Bones, when DV said that gaps in sets =/= gaps in pieces, he referred to pieces as in molds. The gaps in pieces (using the same definition) can be covered with other pieces. Some gaps shouldn't be covered, like pistons, because they give the set a robotic look. Notice how he didn't circle the leg pistons. I mean, look at C-3PO. He has gaps between the pistons on his arms, but you can't completely see through the robot, because the unacceptable gaps (like DV pointed out) aren't there (how many robots have a hole running straight down their leg?), and the acceptable ones (mainly gaps between pistons and the arm/leg) are.

Also, while I'm here, the definition of a fan is technically: an enthusiastic devotee, follower, or admirer of a sport, pastime, celebrity, etc.

The bolded part is where DV and many of the critics fall in to.

Have you noticed how many people like DV's creations? They give praise to many things the sets don't have. If you were to show it to the average Bionicle fan, they'd probably like it too.

My last point is this. Why are we being argued with for having a minority opinion. All opinions have a chance to became the majority opinions, so we shouldn't really be grounding them for life (as far as a toyline goes. As far as religion/politics/important matters go, that's a different story entirely). What if a bunch (thousands/millions) of MOCists decided to join Bionicle, then they wouldn't be a minority view.

Advocate, please read this part of my reply:

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.

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?

Also, while I'm here, the definition of a fan is technically: an enthusiastic devotee, follower, or admirer of a sport, pastime, celebrity, etc.

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.

Bones, when DV said that gaps in sets =/= gaps in pieces, he referred to pieces as in molds. The gaps in pieces (using the same definition) can be covered with other pieces.

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"?

Bones, if you're going to complain about my using my definitions as the ultimate truth, then I would ask for you to stop doing the same. I've seen time and time again you create definitions for words that suit your preference, and then use them, expecting all to agree with it as the most logical of definitions.

And here's your fallacy, in this.

Humans are not logical creatures. You can apply logic all you want. But unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your view), as much as we might wish it to, it doesn't always apply. Maybe it should. Maybe it shouldn't. But the truth of the matter is thus.

We are creatures of emotion, of relation, of communication, of habit. We are creatures that do not make logical sense.

And in my view, these far outweigh logic.

Often when people say they don't like something, they don't. There doesn't have to be a reason. And to argue logically that the reasons they do have are wrong, well, most people will look at you, say "good for you, I don't care, I still don't like it." And then where are you? You've just wasted parts of your life, and have not only accomplished nothing, but have probably made the other party even more dead-set against your premise. It's not logical. It doesn't make sense.

But it's reality. It's why Mr Spock makes a cool television character. Because he gets used as a foil to the Captain's emotions. It's why poor Mr Spock was most often in the wrong. It's why Jacen Solo's in the wrong in the Spock's sci-fi rival.

As for dropping the cynicism, I'm afraid it happens to be a part of the writing style I partake in. I also intended it more as a sarcastic remark than a cynical one. My point in that was the same as yours. That fans are not defined by their likes or dislikes in the sets, stories, etc, but by the fact that they're a fan. They admire it, or follow it, as Advocate posted. I ceased to admire the set design when I realized that most of the MOCing community has a one-up on TLG. And though we often use many more pieces than TLG does in their official sets, it's just as often as we don't. And the MOCs are still superior.

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?

As I have seen it, a Straw Man fallacy is used when a member of a debate/discussion purposely caricatures the opponent just to knock it down. I do not withdraw my charge, as I do not see it as an unfair characterization. Though you may say one thing, it seems often in your writings you belie those words. In Speech these phrases you like to throw in are often referred to (informally), as responsibility negators. They're pretty handy. It means I can throw in my opinion, tack a 'but that's just me' on the end, and not have to worry about the content of the message I'm actually sending. I don't take any real responsibility, because hey, that's just me.

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.

I call this a 'pot calling the kettle black'-ism. Learn it well, because I am now going to use it in every discussion I engage in, and hold it as absolute truth (). 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, it's doing the same thing you claim me to be doing. I can qualify it with a 'but this is my personal views, you don't have to listen to them if you disagree,' and then use it to combat those I disagree with, and be doing the same thing as you seem to do. Because in the end, all we have on-line is our perceptions.

