. I get that. But don't take it out on me, please. "We get it Bones. As long as it sells you'll keep buying it." Then you definately don't get it, XD. I buy what I like, plain and simple. Remember that I was one of the few who actually liked the Kal, and bought a few. I've been in the minority. But this isn't about me. You make that mistake many times, I've noticed; assuming that I'm talking about my preferences when I talk about what LEGO should do. No. If I do talk about what I want, I make that clear off the bat, and I wrote a whole giant guide about not basing "should" opinions on individual preferences. By now, that should be crystal clear, XD. Now you're hitting the nail on the head, as I see it. Maxilos does seem to me to be a step away from the "coolified" look that Brutaka and Axonn sported, yes. That worries me, because my understanding has been that most fans prefer that. 2006's overall results prove that, in a general sense. At this point, I have to consider, though, that with the titans there might be a difference again between me and most fans, okay? It's possible LEGo found that Axonn and Bruty were overdoing it for most fans and decided to step it back a little. I dunno; we'll see. I just see no evidence of that, given 2006's great success. My point is, gaps seem to be irrelevant to that. I'm talking about the pieces, not the air in between them, XD. If you'd posted a blog entry saying that the picture speaks for itself and foregone the circles and had the text say "A step down in overall design" I'd be agreeing with you (though likely for different reasons). That isn't what you did though. As for "same old thing" that you didn't define in this sentence, that's probably either the humanoid complaint or the coolified look complaint, which of course I cannot agree with (except the part mentioned elsewhere about the humanoid complaint). As far as the coolified look goes, Max is pretty strong in that category (and especially Spinax!), in body design and tool design. The foot design, head, and Cordak blaster are the main problems, I'd say. Not sure if that's what you meant though... "And dear LEGO: please, for the love of something greater than ourselves, STOP GIVING US HUMANOID 'TITANS'. Let's try something new." Gadunka. Fenrakk... O_o In general, that idea is OK, for variety's sake, but keep in mind that even among MOCers the humanoid shape seems to be the most popular. Just glance through bshelf sometime. For roleplayers, they can identify with that shape better too. There are good reasons to have humanoids. Variety is fine too, but it seems to me that one non-humanoid titan a year is probably variety enough. Though I'd agree that it would be nice to see two again, like MOL, as an experiment. "Design is what I do. Critiquing designs is what I do. This isn't a preference, it's laziness." Possibly, but possibly not. I tentatively agree with that generalized statement, but not about gaps... But please realize, DV, that your critique still seems to be coming from how to design a set that would please you, or the tastes of an engineer. All I'm saying is, it's fine for you to critique in terms of what would please you; keep it in that context, but you didn't seem to do that with this entry. "I miss having sets that were unique. Bahrag, Exo-Toa, Boxor, Rahi, Gukko bird, Ussal Crab, etc. " Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Missing or wishing for what you don't have is not a crime. I would feel the same way if things were reversed. But I wouldn't take that too far into a "should" opinion. "I miss a story that makes sense, and doesn't sound forced from a DC comic book. " Lol. That sounds like a fascinating conversation starter. Please explain. "And as a fan, I have EVERY right to complain about things I don't like. Because I want to see the line I loved succeed. " [Emphasis mine.] Whoa there, DV. You've just summed up your mistake. Both statements are great, by themselves. But you combine them to make it sound like what you don't like will harm Bionicle's chances of succeeding. By now, surely you have learned that isn't true? BTW, DV, you could really lose some of your cynicism. It isn't helping your arguments any when you open your replies with some accusation about ulterior motives. There's no need for this paranoid "Oh, and I suppose true fans don't complain, eh?" business. Let's define it crystal clear right here: A fan is someone who overall likes whatever he's a fan of. Plain and simple. Nobody has any right to say you aren't one. A fan is someone who just wants to enjoy what he likes. There's no such thing as "loyalty" or "blindness" or whatever you want to call it in being a fan. Why? Because entertainment's job is to please. If it fails at that job for each individual, they are perfectly within their rights to point it out. If there was such a thing as a "true" fan, it would simply be someone whose tastes happen to coincide with what has made the franchise successful, but it is misleading to use that word, because it implies those who do not happen to be like that have committed some sort of crime. Totally false. And it goes both ways, DV. For you to accuse a fan that does happen to like just about everything of being "mindless" is totally false as well. Sheer nonsense. People like what they like, and they have every right to. You should want to see most fans saying "it's all good", because that tells you LEGO is doing a good job of appealing to majority tastes (yes, that IS their job). Unlike the Kal, unlike the Bahrag, unlike gears, unlike clones etc. With those, the core fanbase was complaining. If not with their words (though definately many did!), with their wallets. Aaaanyways.... Point is, no need to be so paranoid, DV. I agree. Both the Mahri and this year's titans are going away from that coolified look. That's worrisome. Although of course, with the latest high-quality pics, BZPers have already started the annual "Oh I was wrong and these are awesome" parade, XD. But frankly, I don't even think that matters anymore. It's just BZP being BZP; the real test is going to have to remain sales. We'll see.... SZ: "I'm just so sick and tired of it! Why aren't there more topics about how good Bionicle is getting, huh? That's what I want to know!" Understandable, SZ. Please realize, though, that this is human nature. People usually don't go into a lot of detail about what they like, although arguably they should make some effort to. But when they see what they think could be a problem (usually, when they don't like something), they're worried about it and they think it's time to make an exception and go into detail or speak up when they normally don't, to point out the possible problem. Nothing wrong with that; it's healthy for a fanbase. The unhealthy part is when they can't understand the difference between a real problem and what they don't like. However, I would agree that complainers would have more credibility if they would admit it when there are positives as well as negatives. Objectivity and balance are going to make a complaint far more convincing then what comes across as constant negativity. Because it's not. You would know full well that's not true if you had paid much attention at all to BZP over the last few years. And besides, many things that BZPers have been whining about have been fixed in recent years and those same BZPers have been silent. Given that, why should LEGO listen to this complaint, if you guys won't be grateful that they listen? Bionicle's been getting better since 2004 (after going down from 2001's medium heights into the pits of 2003), and just last year, did excellently. And yet those were the times when BZP was making the biggest noise about how awful it was, XD. It's not the quantity of complaints that matter, but what type (quality, if you will, though that's a vague concept). When you see a lot of minority taste people saying "I don't like this" it's often actually an indicator that Bionicle is getting better (for most fans). It's when you see them saying "I'm bored" that we usually see sales go down. That said, you cannot look at "I don't like this" complaints as a measure of success, XD. Because we -do- have some aspects in common with the majority here, and we can be useful, like with clonism. The Hordika are another good example; a hero group that sold well... as a villain group. Complainers were right on that one, though often for the wrong reasons. Our complaints are useful when they reflect reality among the Binoicle majority fanbase. So that's the test, every time. Does each complaint do that? I think the complaints I'm making about the Cordak Blasters, Mahri, and Titans, do reflect that, so I'm worried about those issues. 2007 might be going downward a little, though there are also so many positive signs far and beyond even 2006, that hopefully it will maintain that year's strength. Barraki especially; Gadunka, and the coolified aspects of the Mahri (Hahli's wings! Etc.). Notice your mistake here. You began by asking about taste--why it doesn't look good. Then, you did not answer that question, but instead switched to an answer to the question "why doesn't the armor work in practical terms?" Easy slip to make, but it's an equivocation fallacy nonetheless. The real answer to why it doesn't look good (to DV, you and others) is that it doesn't please your tastes. This does not prove that most fans won't be pleased by it, or that it doesn't look good to them. And it also explains why others have to ask--because it doesn't annoy their tastes, and all individual tastes are equal. As for the practical considerations, three things. 1) It's irrelevant; this is science fantasy and Bionicle purposefully differs from real world rules often to heighten that sense of a different world. 2) Playing devil's advocate though... I almost don't even know where to begin. It's a set, not the storyline form, for one. Real Bionicle characters don't have holes all over them either, nor do real humans have seperable legs, arms, and head with a LEGO stud on the top of the head, XD. Sets are representations of the characters, not exact storyline replicas. You can't look at set design and assume that you can then apply storyline logic to it. If you could do that, then Rhotuka are a very strange kind of energy that mimics matter, and protodermis is plastic. 3) But going even further with devil advocacy, pretend the gaps were actually there in the storyline form. They're biomechanical, so the question is, what is the armor, and what is the muscle/organic tissue being protected by it? Where did you get the idea that the foot was the armor and the other pieces were muscle? That does not fit with what we've seen in the past; the LEGO pieces are almost always the armor/metallic components, and the muscles either aren't shown in the set at all, or are the rubber pieces. I don't see that any of the pieces you're claiming are not part of the armor are rubber. So seems like a moot point on all counts to me.... "I hate to say this, but I think 2007 is gonna be the year I come out of the closet as a 2001ist." You prefer Technicism? Then why haven't you embraced your preference all along? You should not be afraid to like whatever you like, Pennywise. 2007's sets are irrelevant to whether you liked things like Rahi or gears in 2001. Or even gaps, XD. After all, 2001 was the year of gaps....

