bonesiii

True, it was abrupt. But then, everything about you-know-who was always abrupt.

Not sure I see your point though -- this year is called "Final Battle," also Icarax seems to beat up anybody his eyes register, so I don't see why it would matter whether he knew who you-know-who was affiliated with. The BoM is launching an attack on Karda Nui, and big plans seem to be coming to fruition, not to mention the whole incident with Mata Nui's life -- whether you want to call it a "war" at this stage or not, the BoM knows full well about what they're doing. They're the agressors here, not the OoMN or Toa or whonot. I don't see how my point is moot. And even if it was, who says war is the only realistic cause of death? We have senseless violence everyday in our cities all over the globe, war or not. It would make sense even for this to happen in Bionicle, at least when you have villains like Icarax (or the Piraka, etc.).

I've edited out all references to which character just died -- we might be establishing a specific spoiler policy about this and it's probably too soon. Also, again, let's not discuss the worst details of what happened -- that's been edited out too. Well, it's a war -- in wars, people die sometimes. I don't see that as shock tactics -- I see that as being realistic. There's a key difference there. I agree -- and the story serials are usually a lot more fast-paced than books; they're more like comics without graphics. So there really isn't time to do that in the serials, especially not for a side character as opposed to one of the main canister sets of the year, which is what Matoro was. It's there. You might need a brighter screen to see it, lol. Think "LOST". Yes, I agree with that too. But I'm saying, this is why. In case it wasn't clear -- people with the first perspective can, of course, make that mistake too (of overdoing their judgement as you put it).