I can see it now. DV's next blog entry: "Truthless elegance. Defining the uncool." ( )

Come on, DV, that's silly

Is it? I've seen even my own little brother buy sets he didn't like, just so he could have them all. Isn't that what collecting is about? It's the desire TLG wants to develop in their customers. That's what 'Collect them all!' means. I've seen numerous BZP members make the same statement. "I don't like it, but I'll buy it because I always buy all the sets." And those that make the opposite claim are usually the older fans, or just the older members. This is what I'm referring to. Fans who buy anything, because they're fans. It's what they do. It's what TLG wants them to do. It makes good business sense to them. It's smart.

I see you use the Rahi of 2001 as a banner for why 2001-esque designs don't work. You often claim they didn't sell well, and attribute that to the design not being appealing. I find that a bizarre leap of logic to make.

The Rahi were expensive. I know I wanted them. But I couldn't afford them, so I had to spend my money where I could afford to. On the Toa. The Turaga. The Bohrok. Etc. It's not that the design elements were unpleasing, it's that the price tag elements were unpleasing. If the Manas had been thirty dollars cheaper, you can bet I would have owned a set.

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.

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.

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.

It's not what I did, because it's not what I was focusing on.

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...

The 'same old thing' I was referring to is, again, set design. He again uses the same basic leg design 'Titans' have used for the past two years. A super-long thigh, often with a foot piece used as 'armour,' and a Rahkshi/Metru/etc lower leg piece as a (stunted) lower leg. Over-sized hand claws with wrists that don't move properly. A giant weapon. Metru/Vahki/Rahkshi/etc lower legs as the lower arms.

It's the same old pattern again and again. It's boring. I'm tired of it. It was alright in 2005. Ridiculous in 2006. Now it's just boring and old. I'm tired of it.

Gadunka. Fenrakk... O_o

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.

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.

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. That's how much we get per year now, at least. The story didn't need to revolve around these 'Titans' with their special plot devices to save the day back then, and the sets were better for it. We had Rahi, we had suits of armour, we had defensive vehicles. We had four-legged Dark Hunters, and we had variety.

Yes, if only for variety's sake. Also, for the sake of the poor lather-rinse-repeat storyline.

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.

Because you assumed from the get-go that in an entry with only three words, that this was me declaring this as the ultimate truth. Yes, this is my preference. This is what I've seen, as a MOCist, is bad. It's bad design, it's bad form. If you disagree, then here you are in the minority.

I realize 'Hey, this isn't a MOC.' But when the creations of your fans out-do those of your paid employees, often using the same amount of pieces, there's a problem. A disconnect.

Lol. That sounds like a fascinating conversation starter. Please explain.

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.

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?

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.

Saying "this is unacceptable" is going beyond that, though, don't you think?

Absolutely not. In fact, I am at a loss as to understand why you would think this beyond that. 'Unacceptable' means exactly that. It means as a fan, this is not only something I don't like, but it's something I draw the line at, and find therein no redeeming qualities. It's something that from a company I have given many paychecks (cumulative total) to, I will not accept. I don't see how that's beyond the lines you've drawn for fandom.

Same meaning though.

No, it's not. One is someone who follows, is devoted to, or admires a line. 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.

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.

To think that 2=3 is not logical, Bones.

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.

The gaps in the 2001 sets served a purpose. The ones in the Manas? Allowed the claws to move. The ones in Muaka and Kane-ra? Allowed the necks to extend and the mouths to close. They served a purpose, and were designed thusly.

These? They serve no purpose, as apparently functions are too hard for the fans we're pulling in today. My little brother was six when Bionicle began. He had not problem even then following the instructions and putting together these 'hard functions'.

But no, our present gaps serve no purpose. They don't allow the legs to move. They don't allow the arms to move. They're just there. That's unacceptable. The ones in 2001 weren't.

Secondly, if you worry about filling every gap, you've got to take pieces away from other parts of the set; limited budget

LEGO has shown consistently that there is quite a bit of leeway, part-number-wise, in the sets. In two $20 boxed sets, there could be a difference of fifty pieces. That's plenty of parts to get the job done right. I'd sacrifice that little Spinax trinket in a heartbeat if it meant that Maxilos got to be done in a way that was better than he is now.