XD To each his own, of course, but guys, come on. They're biomechanical creatures. What argument can there be that gaps don't work for Bionicle? Aesthetically, this speaks to your preferences, which is fine. Personally, I doubt most fans care about a few gaps in sets of creatures who would naturally have gaps, since they aren't just biological. Doesn't even matter that Max is a robot; gaps in biomech. creatures are also to be expected. But as for the idea that Max "can't even be called a set" just because he doesn't appeal to your guys' tastes, that to me makes no sense. The definition of set has nothing to do with whether you like it, and besides, there's nothing un-Bionicle about gaps in sets. Especially pointing to the Technic-style pieces that some of you guys yourselves have said you miss? I don't buy that argument--gaps are in fact more reminiscient of the old style you have been wishing we could return to, DV, haven't you? Remember these: Those are chock full of gaps. Most far bigger than the tiny little things you circled. And that's titan-sized; remember canister sized too. All the original Bionicle pieces had gaps, like between the pistons, etc. Look at the old Toa foot, for example, or the Tohunga head. Were those unacceptable too? I really don't see why. It's not the gaps that matter, but the actual plastic, lol. Boils down to Max just being a style that doesn't appeal to you. For the record, I don't like him as much as Axonn or Brutaka myself. But there's nothing about him that's "unacceptable" lol, in my tastes. Of course, sales will be the final judge... Still, I really don't see how these gaps can be thought of as horrible, or at least, as the worst aspect of the set...

Well, in lieu (or however that's spelled ) of you finishing, I wanted to add something here. It does trouble me often the way we as staff inevitably have to appear to the newer members. As I've said often, I was there once, I understand the fear and uncertainty perfectly. I wasn't around here in 2001; I came as a newbie in 2003, and I made the traditional mistakes and misunderstandings--I viewed the staff and other prominent members as towering above me and in a place I could never reach no matter what I did. I even remember my first topic closing, I felt almost angry that I didn't have a chance to say more about it before it was closed (although it definately -did- need closed, lol). I can appreciate that. Unfortunately when you are in those shoes, of staff members, and you have a thousand real life demands tugging at you and a thousand reports tugging at you too, it is almost impossible to do all of that, and yet also take time out to try to encourage newer members and work hard to bring them into the fold gently. So let me say--I definately appreciate anything you or any other members who have time do in that respect. No point in rehashing where we disagree on certain outlooks of things; you're well aware of where I stand on that, and ultimately I think we do pretty much see things the same way where it counts. Just let me add--I'll be the first to admit I don't do the best job all the time. I would hope that somehow, newer members can come to understand the pressures us staff members are under, and that it isn't always our fault when we come across the wrong way. But--and I can only speak for myself since I am only myself--it's certainly true that I could do better, and I am trying at that. I have to say that the discussions I've had with you have helped me in that way, EW. I thank you for your perspective on this.

I love the basement bricks. Huzzah for Brick Mutilation!