Today I had planned to post about the Matoro death flame war that seems to be getting worse rather than dying down. With the death of another character in the latest serial chapter, the issue spreading to this, and the new Character Death Policy, this will be a little more general, starting with the reasons the policy was made. Bold is for important points, not emotionalism. Why I'll ask that we don't discuss the details of what happened -- that is just going to make things worse. But suffice it to say, many people on both "sides" would do well to read my "Friends Can Disagree" entry below. It used to be that we took character deaths in perspective -- as an element of fiction. When Lhikan died, I don't recall there being anything remotely like a flame war. Occasionally there would be a question topic or even a complaint, which we would answer with the obvious -- to keep up suspense in fiction, you do need to actually have bad things happen sometimes. Besides, Lhikan has gotten more story time since his death than the vast majority of characters that lived. But those complaints were usually reasonable, and even if someone did go overboard, they didn't form "sides" and start fighting. It seems that a lot of us have lost the ability now. Now, I understand why this happened -- Matoro was a popular character, and also one of the originals, so I've seen emotions on both sides turn this into a flaming trigger, and death is a difficult thing for us to come to terms with, sometimes even in fiction. Someone I know has come to tears before from a character death, and I can understand it. I can understand being disturbed at this, and I can even understand it when people go overboard. Plus this seems to have been mixed with our love of inventing fads. But what we don't need is people forming sides that attack each other or post "isn't that side nuts?" topics, making fun of people, etc. These have continued, and I have seen trolling and even direct insults posted by people who've been here long enough to know better. (Again, please do not discuss who or where; that is between them and staff.) It's for this reason that the policy was made. Now, I don't want anyone to misunderstand -- topics discussing character deaths reasonably are still allowed, in S&T where they belong. The policy is purposefully not super-strict, so I don't want anyone thinking this discussion is banned. Nor are memorial banners banned, etc. as long as they don't go to extremes. Perspective Clash I think this happened because there are basically three different philosophies out there about fictional death. 1) That it's an element of fiction like any other, intended to be taken seriously within the fictional context. IMO this is the only reasonable perspective. Character death can be serious -- as an author myself, I always write with a serious point behind my works, even my comedies, and I hope that in addition to being entertained, the audience will grasp the serious theme, and hopefully I'll even be able to help them cope with serious issues in real life through this. To do that you do have to allow yourself the chance to feel the emotions of the event as much as you do the thrill of action, but keep it in perspective. For example, the point of Matoro's death was that sometimes heroes willingly sacrifice their own lives so that others' lives will be safe, and that though this is very hard to come to terms with, such sacrifice deserves our utmost respect in real life. It's the ultimate form of honor. However, Matoro was still just a fictional character, so we should keep that in perspective. In fact, keeping it in perspective is very helpful for understanding the point the author is making. 2) That it's just the author trying to get rid of a character -- the "killed off" psychological shield I talked about in this past blog entry. This has been taken waaaaay overboard in 'net culture. I can understand it to a small degree in a TV show with actors who want out -- but Matoro, Lhikan, etc. aren't that. There's no excuse to pretend this was why Matoro died, IMO. (And like I said, some dead characters get more focus afterward than living characters, like Lhikan compared to, say, Nuhrii.) Not to say that this shield isn't understandable -- people don't like to face death emotionally, in fiction or real life. But this perspective, sadly, blocks out any hope of the author helping readers cope, through the device of fiction, with real death. Especially when people instantly shout to everybody who hasn't read the book yet "Oh My Gadunka, Dumbledore Dyes!11!1!" Spoiling the event ruins it for others, so you inflict your own inability to cope on others. That can get serious fast. (Or make "RIP Matoro banners five seconds after they get the comic, a point that I forgot for the policy and am working on now. ) 3) That the character is as real as real people emotionally but inside a "safe" world of fiction, thus killing them is almost like murder. I don't think people in this category consciously think the author is a murderer, don't get me wrong. But this is behind a lot of the sigs and posts that got out of hand, and especially behind some "protest" petitions. The idea is that people who hold to this perspective actually think the author did something wrong by writing the character's death into the story. I will admit that if anyone did this when a character died in the Bionicle Paracosmos (as some will), part of me would be a little pleased, selfishly, because it shows I got through to them enough that they don't brush aside my underlying theme with "killed off ell oh ellz!!1!1." However, it would also be disappointing because they're coming at me and telling me I did something wrong, instead of seeing the point I was making. They probably wouldn't even realize my reaction is to barely even register their anger but to instead measure them. There is one valid point these members have -- this isn't real life and so yes, it's possible, on paper at least if you'll pardon the awkward cliche-usage, to write a fictional world where good guys cannot die. But in reality, this just ruins suspense, taking away the thrill of the adventure/action scenes because you know they won't die -- and that thrill is a huge part of the whole point of adventure mystery. So sometimes, you do need to have characters die. But, obviously it has to be realistic if you want to create the right impact of it, otherwise it would just feel like shock tactics. (That might be done a lot in other fiction, especially TV, but IMO it has never been done in Bionicle; it's been to keep up suspense.) And what readers who have never written serious fiction (even for entertainment) often don't understand is this -- stories often write themselves. For example, in at least one story I have written in the Paracosmos, I hadn't planned for a character to die, but as events unfolded, the characters and events forced me into a situation where I realized a death was unavoidable. And so it happened. This is true of almost all of a storyline, not just death -- for another example, I also had a situation where according to my outline, the good guys would fail (but not fatally) in a conflict, but as I wrote it, the characters outwitted me (outwitted the bad guys, that is ), and they actually won. It threw my planning for the next few chapters into chaos and I had to spend another day re-working the outline. (And I could list a plethora of examples, including one that messed up some of my future plans for other epics -- although the end result of those plans is cooler.) Chances are slim that anyone would object to this happening -- yet the same machine is driving it. To be consistent, readers should apply this fact to death as well. When you have characters defined well, and you have used your imagination to come up with the starting scenario and background substance enough, all an author really needs to do is spend time writing and thinking logically about what would happen. The rest falls into place, sometimes so unexpectedly that the author can be as ignorant of where it's going as the readers. When it comes to death, you have to understand that to authors like me at least, when you come to a situation that demands a death, putting in a copout survival mechanism out of the blue feels like a profound slap in the face, even a betrayal of a code of honor. Sometimes, death writes itself. Besides, the fact that it's fiction argues against the idea of getting too emotionally invested it in. So. Most of the time, when a character dies, people don't talk calmly and intelligently about their different perspectives, as they might with other issues. I think it's just the deep seriousness of the theme that causes this. People get touchy about it, and tempers flare more easily -- so that anyone who has a different perspective must be stupid and whatever your perspective is must be obviously right, so you aren't willing to discuss it. Add a little jalapeno, and voila, your flame war is ready to broil. What's shameful about this, especially when one side starts making fun of the other, is that it actually accomplishes the opposite of what both sides usually intend -- trying to treat death seriously in real life. The attacks become more important, and personally I get an almost ghoulish vibe from the way it seems to get turned into a game sometimes. That is disturbingly similar to a lot of the "Forums Gone Bad" situtations I described here, and it happened in a matter of months. Both of the perspectives I described as unreasonable are, nevertheless, understandable. I can understand seeing them as forms of immaturity -- but when you act as mature as a two-month old in response you just shoot yourself in the foot. When you see someone putting up some kind of a psychological shield like that, don't insult them. That just makes them hold the shield up higher and harms BZPower as a community. Even though it's fiction, when you mistreat the event on a forum, you are making it serious, no matter which "side" you're on. Try to be understanding instead. Discuss Intelligently So basically there it is. Discuss intelligently, instead of "clashing" as described above. Yes, you might be profoundly disturbed by something someone did, and yes, maybe they went overboard. But privately discuss reactions you object to with staff members, and otherwise, you can intelligently talk about different perspectives, in topics in S&T, in this blog entry's comments, perhaps via PM as long as you are polite. Even with the subject of death, it's not worth fighting over.