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

Yet even in the most fantasy of fantasies, there still needs to be elements familiar to the one being told the story. Otherwise no one cares. For LEGO to ignore what people see as realistic is folly.

<<DV>>

Okay, Bones. Here's what I meant. Forgive me my minimalist speech.

Bionicle's getting great in terms of storyline. Greg's writing has surpassed any expectations I used to have for him. It's improved massively from the "collekt the pokemans/mascks!!1 lolzorz" storyline of the first year. Frankly it was quite annoying to have to buy all those mask packs.

But I bought them because as pathetically simple as the storyline was, it made sense. The masks looked cool, besides. It's probably just the minimalist in me, but I liked masks that had simple, elegant designs and only covered their faces, as opposed to that hulking monstrosity Hewkii holds up with his head in '07.

I've always thought the 2001 sets were the best. Technic- I love it. It's great. It's Erector for our generation. They gave us simple sets, and we built them, looked at them, played with them, then took them apart and went to our own creative devices.

Isn't that what LEGO's all about?

Creating?

Now we've got these hugely complicated sets. Great, cool, action figures, fine. Love it. Give some to the kids. But to build these thing's we gotta wade through an instruction book that looks like someone swapped a picture of a Titan for a Boeing manual cover.

Where's the creativity in spending your summer afternoon building some pre-designed result?

And what result? If it looks like what DV just pointed out, it isn't worth my 15 bucks. Or eight. Or four, darn it. If I'm going to pay for a connect the dots book, it sure as heck better give me a cool picture or I rip the darn thing up and fume over having wasted my time.

To quote Calvin, "From now on I connect the dots my own way."

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...

(thought I'd never get to say this, lol, he thought gleefully)

Actually, Bones, you're wrong.

I'm not an MOCist. Never have been. I do it when the fancy strikes me, but it's never been a passion, or even really a hobby of mine.

But that's what Lego is intended for, is creation. You're thinking of the sets as action figures, Bones. They're not. They're pieces. And Lego tells us how to put them together.

If we're going to spend all that time building a huge set, while following instructions that give us little to no sense of personal accomplishment, shouldn't the finished result at least be worth our while?

Not the monstrosities that we're looking at in the news?

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....

I liked the part where you said 'to each his own, of course,' and then proceeded to tell us why we shouldn't each have our own.

 

So:

 

1- Gaps in the pieces themselves =/= Construction gaps

2- That was 2001, and as people keep telling me, things aren't supposed to stay the same

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. But I'm tired of having not only my preference, but the preferences of many other members and fans out there belittled because it's potentially not the majority preference. We get it Bones. As long as it sells you'll keep buying it. Understood. And that's fine. You want to like wrinkly, busy, over-simplified set designs, go ahead. While you're at it, pick up some new MEGABLOCKS sets. Can't hardly tell them apart from Bionicle nowadays.

4-What it boils down to here, is that it's 2007. Maxilos is not only the same old thing we've seen for the past two years now, but is a step down in overall design. He's pretty much a solid poster-boy for what's wrong with design nowadays. He's gappy, he's busy, he's got the same old designs all over the place that we've been seeing for years now. He's unoriginal. And dear LEGO: please, for the love of something greater than ourselves, STOP GIVING US HUMANOID 'TITANS'. Let's try something new.

 

If there's one thing I have a right to criticize as a MOCist, it's actual set design. Design is what I do. Critiquing designs is what I do. This isn't a preference, it's laziness. Sure, many fans'll buy him. Why? For the same reason fans keep buying. Because they're fans. It's what they do.

 

Yeah, I miss the 'old days'. I miss a story that makes sense, and doesn't sound forced from a DC comic book. I miss characters actually being unique and individual. I miss smooth textured toa sets. I miss masks. I miss the noble bearing of toa. I miss simple and awesome masks. I miss having sets that were unique.

 

I miss having sets that were unique. Bahrag, Exo-Toa, Boxor, Rahi, Gukko bird, Ussal Crab, etc. Those were all things we got as boxed sets back in the day. Nowadays? One set with an 'animal' on a chain. Check. Two humanoid 'Titans' to offer special plot device to save the day. Check. Woohoo. Call me when we get something new again.