Again, please read the second paragraph, lol. I made it crystal clear this is only my opinion. No point in trying to convince me of something I already stated as true, XD. However, it being my opinion does not disprove it being the most logical opinion. You are certainly correct that Taipu wants to travel, but look what happened when he went with Takua to Le-Koro. He just got himself kidnapped. Future enemies aren't going to play nice like the Nui-Rama. He could very well get himself killed that way. Also, I've seen several people claiming Kopeke was "forced" to go along, but where exactly is this stated in the storyline or MNOG? I do not recall it; perhaps I need to check again. But it sounds like a rumor to me. I'd like to see proof from the actual storyline, including MNOG, of this assertion. Besides, Kopeke spent most of his time outside the village before going on the Chronicler's company, unlike most Matoran. I fail to see how that does not support him having a desire for travel. Sure, it's not as strong as Taipu's... but then Taipu's intelligence isn't as strong as Kopeke's, lol. Kopeke is the kind of guy who will do his duty, regardless, so even if that was the case, that he didn't like traveling, he still would do the job, and I would still say that overall he'd do a much better job than Taipu, with observativeness, restraint, and staying alive all going in his favor far over Taipu. You gotta admit that, at least, right? That said, again, you're perfectly allowed to pick your own criteria. If, in your tastes, having an eager Chronicler is cooler than having one who's cold, even if he would fit the job better, then that's fine. As I've pointed out before, neither Takua nor Hahli were perfect for the job either, so it's not like the perfect Matoran for the job is an absolute necessity. It's just that me, personally, I prefer to focus on who's best for the job, logically speaking. You don't have to be defensive about your choice. And thanks for the comment, mumu.

More of an opinion as opposed to what? Yes, this is my opinion, heh. That's why it's on my blog... And I made that clear in the second paragraph. Not sure what else you were thinking of... I assume you meant "fun". BTW, I know it was for fun, but I do have some comments that might clarify things further. The ice lenses themselves were not my point--but the character trait that they illustrate. A guy who will go to the trouble of making a system like that has to actively want to observe, possibly above all else. More than someone like Kopeke. For the record on what I meant. I don't really see that as a valid argument. First of all, all the Matoran needed to be trained in fighting, especially ones that ventured outside the Koro. Kopeke obviously was, or he never would have been selected to join the Chronicler's company. Second, Kopeke -did- spend so much time outside the Koro, that he must have had runins with infected Rahi all the time. And their experience, though useful, isn't going to help them think on their feet in potentially deadly situations in the future--that takes more mental skills. Again, they're both about equal, but Kopeke seems much more observative, and alert. Also, note that they were fighting mere Rahi, who weren't trying to kill them. For a Chronicler, one obvious method needed to alive is to be able to avoid your enemies. Kapura would, theoretically, be best at this, except that he's got to slow way down to use his "power" (if it is a power). Kopeke, being more observative, would probably see danger coming before it arrives more often and get out of the way, I would think. But mehbe that's just me... Bias would be an accurate enough word for that one, yes--but notice that I'm not just saying he's like me. He's also like a lot of other people who have similar jobs. That's a little less biased. Off the top of my head, I can't even think of anyone like Kapura, really, in real life at all, much less a Chronicler-like job, XD. Of course, there are certainly other personality types in reporter-like jobs, but I couldn't seem to connect any to Kapura, so yeah... Heh. It's amazing how much that word varies. I don't see that it would be a huge issue, no. Takua, of course, was just as bad as Hafu would have been in this category, and he managed. The criteria aren't all listed with the idea "you must have all this perfectly or you fired", but more as things that definately are preferable for the job. Of course, Staying Alive and Observativeness are pretty vital, heh. Those are probably the only two that are absolutely neccessary, IMO. But trying to be the story rather than tell the story can be a problem. It depends, to a degree--if, in being the story, the Chronicler goes too far... that would be bad. Especially if it got himher killed. For people like Takua and Hahli, it left the job vacant pretty fast, lol, although not through death. They were both so into being the story that they are now Toa. So basically, it depends on why they "be the story." If they're doing it because they can help, and their help is needed, then, yes, they should "be the story" in those situations. I brought it up more because of someone like Onepu. I have doubts that we would only "be the story" when the situation demanded it. He's a bit prone to needless heroics and such. Yes--but if the narrator dies, for example, or becomes incapable of passing on the knowledge through some means, heshe hasn't been the best Chronicler, heh. Even with the Toa example, Takua and Hahli have not been the best Chroniclers, in a sense---compared to someone who may be destined specifically to be a Chronicler, as Kodan apparently was. Ideally, a Matoran would be picked who isn't destined to be a Toa, but can take care of himself and thus won't need to "be the story" in most cases. Think of it like news reporters in the real world, compared to police officers or soldiers or the like--reporters don't do the job of the cops or troops. Make sense?

Aanchir, see my reply to Great Being above about carving--you clearly missed the point of that one. Again, "courage" does not need to be listed here, as it's neither some specific to being a Chronicler nor something either Kapura or Kopeke are lacking in. Adding it in wouldn't change the results, so why bother? They would tie. True, Taipu probably wouldn't do that well in it, but he fails (IMO, and in the vote) in other ways. I could, of course, add a note on it--but it isn't important. Also, as far as what it falls under, I believe you misread, as "staying alive" is not the only thing it falls under. See my reply to Dust, above. (It would fall under desire to travel more than anything, since this is something that requires first and foremost courage--or just plain silliness like with Taipu, XD.) As for this: Again, you seem to be missing the point. Not sure why--perhaps you should re-read, perhaps wasn't worded as clearly. I am almost getting the impression though, that you're being defensive about it. There's no need to do so. If you prefer Kapura, that's fine. But on this one, you're grasping at straws. Kopeke is hardly a shopkeeper, sorry. I never eliminated "roles" -- I eliminated personality types. Kopeke is nothing like Okoth, lol. Obviously, the skills of a crafter would come in just as handy as an ice carver--but the personality of someone who simply wants to make products for a living isn't really suited to Chronicler. Kopeke is obviously not like this, as MNOG makes clear. What makes you say this? I do not recall any evidence for or against this--except that she did work as a "net-mender", which does require some skill at working with materials as well. \ Anyways, you don't seem to understand why it's on the list of criteria--has nothing to do with what Hahli was good at. You don't make a list of what is ideal for a job based simply on one example of someone who had the job. As said already, each Chronicler so far has flaws, and that's actually OK, because stories about perfect people are boring. If you wanted the new Chronicler to be just like Takua, or just like Hahli (or Kodan for that matter) you could not get this, because no two Matoran are alike. It's on the list because it's what stands out as something that would be ideal for a Chronicler to have. Hope that helps... Slizer--Kopeke may have been ordered to go with Takua, but I'm not talking about that for desire to travel--I'm talking about his traveling out into the Wahi before even meeting Takua. We met him outside the Wahi, remember, if you played MNOG. And he had taken the time to carve the ice-lenses. He appears to spend much time out there. Also, he would not have been chosen for the Chronicler's company if he did not have traits that were ideal for that. That's why Taipu was chosen, for example.