If there was any issue with your topic, it was that you didn't allow for much spoiler time, which I actually forgot about when I posted the topic, so no. That will be up to Artwork staff to sort out. (And I found your topic funny.) There was some reaction to your topic that falls under what this says, but most of this is other stuff before that.

What gets me is when I disagree with someone's opinion, clearly show why, and they just answer "this is my opinion." XD Occasionally I feel like replying "and this is mine; what's your point?", but I don't. In an ideal world, that would be the case. But since we don't live in one, I can understand why people want to say that, just so it's crystal clear. Personally, I always include the IMO acronym when I'm saying something people might think I think is fact. So I never need to say it.

You don't have to move to another folder to archive -- just select the folder they're in, etc. I don't see what the problem would be?

(Most important points are bold.) If there was ever a "title says it" moment for blogs, this is it. But as simple as the statement "friends can disagree" is, it is shocking how profound and almost universally unknown it is to so many people. Whether on BZP or real life, people often start avoiding each other when they find out they like different things, or don't see eye to eye on things. This is wrong. Now maybe there are situations where this is all you can do. Being friends, even in the face of disagreements, is two choices. The choice of the one person, and the choice of the other. In the case of a community like BZPower, it's the choice of hundreds to thousands of different people. Sometimes you can do your best to be friendly even while disagreeing, but the other person just doesn't chip in. As as staff member especially, I know that this happens. However. Vast majority of the time, in my experience, the other person is being antagonistic mainly with a "you first" attitude. Meaning, they want you to demonstrate to them first that you are friendly, and then they know it's okay to be friendly with them. Until you do so, they assume you to be a possible enemy. Most flame wars start because all sides have a "you first" attitude, and since none of them, thusly, go first, they just escalate antagonism until it gets out of control. Here, we deal with that with punishment where needed. On some less quality forums out there, the sides get entrenched and often bring down the forum. In real life, it can lead to violence, or in less extreme, everyday situations, yelling matches, pointless damage to property, even breaking up relationships. Equals bad. As Dokuma put it in his excellent topic, "Voicing Opinions and Responding Intelligently": How To Disagree Intelligently: I think the best way to do this is to have a "possibilities attitude." By that I mean a positive attitude, and being thoughtful and fair rather than antagonistic. Always consider other possibilties besides just what you happen to already think, or what others happen to be telling you. This way it's much easier to see the other person as a friend, because you're not staking anything on selfish pride. When it comes to thought, I often talk about the 3 Pillars of Truth: 1) An open mind. If you don't have this, there's really no point in talking, because discussion requires it. 2) Logic. Emotion has its place too, but this can help you avoid being judgemental for wrong reasons, and other problems. 3) All-inclusive research. This requires actual work and most of us don't have time for it. Probably the hardest part; if you don't have time for it, it's usually best to keep your opinions limited to what you personally like or dislike, not what you think LEGO should do. There's a fourth part to this that's maybe even more important: 4) A positive attitude. Many people think there's a "glass half full/empty" situation, where you're either an "optimist" or a "pessimist." This is misguided. Optimism is healthier (it's been shown they live longer), but it implies a naive foolishness that actually thinks everything will be peachy -- and true optimists tend to end up getting disappointed and become the infamous "disillusioned", basically going to the opposite extreme and being pessimists. Pessimism is even worse, because even when a situation is almost totally positive, they obsess over the inevitable downside and let it rule them, making them miserable. Also as I say often, cynicism is really just the ultimate form of naivete -- just feed a cynic bad news and he'll sell his soul to you -- this is a common method of controlling others by manipulative types. But a "realist", which is what I describe myself as, is someone who brings a healthy, positive attitude to any situation, realizing that this world is just, plain and simple, messed up, and getting over it. Realists, unlike pessimists, know how to maintain emotional stability even in the face of bad news. Realists, unlike pessimists, do not ignore the good side of things; they embrace it. Realists also do not pretend that bad things will never happen; they expect them, but they don't think things will always be bad either. Poison or Medicine? This isn't just pie-in-the-sky philosophy. Your emotions are chemicals. When you let negative emotions rule you, you flood your body with harmful chemicals. Basically, you poison yourself with your own venom. And don't think a "I can take it" attitude is enough -- I've met people who think that they are emotionally unreachable because they don't let others' insults affect them, yet when non-people things don't go their way, they rant and rave about it, obviously letting it get to them. This applies to any unhealthy negative emotions, which is always a choice you make, though learning how to choose otherwise is difficult. Even if you think "they don't rule me", you can still make mistakes that a positive attitude helps you avoid. On the flip side, when you choose positive emotions, you flood your body with helpful chemicals, and this can contribute to physical health, and longer life, besides giving you clearer thinking. Essentially, emotions are a kind of drug. You can choose the addictive but harmful kind, or you can choose safe, beneficial medicinal ones. It Starts With You Nor is this just about your own health. When you express positive emotions towards others, it can be contagious, and help keep communities