 

<<DV>>

Although I agree with the fact that humanoid Bionicles are getting old (or, atleast they have been for the last 2 years), I do think that Lego is not at fault here. Ok, they missed a few gaps. They can't fix it without making new moulds, destroying the humanoid aspect of Bionicle, or making the price go up a dollar or two to pay for the moulds and plastic. Generally speaking, Lego can't help those gaps. They don't want complex fillers for them, because that could stop some people from buying them.

However, I agree with your points. The unique Toa and Barraki are here now, but what about Titans? Are we going to keep alternating between unique canister sets and unique Titans? I hope not, because I am not going to be buying $60-$70 of sets that look almost completely the same. The ONLY reason I would buy even one is for pieces.

Oh, I hope Lego makes unique Titans as well, or the world is doomed.

-Deep-Freeze

Too.......much....grey........

Too.......much....grey........

Most of it is gunmetal...

Actually, it looks like he only has 7 gunmetal pieces. 7. But those MoLis look lovely in gunmetal...

Too.......much....grey........

Most of it is gunmetal...

Actually, many robots are metallic in color, so I don't see anything very wrong with that...

Well, I don't really care about the Titans, since I prefer the canister sets. I agree with almost everything bonesiii says, though . I detested the Rahi from day one, and prefer the recent type of titans. But that's all my personal tastes.

EDIT: Oh, and to be clear, I prefer the sets Lego releases to MoCs . I haven't seen a single MoC I'd ever spend money on, save the Fikou Stocking Spider . Again, just my own tastes.

... Can't we all just get along?

I agree with most of you too, Max isn't that appealing to me either but so what? Just because I don't like it doesn't mean that I try to impose my will of dissatisfaction on others.

Gaps=Bad, big deal, these "sets" are targeted towards the demographics of young, American boys, not older kids and adults. What may look like trash to us may look like gold to them. I see things from your point of view and free speech is a highly valued thing but honestly, do we have to make such a big deal out of this?

... Can't we all just get along?

 

I agree with most of you too, Max isn't that appealing to me either but so what? Just because I don't like it doesn't mean that I try to impose my will of dissatisfaction on others.

 

Gaps=Bad, big deal, these "sets" are targeted towards the demographics of young, American boys, not older kids and adults. What may look like trash to us may look like gold to them. I see things from your point of view and free speech is a highly valued thing but honestly, do we have to make such a big deal out of this?

Nah, we have no lives so we have to find something to do.

I love debates like this. Bonesii, could you poke your head in the "Why Does Everyone Hate Jaller Inika's Mask" topic? Upon reading this, I worry that some of my posts may have been unfairly biased, despite the great amount of effort I put into preventing such a thing from happening.

Anyway, I fail to see how many of these arguments correlate. Some people claim to be 2001ists, some to dislike 2001-styled sets at this stage, and some to prefer MOCs to sets in general. As I said in another blog recently, this doesn't make anyone a bad fan, nor is it the sole factor in determining one's opinion.

I am still unsure of my standing in the Bionicle community. I have likes and dislikes as well, but I buy pretty much every new BIONICLE set I see. It is not because I am giving in to an obsession; it is because, like I have pointed out in the aforementioned topic, I can never tell exactly how good a set is based on pictures. You (or at least I) have to own it, to examine the MOCability of all of its pieces (because, as has been pointed out, BIONICLE is a creative building toy as well as a line of action figures), and to put your normal notions of what makes BIONICLE what it is so that you can determine whether this is a good set. After that, you can proceed to determine whether it stands up to comparison with previous sets.

I look down on people who will refuse to give any set or line of sets a chance, particularly those who judge based on pictures alone. To think that there are still people who refuse to buy any of the Inika, or worse, the Piraka! To quote a poem that adequately describes the situation:

"So oft in theologic wars, disputants, ere I ween,

Rail on in utter ignorance of what each other mean,

And prate about an elephant not one of them has seen!"