He's one I would have supported too. I was dissapointed more people didn't vote for him. Probably that whole ego thing lowered his popularity or something. He'd fit the job better than a lot of runner-ups who got votes. I'm a little confused, Lyichir--where was the flaw? Are you saying that the flaw is, that I did not list every possible criteria? That would be a fair argument--it would have been rather wordy that way though. I felt it would be more concise to include things like "bravery and endurance" under "staying alive" and "desire to travel", etc. However, I said that the criteria for other people would probably be different, so it's not a flaw. Hahli is hard to judge, I agree there. Both Takua and her appear to fail in many of the aspects, so possibly Kopeke will be in some ways even better of a chronicler, lol. Ultimately, all people, human or Matoran, have flaws, and in fiction that's a good thing as they'd be boring if they were all perfect. Also, as far as bravery and endurance go, both Kopeke and Kapura would be tied in those areas, so not much point in listing them anyways. They're also more minor and generic compared to things like staying alive or being observant, which are things directly related to being a Chronicler. Bravery and endurance are generic traits that are useful in just about every important job, so not specifically relevant to Chroniclers. As said above, courage is also another generic trait, though I would agree it's more oriented towards Chronicler than many other jobs. Again, the two would be tied, so I don't see the need to list it. I almost did, simply becaue Hafu showed extreme courage in the Bohrok Saga, I felt, so that would go to him over both Kapura and Kopeke, personally. But Hafu wasn't a front runner in the voting. So I decided to count that under Staying Alive, instead, and wherever else it also factors, such as Wisdom, and Desire to Travel. Have courage, will travel. As it were. Not sure what you mean about speeches... Unless I didn't count him for "cool speeches"... *checks* As far as carving, I stated that in the entry--he seems more oriented to digging than carving, so compared to Kopeke who can easily carve an icicle into a fancy and exact key in only a few seconds, Taipu doesn't have that sort of exact skill. That's not to say he couldn't learn the skill--he could, I'm sure, as could just about anyone. But I'm talking about a love of carving. I think that most people can do just about any job if the need is great enough and they force themselves to. But usually the ones who love doing that job you see evidence of them wanting to do it on their own, such as the Wahi-wide security system. No evidence of that with Taipu, or Kopeke. My point isn't that he would have trouble, but that he might not like the job, and that could affect his attitude towards being a Chronicler in general. My understanding of Taipu is also that he's somewhat clumsy--more of a "brute strength" kinda guy in terms of physical skills. So carving doesn't seem like the kind of thing he'd like to do. But, I didn't call him either way on that one, remember, so I'm not saying he would definately have trouble or not. I don't think we have enough info to be sure. But with Kopeke (or Hafu), we do. *finds nothing about speeches* I'm not sure what you mean about speeches, I guess. I didnt' say one way or another for Taipu on speeches. And anyways, that one is "Cool speeches", not the ability to talk. Just means, how interesting I find the speeches. Obviously, others will probably find his speech interesting enough. I just didn't see it as relevant for him over someone like Tamaru, whose speeches really stand out as cool, or Kapura. Does that help?