stable. Remember that, as the Dog Whisperer says, you are a source of power. A lot of people don't know that they choose their own emotions -- usually subconsciously, but the conscious can take this over, and even train the subconscious. A lot of people also don't realize that the emotions they choose for themselves affect the world around them. Dogs for example pick up your own insecurities, and they amplify them. I have learned from newer pets that cats have the same ability, though in a different way. Well, us humans are actually the same way, though admittedly with people it is faaaaar more complex, unpredictable, and of course each person is their own source of power much more so than animals. Since everybody else is thinking, "you go first", do it! By choosing to think "I'll be positive first", you avoid pointless antagonism, and even steer antagonism back towards peace sometimes. As far as it depends on you, you can be friends even with those who don't happen to have your opinions -- which is probably everybody anyways. In this way, each and every member who posts is wielding power either to tear down, or build up this community. The Folly of the Haters Now, there's a side to all of this that I doubt most of you need to hear. But it's the obvious opposing view to this, so it needs addressed. That is, some people actually believe they can hate others, harm them, flame them, etc. without harming themselves at all. This is very rampant in other places on the internet, as you probably know, probably because people think the only bad things that could happen to them come from other people, and anonymity is a shield. Not true -- the poisonous chemicals of hate come from inside everybody and cannot be avoided if you hate. Hate can be addictive, but so can a number of illegal substances that harm the user. Yes, there can be a thrill rush from hate, but being kind to all is actually far, far more thrilling. Explaining this to people who've chosen this path is difficult, because the hate-addicted usually just use an "Instant Rejection Fallacy" and go all "peace is for wimps" on you. They also often display an "Inverse Accusation Syndrome" where they assume anyone intelligent that claims to want peace must be lying and actually secretely hates -- projecting their own fallacy on others, basically. Addictions have a way of making the addicted glom onto whatever fallacy they can, to decieve themselves so they aren't totally depressed by the consequences of their choice. But I've lived both sides of this. I've fallen prey to hate before. I'm a smart guy -- and that can be dangerous -- I've used that intelligence to harm others. But I'm also smart enough to analyze myself, and I now know for sure that this is an incredibly inferior approach. Many of the reasons I know this we can't discuss here, but I am confident enough in them after years of searching (with the "3 pillars" method) that I know the peace-seeking way is best -- it's actually IMO intertwined in the physics of reality itself. But we don't really need to discuss all that to see why the kind way is best -- "haters" get an emotional benefit only some of the time, while peace-seekers get it all the time. Another Tip A big mistake people use is assuming that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid (or stupider ). Bad idea. First of all, if anyone really was lacking in relevant intelligence due to genetic reasons, it would be out of their control. So to insult them for it would make no sense, and would be a form of discrimination. If, on the other hand, they are choosing not to use their brains, for almost any reason, "stupid" is an innaccurate label anyways. A lot of times they just have never been told how to use it for a situation -- for example, I would hope that after reading this, many of you would learn something new about how you can use your brain. That doesn't mean you were stupid before -- more like ignorant, which IMO is nothing to be ashamed of. More to the point, I believe that the vast majority of humans, even most of the so-called "mentally handicapped" are actually basically the same intellgence level, it's just that we allocate our intelligence in different areas. For example, IQ tests (one of which has called me a "regional mastermind") are fallible, because they are biased towards those who allocate their intelligence towards a more mathematic, analytical approach, like me. Yet I know that I sorely lack in abilities that I see commonplace around me. Others are often quicker to perform the right action in time-limited situations than me, where I have to step back and analyze before I can figure out what I'm supposed to do. As a consequence, I am much slower than most people. In many situations in real life and even some online when I don't have much time, I am the one who appears stupid. As another example, the "handicapped" often are far better than "normal" people at having a positive attitude, and so in a lot of situations they actually get far better results than the rest of us. Many just seem to understand this as if it was 2 + 2, where we are really slow at picking up on it. (That's not to say that brain damage doesn't decrease intelligence sometimes; brains are computers and some computers can be more powerful than others and this is okay.) Allocation. Remember that word. Most of the time, it's best to assume that the other person is probably just as smart as you. It's a very useful approach, and most of the time IMO it's true. Now, it's fair to point out that some choose not to use their brains right, on purpose, for selfish purposes. Sure, but even with this, I wouldn't go insulting their intelligence. Chances are they're plenty smart, and besides, we don't allow insulting others regardless so don't do it or else. I'll concede that with some people (not on here for the most part) who stubbornly choose pride over their brains, I do accurately label that "stupidity." But in the spirit of promoting a positive environment for discussion, it's best not to post that kind of opinion, because others who don't understand what this blog entry talks about might misunderstand and think it's okay to insult anyone anytime. (Don't ask me if I think that of you. ) In other words, if you call someone stupid, a lot of times you're basically labeling yourself. Conclusion Friends can Disagree. But also, Disagree-ers should be friends.