Just remember that BIONICLE isn't just what it was in '01, '03, or whatever year you prefer. BIONICLE is the movies, the books, and the sets, good or bad. BIONICLE is the Toa Hordika, the Toa Inika, the Toa Mata, the Voya Nui Matoran, the Toa Nuva, and anything else we may or may not like. To say that a set is not true BIONICLE, or that a member with different preferences is not a true BIONICLE fan is a serious offense, as is putting those words into another's mouth. Like Star Wars or any other long-standing fan outlet, as time goes on, people will express dissent over the changes that time impels, but we have to accept that change happens, and give ourselves at least a chance to change alongside the things we hold dear.

With all due respect,

Aanchir: Rachira of Time

He was still a good set, right?

No, no he wasn't. He was too tall, and his hands upset me.

And yes, I bought him for the gold. I am a MOCist after all.

<<DV>>

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

Bones, if you're going to complain about my using my definitions as the ultimate truth, then I would ask for you to stop doing the same. I've seen time and time again you create definitions for words that suit your preference, and then use them, expecting all to agree with it as the most logical of definitions.

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

Humans are not logical creatures. You can apply logic all you want. But unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your view), as much as we might wish it to, it doesn't always apply. Maybe it should. Maybe it shouldn't.

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."

We are creatures of emotion, of relation, of communication, of habit. We are creatures that do not make logical sense. And in my view, these far outweigh logic.

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

That fans are not defined by their likes or dislikes in the sets, stories, etc, but by the fact that they're a fan. They admire it,

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...

or follow it, as Advocate posted. I ceased to admire the set design when I realized that most of the MOCing community has a one-up on TLG... And the MOCs are still superior.

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?

Though you may say one thing, it seems often in your writings you belie those words.

Any such confusing wording is simply a product of me being in a hurry. This is precisely why I keep urging you to read the debate terms guide, since that one has been proofread over and over to ensure that it's worded correctly as to what I mean. Got real world deadlines, guys. I don't like it also. :-P You can use this "belie" argument all you want but it will never work, because I am being consistent.

 

This issue is dealt with in this latest blog entry:

 

Bones Blog: Can Opinions Be Wrong?

 

 

 

"They're pretty handy. It means I can throw in my opinion, tack a 'but that's just me'"

Actually, that's what you should do, in debate. Although I would word it more like "to me" or "personally" as most people do; this makes it clear you're talking about your tastes. The "but that's just me" can also refer to "should opinions" (matters of logic), and it's used to emphasize that it is simply your own opinion, and you're not sure if it's necessarily the best one. Don't think this is a bad debate tactic--it's vital because it communicates your intent. If you leave these out, it sends the signal that you're pretty sure about the opinion, and that it is definately not just your tastes talking. But it seems that isn't how you mean this, so I would advise using "to me" markers.

 

However, if you think that when you say "but that's just my opinion" you are retracting responsibility to consider changing it if it can be shown to be wrong, well, you're wrong. :-P

 

 

 

 

 

"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."

I call this a 'pot calling the kettle black'-ism.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see you use the Rahi of 2001 as a banner for why 2001-esque designs don't work. You often claim they didn't sell well, and attribute that to the design not being appealing. I find that a bizarre leap of logic to make.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because you assumed from the get-go that in an entry with only three words, that this was me declaring this as the ultimate truth. Yes, this is my preference. This is what I've seen, as a MOCist, is bad. It's bad design, it's bad form. If you disagree, then here you are in the minority.

 

I realize 'Hey, this isn't a MOC.' But when the creations of your fans out-do those of your paid employees, often using the same amount of pieces, there's a problem. A disconnect.

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.

 

 

Bones, does he really need to add "IMO" or "that's just me", etc, when it's his blog and he wrote it? A blog is where he writes what he is thinking and feels, so naturally, it's in his opinion.

BLOG: a shared on-line journal where people can post diary entries about their personal experiences and hobbies.

Too many quote tags. Apologies for the harder-than-usual read.

Humans are not logical creatures. You can apply logic all you want. But unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your view), as much as we might wish it to, it doesn't always apply. Maybe it should. Maybe it shouldn't.

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.