In Ko-Koro, we respect knowledge above all things. --Kopeke Well now that the Chronicler contest is over, and the final results are in, Kopeke will be the next Chronicler! He is also who I ended up voting for, so I'm happy with these results, just personally. But what about whether he fits the job? A lot of people have posted things like "his personality doesn't fit" or the like, and just generally asked, "Why Kopeke?" Well, I can only speak for myself as far as why I voted, but I thought it would be helpful to list the reasoning that went behind my vote (based on original list I posted here). Note, please, this -is- partly my personal taste, since I'm deciding to go with logical reasons he'd work as a Chronicler and coolness of the character in those terms over other things like cool speeches or other "crowd pleasers" that just make the character endearing overall, but not as a Chronicler. Other people are of course free to have different criteria. Still, hopefully this will help show why Kopeke does fit the job description well, if not best. First of all: What are the Criteria for being a Chronicler? I consider them to be the following: 1) Observativeness. Gotta be interested in observing to fill this role. Someone like Okoth could probably do the job if lives depended on it and nobody else could, but over a Kapura or a Kopeke, shopkeepers, crafters, etc. aren't the best choice. 2) Restraint. Chroniclers do their job best when they are not interested in taking all the glory for themselves. To a degree, Takua failed in this respect, though as far as "crowd pleasers" go, Takua obviously was a cool character anyways. Someone like Onepu fails miserably here, for example. 3) Staying alive. Chroniclers are often in dangerous situations (this is where Takua gained tons of ground, BTW), so they need to adept at avoiding the fate of Kodan. Experience in battle, special advantages, anything like that is good here. 4) Alertness. Part of staying alive--using observativeness not just for the job, but to remain alive and avoid things like ambushes. 5) Desire to travel. Many Matoran from Mata Nui have to go against their traditional nature and force themselves to travel. Though most are probably getting over this with the move to Metru Nui, there are certain Matoran, including Kopeke, Kapura, and Taipu, who love venturing out there, so are better for the job in this way. 6) Carving. Just a simple one--should be interested in carving down all that they observe when possible. 7) Real world parallel. This one is personal to me, probably differs from person to person. Kopeke is much like me in personality, and I ended up as a reporter here, lol, as an example, and though I am usually quiet in real life, I type like mad. For this blog entry, I will reshift the list a little from what I've posted before, and add an 8th main note that many people have brought up: 8) Outgoingness. Many have alleged that Kopeke's aloofness is a weakness. To a degree I disagree, given #2, #3, #4, and #7. That said, Kopeke's "aloofness" could be interpreted as "shyness" and it was my main question before I decided finally to vote for him. If you are willing to travel but not willing to discuss things you didn't personally witness with Toa and others, this could be a weakness for the job. 9) Wisdom/intelligence. Another addon to my original list. Kapura, Kopeke, score highly. Taipu doesn't, for example. Then there are two crowd pleasers, and I could add a third that I didn't list before. Note that each of the above is, in my mind, worth 1 point, but the following is only about half a point each: 10) Speeches. Kapura's Makuta Speech, Nuju's Flux Speech, Tamaru's Bohrok Taunt--cool speeches like those. Many of the Matoran have very interesting dialogue in MNOG and elsewhere, and this could make what they write as Chronicler actually interesting enough to read. Especially the ability to be cryptic in speech, and have more than one level of meaning. Kapura stands out to me with this. To a small degree, Kopeke's got this two. Just a lot less of it. 11) Mysteriousness. This one is a 2001er's thing, might not matter to as many fans now, not sure, but personally mystery is really interesting. Someone like Okoth isn't mysterious. Both Kopeke and Kapura are. 12) Coolness. This is a vague concept that will differ for everyone, but I felt it was worth throwing in as a general catch-all for any "crowd pleaser" aspect not covered by the other two. Kapura's cool. Kopeke's cool. Hafu's cool. Even Ahkmou is cool to a degree, XD. Random guard standing by a Koro gate? Eh. Next: Who are the best front runners? I'd like to briefly compare Kopeke to the other front runners--Kapura mainly, and Taipu. Also, Hafu, Macku, and Tamaru are other names I've seen at least a few people vote for. Onepu too. Kapura is in my mind the only clear contender with Kopeke for this position. He likes to travel, he is observative, and he has that nifty power that lets him travel far by moving slowly. Note: Greg does not know what that "power" means, so probably can't actually put it in the story, though as Ikki pointed out, it's in the encyclopedia, so it is official. The idea came from Bob Thompson, not the web producers, who has since left, so the world may never know, unless Greg can find out from Leah or simply make up a new explanation. So it's in doubt for story use, which was the main reason I hesitated to vote for Kapura. I'll list his specific standings on the Criteria List along with Kopeke later. Taipu is one that I don't get why his vote was so high. Endearing character, but not suited to Chronicler. He is super-strong; he could manage #3 well, stay alive. He's uberstrong on #5, desire to travel. He could probably carve, to a degree, though he's clumsy so I can't really call that--his "carving" experience is slamming a pick into rock to dig. But he's very dense in de head, hurting him on #1, the most important one, and #2, #4, and #9. His gullibility also hurts him in #9, and it could very well hurt him on #3 too. He rates a 3, including outgoingness. We can also give him #12 for a 3.5. Hafu would do well, much better than Taipu, IMO. He's obviously strong on #6 carving, and his courage is well known so he could stand #3 well, and as a crafter, he's probably observative, so 1 and 4 he does well on. He'd do notoriously poorly on #2, though, restraint, and I question his wisdom, or at least have not seen evidence that he's exceptional in this category. #1 might be hurt a little, and #8 too, by his ego--he may only observe that which reflects well on himself. And I have to say--though it was a great line, he would get hurt a little on #10, since after everything he wrote down, he'd declare "Another Hafu original!" He is cool, so he gets #12, and his skill can seem slightly mysterious, so a #11 too. He gets a5. Macku? Well, strong on #5, obviously... other than that I frankly don't see enough evidence to judge. She stayed alive in MNOG and was able to rescue her Koro, but that was only because of luck--she had disobeyed her Turaga to run off to Hewkii, and just happened to be out of town when the Tarakava attacked. #1 she'd probably be reasonable at, possibly #4 too. #3, I don't really think so. #6, not expecially, and quite likely not #9, even though her disobedience -did- help the Koro. She didn't know that and didn't do it for that reason. Personally, she's also just not that interesting of a character--she's Hewkii's girlfriend, basically, and not much else. She gets a 3. Tamaru... I just don't see it. He'd probably hold his own at #3, and he too was in the Chronicler's company so I suppose he'd be okay at #5 travel--he also did "leafrun" a lot, which is travel, though as part of his duty to protect the Koro. #9, he'd probably do alright at. #1 though? I dunno, and #8 might be a problem. He'd be another that could do it if nobody else could, but he doesn't stand out for the job. Tamaru does have a lot of #10, and #12, to be fair. He gets 3. Onepu. No. The one thing he'd be good at is #3, staying alive, but he would fail in #1, #2 (especially #2, with his ego and also his being used to leading troops), #5, #6, #8 in the sense that his ego would grate on people, and #9 as well. He can have #12, to be fair, giving him a total of 1.5. Kopeke versus Kapura Okay, so how do the front-runners stack up? 1) Observativeness. Kopeke built a Wahi-wide ice-lense security system in MNOG. He... sees all. [ominous]He is watching you.[/ominous] Kapura is observative enough--he makes those cool riddles with what he's observed, which is a plus. But ya can't beat a Wahi-wide security system, sorry. This one goes to Kopeke, with, to be generous, a 0.3 to Kapura. 2) Restraint. Silence is a virtue. Kopeke being quite might hurt him on #8, but here it's a strength. Someone who's willing to be quiet is probably going to notice a lot more, and with Kopeke's history of noticing things, I have no doubt he would have a greater understanding when chronicling. I think many people are confusing talkativeness with wanting to write a lot--I disagree, just from how I am. I don't like talking much in real life, but I love writing. Kopeke way ahead of Kapura here. I'll throw in a 0.5 for Kapura to be fair though. 3) Staying Alive. Complicated--Kapura usually stands out as being able to escape with his "travel power". But--for it to work, he apparently has to slow way down. In an ambush, you can't afford to slow down, so I see it as up to battle smarts. Now, Kapura is a fair warrior. Sure. But so is Kopeke. I'd consider them tied, but Kopeke is pushed higher with his observativeness. This one goes to Kopeke, with a 0.5 for Kapura. 4) Alertness. As said above, seems to go best to Kopeke. 5) Desire to travel. Kapura and Kopeke tied here. Both spent tons of time outside Koro when possible. 6) Carving. I've seen no evidence Kapura's the kind of guy who'd want to sit down and carve out records. He'd probably prefer to... practice. But Kopeke carved in ice all the time, including that spy-lense, and carving that key. Goes to Kopeke. 7) Real world parallel. I'm a lot like Kopeke. I'm a reporter. Of course, not sure if that's close to universal, lol, but this is my view I'm talking about, so it counts. That's a Kopeke. 8) Outgoingness. As said above, I disagree to an extent that Kopeke's "aloofness" counts as "shyness", since he seems perfectly willing to do what needs to be done and to say that which is vital to be said. However, we can give this to Kapura for sure. I will give Kopeke a 0.3 to be fair though. 9) Wisdom/Intelligence. Gotta go with a tie here. Kapura illustrates wisdom and intelligence, while Kopeke speaks of his wisdom and hints at in in intelligent ways. What little he says shows that he's not making it up. Then the half-point "crowd pleasers": 10) Speeches. Obviously, Kapura wins, though Kopeke's speeches are interesting enough. Overall, no justification for a tie, though, so 0.5 for Kapura. 11) Mysteriousness. Kopeke and Kapura are close to tied--Kopeke might not have cool speeches, but characters of few words can be even more mysterious than those with many riddles. Kapura, of course, makes up lost ground with the whole traveling thing, whether it can be in story or not--Greg doesn't even know what it means, XD. So Kapura wins this round with 0.5. 12) Coolness. This one is very subjective, with these two more than anybody. I think Kopeke is a super-cool character, personally, so I have to give this to him, with the possibility of a tie. However, I love the concept of mysterious powers that even mere Matoran can tap into, and we do know this is official, and Kapura also has cool MNOG speeches. That said, if that power cannot be in the official story, his coolness factor goes waaay down, to me, though of course I'd love it for my fanfics. A Kapura in the story without that is, to me boring--his cameo would probably be nothing better than his one book cameo already, in Metru Nui, which was boring as all get out. For the speeches alone, I have to give him this to for the tie, but if that power -could- make it into the story, I would see that as so rad cool that the value of #12 would automatically go up at least 1 above whatever's needed to beat Kopeke. But since that hangs in the balance, this one goes as a tie to both Kopeke and Kapura. Now for my favorite thing in the whole world. Math. Kopeke gets a 8.8, overall. And Kapura gets a 5.6. Correct me if I counted wrong--quite possible, XD. But it's clear that by those criteria at least, Kopeke is a better choice for the job than Kapura. Kapura is only slightly ahead of Hafu, as I'm counting it, in fact.