Just archive them.

You want that posted? No thanks; see my edit; I'll post it Thursday. Thanks for the comments, this helps, folks.

Various Updates: For some reason, the blog software isn't letting me post my "Friends Can Disagree" entry, which is written. Although, I needed to cut down on some of it cuz it got too wordy IMO. I've had longer entries so glitch is something else. Hunting it down. (Lol, this is the first image-free entry I've ever done I think -- I'm out of time.) For now, other updates I wanted to post: Has anyone made a "What Would You Name Makuta?" topic yet? Because most of you complaining about the name haven't suggested what you would have tried to run through legal. Somebody was talking about making one yesterday but I can't find one. Dun' wanna make a dupe. Epic 3 is done. Aside from a few names here and there I need to insert. I wrote it with a "possible future" outline handy, but let the story go where it had to, and I was actually very surprised by how it turned out. Some things I had planned went completely differently. I tell you, when you get into the characters, setting, sitaution, etc. enough, the story writes itself and it's just as thrilling, if not much more so, as reading. Plans for what's coming next in the Paracosmos have had to shift slightly, but in a very good way; I'm finally comfortable with the setup of the epics coming next, and the necessities for what the Metru Nui flashback must have are looking more coherent than before, so that's good too. It's coming out so that, I think, that part of the series will be way more mysterious than officially, because I'm focusing on aspects of mystery that are only hinted at during the Mata Nui saga, so it will be more of new ground that happens to be in the past than the history of old ground. So now Ojh and I have to somehow find time to finish the RPG skeletal version. Not sure what to expect here; see below. If I think it drags on too long, I'll begin releasing Epic 3 chapters in the Library. But iiiiiiiiif possible (IF), I will try to do as much as I can myself, since Ojh (who normally handles code) is very busy. I believe that I can handle a lot of the final coding, and if we have to, we can just skip the in-between battles that are left, since we already have most of the story done. My belief might be foolish. We'll see. Real life update: Possible bad news. Things aren't looking good financially right now and I might have to get another job. Everything's up in the air right and I'm not sure what I am planning on quitting here to compensate. Problem is, it seems like I'm the only one here who does the things I do (when I can), and so that's sorta been an anchor keeping me here. I haven't made any decisions yet, other than that I cannot abandon writing -- that is my life. Also I do plan on keeping this a weekly blog no matter what. Everything else... we'll see.Edit: Ahhhhh! I had too many bold tags. Mkay, friends entry is ready as a draft. I'll wait til Thursday for it though. Guys, question: Does my "important points are Bold for quick reading" approach help you with the longer entries? Because apparently there's a mysterious limit to how much of it can be used. I get tired of using it too.