Of course it is. Everything's all nice and defined in your blog/topics. But I don't think you understand where I was coming from here. The problem with using logic only is that the human brain doesn't run solely on logic. And to limit your arguments to only 'logical' ones, is illogical. The best debaters and discussion people are those who mix their arguments with solid logic, and emotional connectivity.

or follow it, as Advocate posted. I ceased to admire the set design when I realized that most of the MOCing community has a one-up on TLG... And the MOCs are still superior.

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".

Bones, I think you're the only one who confuses these declarations as ultimatums. [see Advocate's post above]

Though you may say one thing, it seems often in your writings you belie those words.

Any such confusing wording is simply a product of me being in a hurry. This is precisely why I keep urging you to read the debate terms guide, since that one has been proofread over and over to ensure that it's worded correctly as to what I mean. Got real world deadlines, guys. I don't like it also. :-P You can use this "belie" argument all you want but it will never work, because I am being consistent.

I read the debate terms when you wrote them. I agree you're being consistent- consistently hypocritical.

 

"They're pretty handy. It means I can throw in my opinion, tack a 'but that's just me'"

Actually, that's what you should do, in debate. Although I would word it more like "to me" or "personally" as most people do; this makes it clear you're talking about your tastes. The "but that's just me" can also refer to "should opinions" (matters of logic), and it's used to emphasize that it is simply your own opinion, and you're not sure if it's necessarily the best one. Don't think this is a bad debate tactic--it's vital because it communicates your intent. If you leave these out, it sends the signal that you're pretty sure about the opinion, and that it is definately not just your tastes talking. But it seems that isn't how you mean this, so I would advise using "to me" markers.

"Bones, I think you're freakin' stupid, but that's just me." (humor me, this is an example, not a real insult)

 

How would that read? The last part is me belying any responsibility for the meaning behind the first half. It's like saying 'hey, I'm going to insult you, then try to make up for it by making sure you know, 'hey, it's just me''.

 

"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."

I call this a 'pot calling the kettle black'-ism.

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.

It's true.

 

Notice that that avoids the key question--are you guilty of that mistake?

Perhaps. We're all usually guilty of the worst flaw we see in others.

 

"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.

Do you read your own replies to topics? Terms like 'ruthless elegance', 'cool', etc.. You define them, then use them and expect all to agree with them. That's what I take issue with. Whether this happens purposely or not, I don't know.

 

I see you use the Rahi of 2001 as a banner for why 2001-esque designs don't work. You often claim they didn't sell well, and attribute that to the design not being appealing. I find that a bizarre leap of logic to make.

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.

There are always many different factors to take into consideration as to why something didn't sell. I've been around here a long time, and though I see comments made that refer to BZP complaints against 'Technicism', I don't remember any of them. I would be glad to take it back if a topic could be found stating otherwise.

 

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.

Compared to what? Other Bionicle sets in that price bracket? Other Technic sets in that bracket? What do you compare the 2001 Rahi to? It's easy to compare the later years to the first ones, but what do you compare the first ones to?

 

"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.

Again, most of the gaps in sets back then had functional uses. The ones in the M&KR sets? Allowed the neck to extend and the mouths to close. Etc and so on. Also, they were fine back then, sets back then were Technic, that was to be expected. Ones now aren't, and they lack the functionality of older sets. The excuse is gone.

 

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.

I don't see how. It shows a trend directly against what I'm asking for.

 

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.

The point is we didn't need them back then. We had real characters. With real characterization. We didn't need 'Titans'. It was cool in '05. It was boring in '06. It's annoying in '07.

 

Because you assumed from the get-go that in an entry with only three words, that this was me declaring this as the ultimate truth. Yes, this is my preference. This is what I've seen, as a MOCist, is bad. It's bad design, it's bad form. If you disagree, then here you are in the minority.

 

I realize 'Hey, this isn't a MOC.' But when the creations of your fans out-do those of your paid employees, often using the same amount of pieces, there's a problem. A disconnect.

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?

I was calling those who think those design aspects in MOCs as acceptable as being the minority. Ambiguous wording, apologies.

 

'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.

I fail to see how. What I said was that 'unacceptable' means that it's not only something I don't like, it's something I draw the line at, and will not accept. I don't see a single definition up there that doesn't work with that.