I can only speak for me--but there's more reasons for Kopeke than Kapura, that I can see, as said here. Ve'll zee toomahroh.

*gasps for breath* For the record, I'm trying to pick up the slack for mumu this week. Trying may be key word though.

As awesome as he is, Kopeke does not make a good chronicler. Well, I almost voted for Kapura, and if he -did- for sure get to keep the travel power, probably would have, lol, but sans that, I have to disagree. Kopeke is an excellent choice. Reezins: 1) Observative. Dude, he built a Wahi-wide ice-lense security system in MNOG, lol. He... sees all. [ominous]He is watching you.[/ominous] Chroniclers need to be observative, and observative types are more likely to want that sort of job. Kapura's observative enough--he makes those cool riddles with what he's observed, which is a plus. But ya can't beat a Wahi-wide security system, sorry. [Good point -- Kapura is not all behind here, however. He watches while he practices, hence him seeing Tahu's canister wash up on the beach, plus he made a good scout in the BA1 prologue. May not beat Kopeke here, but he is still very observant from what I've seen] 2) Silence is a virtue--a Chronicler that want to spend all the time in the spotlight being the one making history isn't doing the best job of chronicling. Witness Takua, XD. Someone who's willing to be quiet is probably going to notice a lot more, and with Kopeke's history of noticing things, I have no doubt he would have a greater understanding when chronicling. I think many people are confusing talkativeness with wanting to write a lot--I disagree, just from how I am. I don't like talking much in real life, but I love writing. Kopeke way ahead of Kapura here. [Kapura is not very talkative at all. Notice how his sentences are short, to the point, and he never wastes a word. He spends a lot of his time alone, simply practicing, watching, contemplating. His talent of speaking with hidden messages seems like a good contribute when figuring out the meaning of events, too. Also, Kopeke is not shy at all -- he seems very cold, much Kopaka, so I doubt he'd be willing to go around and ask people about events and other stuff, like Takua would. Kapura seems nicely balanced here, as he actually will speak if needed.] 3) Staying alive. The biggest issue to me, besides wanting the job or having skills needed, is the ability to stay alive. So as not to end up like Kodan. This -would- be Kapura's main advantage, if that power is useable, as he could "teleport" away from enemies (well, if he has enough advance notice, at least, since he'd have to slooooow down to do it, which is a weakness). Assuming it can't be used in story though, Kopeke spent tons of time out in the Wahi on Mata Nui, unlike most Matoran who stayed inside the Koro's walls for protection. Being quiet is also helpful, as he'd be more aware of possible danger around him--same for being observative by nature. He's also tough enough. Chronicler's company. Both relatively tied here, but I consider Kopeke at least a little better at staying alive. [Try look at how fast Kapura avoided the Rahi attacks in the Kini Nui mini game in MNOG. He also maged to escape from Ta-Koro during the initial Bohrok attack, saving the entire village by bringing the Toa there. And the Charred Jungle seems like a dangerous place, too -- Kapura definitely has strong courage with him calmly asking if Takua was the Makuta.] 5) Desire to travel. Kapura and Kopeke tied here. Both spent tons of time outside Koro when possible. [Yup -- Kapura will even travel to any village to find Takua when Vakama requests it!] 6) Carving. Obviously, Hafu wins here, XD. But I've seen no evidence Kapura's the kind of guy who'd want to sit down and carve out records. He'd probably prefer to... practice. But Kopeke carved in ice all the time, including that spy-lense, and carving that key. Kopeekee wins here. [Agreed here. Still, pondering and contemplating seems like Kapura's thing, so that would come in handy when chronicling.] 7) Real World parallel. I'm a lot like him. I'm a reporter. Go figure. Of course, not sure if that's close to universal, lol, but this is my view I'm talking about, so it counts. That's a Kopeke. 8) ... That's Kopeke 7, Kapura 3 (give or take). To be fair, we can throw in a 9: 9) Cool speeches. Obviously, Kapura wins, so whatever he writes might be interesting enough to actually bother reading it, XD. Note: #8 is "Mysteriousness", at which Kopeke and Kapura are close to tied--Kopeke might not have cool speeches, but characters of few words can be even more mysterious than those with many riddles. Kapura, of course, makes up lost ground with the whole traveling thing, whether it can be in story or not--Greg doesn't even know what it means, XD. So Kapura wins this round, and cool speeches. However, neither of these are important to being a chronicler, in my view--they're simply crowd pleasers, heh. So, count is something like this: Kopeke 7, Kapura 4 (2 + .5 + .5). Kopeke still wins. [Well, speaking with hidden wisdom in his words, as Vakama put, seems like a good skill when observing and recording events. No biggie here, agreed, but Kopeke's words seem much more plain, which could be problematic when chronicling. However, as you said, could be only when speaking.] So to me, only way Kapura would win is if that power definately could be in the official story, which would be suuuuch a crowd pleaser it's worth a 4 all by itself, pushing Kappy up to 8. XD So remember. Vote Kopeke. He is watching you. [And Kapura may be right behind you before you finish that sentence! -Ikk]