Must kill the paradox! We hates them, precious, yes we does! You didn't say this -- you typed it!

Ahhhhhhh, that fourth one looks just like Xia! I love Xia.

Oh darn, I was hoping I could just read your blog without needing to dig up the approval banner again. The irony that I read this given the themes in the epic I'm writing is funny, lol. The one thing I would clarify is that we aren't a government, and such comparisons have been abused before -- this is an ownership system, and a website. So I prefer not to make such a comparison generally. Still, the aspects of the comparison you used are accurate (as they could be to any "community" or group with any kind of organization). Also, my understanding of chaos theory (which is admittedly not that much) is that it actually is the opposite of chance -- it is actually showing how physics leads to the results, given the situation in hand, like when you drop a feather and it falls in a seemingly random path -- it's actually not random at all. "Random" is really an illusion created when something too complex for us to immediately understand is going on. But to finish what I'm saying there I'd have to cross the same line of what is allowed to discuss here that you mentioned, so I won't continue except for a single word -- "Domino". Just one of the most interesting aspects of physics to me. Anyways... On to the approval:

MoIaS: -Adv- and I were talking about an actual shield first. So the whole parrying thing is irrelevant. Neither of us were talking about parrying, nor denying that this is possible.

You mean find out how original your name is. Or how successful your claim on it has been... I am my first google hit too. And the second.. and the third... and the fourth, etc. Though there are a few other guys that snuck onto the list somehow.

Exaggeration can be a problem when others don't get that it's exaggeration, though -- this can lead to flame wars too. Also, I know for a fact that many people are actually making this mistake, not just using poor wording, etc.

That's basically right, Toa Nuhrii. I would use "IMT" to be incredibly clearer, personally, but IMO usually means the same thing. However, I would discourage using words like "dumb" because that implies that there's an actual intelligence problem on the set designer's part, which sounds flamey and is also the whole "I dislike it therefore it's dumb" fallacy format. "IMO the sets are ugly" would be perfectly fine though.

-Adv.-: Well, by my math: Greats: Hau, Miru, Akaku, Huna, Rau, Faxon, Rode, Akaku Nuva. Nobles: Almost Huna, Rau, Mahiki, Komau, almost Ruru, and Matatu. Also, Hau noble. Note that the Hau Nuva doesn't really (at least not unless you can count some other more textured roughly round masks like many of the Inika ones, or the Kaukau Nuva). So I count 15. Well, bias would be if we let our personal tastes affect our forming of statements intended instead to be factual. Meaning even if we don't like the masks, we would admit where there are similarities. ToM: I agree -- what I think you're pointing out as a mouth looks more like the edges of the serration areas on the Hau Mata, Wrinkle -- so if a matching mouth was present it would be "cut into" the serration area in the middle. See that?

Lol that some of you noticed similarities even I missed. I'll take that back about "no" similarities, then, and add the word "almost" to it. I haven't really put the two images side by side yet, so that was too hasty a judgement to make there. Mainly cuz not the point of this entry, but yeah. Edit: As to it being the same as Toyfair, no, look more closely. The texture is smooth now, where it was rough and rubbery before, and the edges aren't rounded like with that one. Also, the hexagon eye area has a border it didn't have previously, and the toyfair one was wider on top, this is wider on bottom. The differences are subtle, yes, but they're there. But yes, this is also a better pose too.