 

 

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.

I'm not defining myself as 'not a fan'. You did that. I was disputing your definition.

 

<<DV>>

Bones, does he really need to add "IMO" or "that's just me", etc, when it's his blog and he wrote it? A blog is where he writes what he is thinking and feels, so naturally, it's in his opinion.

Speaking as an award-winning rhetorical writer:

No, he does not have to say that, anywhere. Saying "in my opinion" is redundant and useless. If he is saying something, the statement obviously expresses his opinion unless he specifically states that it does not. That is a minor formality of proper writing.

This statement was made with impartiality, by the way, so nobody should become upset.

I did not say he should say "IMO", I said "IMT", lol. As in, "in my tastes." I stated off the bat that it's great to put your tastes in your blog--it's also great to put your opinions in your blog. That doesn't exempt opinions (rather than tastes) from being debated. Advocate--see my latest blog entry, link in sig, for what I'm talking about. It was clear this was his opinion, but not clear originally if he meant it only as his tastes. He's cleared that up (that he did mean just his tastes), so that issue is dealt with.

Also, nobody ever said anything like "must" or "need". What I said was DV should consider using those "marker" phrases because they make your intent clearer. The point is, if he had said something like "IMT" to begin with, there would be no cause for confusion. As to the idea that it isn't helpful to add them, I don't buy that--I added the IMT idea to my Ruthless Elegance blog entry, and yet somehow DV is still objecting to me posting that, lol. But since I made it clear, I can point back to the IMT to prove that I made it clear.

The idea being, it's wisest to make it clear when you are talking about your tastes. "Personally" or "To me" usually do it. Not hard to do, lol.

Usually, when talking opinions, no, you don't really need the IMO marker, but it's considered polite on the Internet to do so anyways, as it usually stomps flames out before they start. It's his choice, certainly, but that doesn't mean one choice isn't better than another...

Now, look, I do wanna make something clear. I do this purely to prevent misunderstandings that I've seen in the past that lead to flame wars. It's difficult to communicate the idea--that is why you see replies after my comments like Advocates, or Gman's thinking that I actually meant to put down others' tastes. In fact, the goal is to get others to see that putting down tastes is wrong, to avoid flame wars. Yes, I get plenty of flak for my attempts. Yes, it's frustrating as all get out, especially when they seem to cross a line, as (IMO) DV's accusation has.

However, usually, my attempts have had considerable success at helping avoid flame wars, and it's because of my efforts that many debate topics that in the past would automatically get closed due to almost instant flame have managed to stay open. Open for people to complain. (Obviously, the idea that, thus, I'm somehow trying to stifle complaints is nonsense. I'm trying to defend them, XD. However, of course, at the same time, challenge complainers to think before they speak as well. Challenge both sides to do that.)

Therefore, I'ma gonna keep doing it. I think complaining is important, and without people like me to "moderate" debate, they almost always degenerate into flame. We don't want that.

(You can see why it is frustrating--so often I get flak from complainers, because of my attempts to defend their right to complain! But hey, it happens. Life is confusing, by nature. I don't hold grudges, so I can take it.)

DV, at this point, it seems like you're going to refuse to admit you're wrong about the hypocrisy accusation, so I see no point in further refuting it, beyond the total debunking of it posted here. It saddens me that you've chosen to go down this route, and it seems that nothing I try has saved you from it. At this point I'm going to leave that up to the blog staff. Please know that I do not bear any ill feelings about it, and that I respect you as a person in many other ways. It saddens me that it seems we cannot seem to carry out "truth seeking debate" as a debate between friends on this one. So seems it's better simply to end it--my points speak for themselves so I don't need to keep repeating them.

On the things you conceded, I thank you. Some other things:

As to the idea that I'm the only one confused by this (I wasn't confused by it, actually), that statement simply seems to show ignorance of past debate/complaint topics. I say it specifically because so many have gotten worked up when people don't make it clear.

About my "fan" definition, the definition is just a rewording of the dictionary definitions, DV. To say the same thing, except in laymen's terms. Many dictionary definitions use language that often confusing at first glance, and misunderstood (as your reply shows!), so I was attempting to say it in a way that is clearer. Obviously, it didn't work for you.