Hate to say it, but you seem to forget the universal fact of varying personal tastes. What may be "crud" to you is often "really cool" to someone else, and vice verse. And at the -same- time, you also seem to forget that not everybody is trying to make a Mona Lisa, lol. No offense--I understand what you're trying to say. Constructive criticism is fine--pointing it out even in really good pieces is fine, as long as you understand that there's no obligation on the artist to be perfect or even anywhere near it. IMO calling it "crud" is not.

Hey now, didn't catch that XD. Nice. Still, unless Greg can find out what it means, probably it won't actually be in official stories themselves...

I never heard anything really horrible about the Piraka. Some people thought the teeth were weird, but no one was negative. The only negatives of the Inika were masks, but they were changed. The only one this logic can apply to is Umbra -- but I, personally, did like the first image we saw. Like I said in the topic, I usually look for all the positives, but there are far too few in these Mahri. Oh, no, it was definately true of the Piraka and Inika too. And the Visorak, Hordika, Toa Metru. It's been this way for several years, because LEGO's been moving away from the tastes that you often see here and more towards the core fanbase. Of course, from what I've seen, BZP reaction the Barraki has been mostly positive, interestingly, kinda like it was with the Rahkshi.

For the record, that part may not be able to make it into any actualy story, if that's important for anyone's vote. Greg doesn't know what was meant by it, and the one person who apparently did, Bob Thompson, isn't with the company anymore.