Since most people are still judging Gali's mask by the prototype from Toyfair (shown below), I thought I'd do a quick entry showing the real mask, which you can see above. Cred to Wrinkledlion for finding this. Hope this helps you judge better. (Personally, I like this a little more than the Toyfair one. The lines seem more consistent, and while I like rubber masks, it looks like it would fit in quite well as a new mask power among the Mata Kanohi, which I liked. I still see [almost] no resemblance to a Kaukau though, unfortunately.) Toyfair prototype: In other news: Keep an eye out for another entry planned for later this week, titled "Friends Can Disagree." Also, Epic 3 work is back underway, and it's shaping up eeeexcellently. I'm actually getting through it pretty fast now. I'm aiming to finish this week, though aim is sometimes off, and then focus will go towards the RPG, skeletal version finishing touches.

I have stated the serrations all along, but I don't think your points about the mouth area or the eyes or back of head really work. For the record, I didn't like the Nuva 03 masks much either though, I preferred the Mata. Eyes -- All masks have eyes of some sort, aside from the Vahi and Kakama Newva. I don't see that as relevant, at least not how you outlined it. Also, the actual shape of the plastic above and below is different between the two, whereas with the Nuva Hau (my fave of the six in 03) it was the same. However, the basic equals-sign division between the lower edge of the eye area, and upper, stretching across the nose area, is a similarity Back of Head -- This has been pointed out before and as I said then -- tons of masks have the roundish back of head shape. Take the Matatu 01 as one example. I don't think that counts. Mouth area -- It doesn't really look like a mouth to me -- it looks like an area where a ninja-like mask is totally covering the mouth area. And if it's a mouth, the serrations on the Mata are outside it anyways, so I don't think it counts as similar. So again, I think the only real similarities are that it does have serrations, and the eye area bears a slight similarity, and also something you didn't bring up -- the shape of the things on the lower cheek follow the lines of the boundaries of the serration area of the Hau 2001, though obviously jutting out this time. But similarity is also not as simple as that -- fact is, when you look at it, while honestly assessing whether it's very similar or not to a Hau and trying not to let any bias affect judgement, don't you have to conclude that overall, it's barely similar at all? I can't honestly say this is similar to a Hau. But if you look at any of the Phantoka's masks, it's easy to see the similarities. Those are similar, which nobody can really dispute (well, some have tried, and of course you can dispute whether they could be more so, but I'm just talking unbiased facts). I'll be especially interested in your takes on the other two Kanohi, though, since this was the one out of three I have been saying does have a slight resemblance. I really don't see it in the other two even slightly. Edit: BTW, the image you linked to later in the entry gives an access forbidden error.

I didn't analyze your numbers much, because it seems you may have missed this topic: Price Hike. Just in case you didn't have that link previously. Price per piece, as I'm reading what you're saying, isn't really the factor in question here, so the exact numbers there probably aren't all that relevant. It's the increased price of plastic, and steel for new molds. It would be interesting to see a number breakdown of how many new pieces are in each set, BTW -- but still, pricing isn't that simple. If it was, the Mahri and Phantoka should have been more expensive, because at the time LEGO was holding the prices despite increased pressures for our sakes. But prices have since skyrocketed, and they need to increase it more than usual to make up for it. We're lucky it wasn't 13 USD half a year ago.

Got your PM that you do want the seal. (Janus man you needs to have a seal! When one has blog, one has seal! ) Good job, again!

Yes they can but I think that one can be seen either way -- depends on how you define violent. A sniper rifle can kill you with very little gore, whereas an axe is going to be a lot more messy -- of course, that's real life, not Bionicle where there is no gore. So from a distance, maybe an axe is less violent. But if you assume that both weapons kill a victim, the axe can be seen as a lot more violent. I'm assuming that's what he meant. It's a point that's been discussed before. Well, what if the older colors (which I think was what that quote brought up) are less popular to target audience? There could be reasons they dropped them, yanno. Although I've never seen evidence either way other than that they did drop them so I have no opinion on it. Ahm just sayin.