What you did is redefine my definition to make it look like I was saying the opposite of what I was saying. That is not a valid argument. Again, with my definition, it is up to the person to decide what "overall" means to them. You explained why you still consider yourself a fan--that is "overall" to you. Thus, by my definition, you are a fan (according to what you said).

About characterization in 2001 being better--that's fine for your preferences. Others see it differently--since the 2001 characters were "comic book" personalities with not much depth, many preferred that Bionicle move more towards 3D characters (and this has been reflected in fanfic a lot too, in my experience; people adding depth to the Toa's characters, and I do this in my own fanfics in fact). Personally I didn't mind either one in the comics in 2001, compared to 2006 & 2007 comics, but I felt the first few Chronicles book series seriously lacked character depth, and the 2002-2003 comics repeated the same ideas over and over. Anyways... I disgress, lol; that is, of course, IMT.

I enjoy the way we're having this conversation in like, two different arenas. Here, and in that poll. And as such, please see my latest reply there.

Therefore, I'ma gonna keep doing it. wink.gif I think complaining is important, and without people like me to "moderate" debate, they almost always degenerate into flame. We don't want that.

Go for it. I in no way desired your retirement from such an undertaking. More than anything, I wanted you to watch what you say, or maybe just how you say it, as I know I'm not the only one who gets this perception of you. And I don't want you to come across that way. Because while you may come off one way (as I'm sure you've noticed I noted, lol), I don't believe it's your intent.

t saddens me that it seems we cannot seem to carry out "truth seeking debate" as a debate between friends on this one.

But I wanna be friends...

(Again, just because sarcasm on the Internet is ambiguous, so far nothing said has been sarcastic or non-serious, though that last comment was rather humour-intended)

As to the idea that I'm the only one confused by this (I wasn't confused by it, actually), that statement simply seems to show ignorance of past debate/complaint topics. I say it specifically because so many have gotten worked up when people don't make it clear.

Again, that's how it seemed.

About my "fan" definition, the definition is just a rewording of the dictionary definitions, DV. To say the same thing, except in laymen's terms. Many dictionary definitions use language that often confusing at first glance, and misunderstood (as your reply shows!), so I was attempting to say it in a way that is clearer. Obviously, it didn't work for you.

What you did is redefine my definition to make it look like I was saying the opposite of what I was saying. That is not a valid argument. Again, with my definition, it is up to the person to decide what "overall" means to them. You explained why you still consider yourself a fan--that is "overall" to you. Thus, by my definition, you are a fan (according to what you said).

With this, I really don't see that. I still read your definition as requiring positivity towards something being 'fanned' upon. It just doesn't seem like a rewording of the dictionary definition. Not even a paraphrase. Maybe it's the word choice. I don't know.

About characterization in 2001 being better--that's fine for your preferences. Others see it differently--since the 2001 characters were "comic book" personalities with not much depth, many preferred that Bionicle move more towards 3D characters

Wow. I definitely think the reverse is true. The 2001 characters were 3D, and the newer ones have all been 'comic book' personalities. Especially the cookie-cutter, bland Inika (yes, I have read the books). It seems to me that the characters established in '01 had depth, personality, and true flaws and ideas that made them realistic. Characters since then have just been a rehash of the same ideas over and over.

At this point I'm going to leave that up to the blog staff. Please know that I do not bear any ill feelings about it, and that I respect you as a person in many other ways

Aww, I wub you too!

(And it ends without a single usage of sarcasm!)

(That last parenthesis was not sarcastic.)

(Neither was that one. Or this one.)

<<DV>>

Wow. I definitely think the reverse is true. The 2001 characters were 3D, and the newer ones have all been 'comic book' personalities. Especially the cookie-cutter, bland Inika (yes, I have read the books). It seems to me that the characters established in '01 had depth, personality, and true flaws and ideas that made them realistic. Characters since then have just been a rehash of the same ideas over and over.

That is one of my main gripes about the modern story. It wouldn't have been as bad if they were completely new characters, but the Inika are six of the Matoran we know and love from MNOLG and the Templar animations. Giving them bland Power Ranger personalities is like destroying six great characters.