No, no. I don't use my personal tastes to form any "LEGO should" opinions. That's not the point of this entry--it's simply to try to define my tastes here. This one is about my tastes. Again, read the first paragraph, it makes this clear. At the same time, though, I do seperately have the opinion that this basic taste is the majority taste--you and I have discussed that at length before, so hopefully you understand that. But don't misunderstand, not saying that I know for a fact this is how every "majority" Bionicle fan would define it. I can't really know that anyways. This is just me. Yes, Kraggh, that's because our tastes are different. As for Mantax, I meant the sweeping back, things, whatever the word is, at the back of his head. Before, I had thought his head was just this blocky thing, but with that pic, I see it's actually flattened, drawn out, with those two "tentacles" going off the back, which is more pleasing to me. Probably this may also have to do with me being able to accept more variety as pleasing, so I can see elegance in a Piraka where perhaps you can't (which is OK, don't misunderstand). That's why I made that poll on Set Variety, link in sig--I was curious if that was just me, and it seems it's not. Someone in the Sets forum recently called the 2001 Rahi and Toa "truly graceful", but in my tastes, that's the last word to apply. Yet for that person, it's the right word, and it's the word he "should" use, at least if that's how he meant it (although he -did- clarify wasn't the best word, I think... lol, but that's beside the point). Make sense? That is all a matter of taste, and it's definately OK for you to see it differently. Lemme see if I can make this clear--it's because words like this mean different things to different people that I need to try, somehow, to show people visually what I mean when I use it. Make sense? Not to say that [pompous]"this is the 'official' definition"[/pompous], but that it's what little old me happens to mean when I use the word. All three are defined best I know how to with the images above. If it helps, though, Kraggh, let me try to rephrase in one sentence, though it will be somewhat long: Because I know that tastes vary and because I know that they're all equal, I know that even though the kind of thing I like is intense and won't be liked by others, there's nothing wrong with it, just as there's nothing wrong with what they like, and I am therefore not afraid to enjoy what I like, and not hold back--the best word I know to describe the well-aligned curves and spikes and serrations/feathers/teeth/etc. is "elegant" but most people think of "elegant" as laid back, held back, "dainty" and whatnot--I say no--I'm not just gonna enjoy "Laid Back Elegance", I'm gonna go all out, really enjoy it, take it up a few levels, up more levels, to Ruthless Elegance! Does that help, lol? Boy, that went long. I'm saying, since I know there's nothing wrong with it, I'm not afraid to delve deeply into the "elegance" or "cool" or "coolified" or whatever the word to use, hence, "ruthless." And at the same time, I think everybody else is free to delve just as deeply into what they like too! If you like, as Ikki put it, "Technified Power" (I think that was the quote), then celebrate it! It's OK! Yes, but for clarity's sake, VK, I wouldn't use the word "opinion." I'd just say that it's my "taste" or my "preference." I use the word "opinion" for things like "LEGO should" opinions, which this is not. Less confusing that way, I think. That's... almost it, but I'm not saying it's good to be ruthless in a moral sense, lol. Second paragraph of entry talks about that, incidentally. I'm saying the elegance is good (for me) when it's ruthless; doesn't hold back. Not that the ruthlessness is good when it's elegant, XD. Although I suppose in the sense of enjoying the scariness of villains in an mere storyline, that's OK too. In that sense, I would agree with how you put it, yes. This is good analysis--this is thought provoking stuff here, heh. How I would say my view of the Mata/Nuva (in my tastes), is that they were "cool" to a degree, but they were holding back. They weren't quite "ruthlessly" elegant, as it were, make sense? Again, in my tastes. So basically I liked them, but not as much as an Inika or a Piraka, or a Barraki. Yes, when it comes to my actual opinion, I agree with that, but i want to be clear--I'm not saying that my tastes always coincide with the majority. For example, I love brown sets, as do a lot of my fellow BZPers, but most fans don't like them. Brown sells worst, which is why it was discontinued (mostly--Carapar is actually largely brown though, and not coincidentally he's the only Barraki I actually have so far *glares at thin wallet*). I also am not liking these Mahri launchers, and although guns are cool, I usually like swords better, so it's very possible the launchers might sell OK simply because they're guns, going against my tastes too. So please don't think I'm defining the "Official Bionicle Majority Taste" here or whatever, lol. It's just that usually, this general idea seems to be what most fans like. And heck, I'm not even happy with that, per se. I mean, for me, it's great. I'm getting sets I love. But at the same time, I do wish reality could work differently so that you guys (those with different tastes, such as "Technicism", like gears for you, Kraggh) could have sets you like better too. And if the tables were turned, and most fans shared your taste, not mine, I wouldn't mind, for myself, that much. It would be a bit dissapointing, but I'd be happy you guys could get what you like. And for a long time, before I found BZP and found out that things like Rahi hadn't sold as well as I'd assumed they did, I always thought the tables were turned, and I was in a minority, heh. And I was OK with that. In that sense, yes. That's what I'm saying. Of course, without examples, it's so hard to define. In fact, maybe the pictures alone can't do the job, heh, since there's a lot of confusion I'm getting in the comments, XD. But still, I think there's a part of this that has to resonate with someone who shares my tastes to really see it like I see it, since this is an entry about taste, not about logic. So don't feel bad that you don't see it that way, Kraggh. Nothing wrong with that. Glad to hear that. I had seen a better pose before on another site, BTW, which shall remain nameless here, but that did give me a better angle on it. That may be part of what's going on here. Time shall tell. Angle often affects initial opinion, heh. Yes--now to get closer to what I meant, though, this can apply to good guys too. They definately shouldn't be ruthless, of course. But they can be elegant. And I personally like it when they push that elegance to the extreme, being ruthless in that sense, not in behavior. (I say "they" but of course it's set designers only--so far in the story the Toa have never controlled their looks.) That's correct; that's what I meant as far as which word modifies what, lol. VK's point does stand for enjoying villains in a story as said above, and I hadn't thought of that. That is true too. But yes, to look at the tree, what I'm saying is it's elegant (to me), but it's beyond what most people think of with "elegant" because they are thinking "dainty" or "held back elegance." So it's "ruthless elegance." Oh, there's no such thing, IMO. This is why I said, in comments for the "Why I Do What I Do" entry, that logic and emotion must both be present, IMO. A "logical" definition of cool would mean nothing without emotion and taste to produce pleasure. A computer is logical, but it cannot understand a concept like "cool", just like it can't be happy or sad. The one way I could see there being such a thing is if all human beings universally responded the exact same way to each type of entertainment--that there was no such thing as varying taste and we were all the same. Frankly, I'm glad we're not because life would be boring that way, heh. No, it's definately a matter of taste. Remember, Kraggh, that "I like" statements are considered outside logic. I've made this crystal clear in the Debate Terms guide--this is why I keep asking people to read it so we can avoid this kind of misunderstanding, XD. I am a logician, yes, but as one, I understand that personal taste is outside logic (it's another term for "I like"). Therefore, there's no way to logically define "cool" for everybody. The best we can do is define what it means to each of us, individually. Hence this entry.... Anyways, hope this isn't too long. Edit: Just oooone last comment, which is totally going into too much depth, XD: For the record, I'm not "by nature" a logician... I had to learn that it's the best way to become one. I was as illogical as anyone else when I was a little chillun, XD. No offense to the little chilluns... I do consider myself lucky to have been given the right opportunities to see this. Ultimately I had to choose it, against my own ego and selfish nature. At the same time, i discovered that in another sense, it -is- my nature in that it seems best for humanity in general. After all, we have both emotions and the most advanced brains in nature--why not use the brains too? But yeah, getting deeeep here XD.

Just wondering, did you mean "disaprove"? Anyway, I meant that as a fact about the human mind and nothing outside of that. I think that it takes more than just looking at it your way, I think you have to ]i]want]/i] to look at it your way and truly feel it. I'm trying to keep this post short, as I usually get confuciong and end up making less sence when I make them long, unlike you do. By the way, what's the code for that Spock emote? Oh and your not him? Blast, there goes my theory . Lol. Well, Kraggh, that's a good point, and that's why I try so hard to help people see why it's desirable. Of course, I don't always do a great job of it, XD. But look at me--I'm a pretty happy guy, and it ain't 'cuz I'm well off or anything in ways people usually think of it. A lot of people go through life miserable, blaming their misery on outside bad luck and the like. Financially, my family ain't doing suh well, ya know, but I am not miserable--not to make a sob story, XD, but my point is, I really think this is a recipe for a better outlook on life. Really, I think it's how humans are supposed to be. Code for any image can be found, BTW, by right-clicking, clicking Properties. At least on PCs XD. Specific code for old Vulcy: http://www.majhost.com/gallery/bonesiii/Emot/iheartlogic2.gif And no, I meant "disprove." I mean, if you did think that there are no absolutes, I disagree, and I could easily show why I disagree, beyond a shadow of a doubt. In case you're curious, it's because that statement is an absolute--"There are no absolutes" contradicts itself. Heh. Disprove means to do the opposite of prove--to show that something cannot be true. Hope that helps...

That's okay, GMan. And glad I could clear that up, DV. Yeah, probably not worded the best... maybe I should edit that first paragraph?