bonesiii

Thanks, E. BTW, I'd like to suggest to you that since you use that tactic, you're not as much of a defensive debater as you think, XD.

Real quick right now-and-hoping-to-have-time-to-reply-better-later post:

 

See my newest reply there now, DV. I thank you for the kind words.

Wouldn't it be something else then and not an opinion? What if a person see different coulors and to then the sky actually is orange?

XD! You have no idea how ironic it is that you brought that up, because when I was a little kid I wondered the same thing (not sure why, really, just did), and the subject fascinated me.

 

The short answer, that you could figure out with out thinking about your example at all, was that your example doesn't fall under an "I like" statement, therefore it still falls within logic. Therefore it still could possibly be wrong. Therefore, it could still be an opinion.

 

The long answer is that for them, hypothetically, what you see as orange would be labeled "blue" by them, and they would not be able to distinguish the difference. They would call it blue because they were raised seeing it blue. That was what fascinated me as a kid, because I didn't know enough to know whether others could be seeing reality completely differently. In fact, though that specific example I've never heard of, there are people who are color blind, or blind only to certain colors. Some people might not be able to see blue, so sky would look something else (gray or white, I assume, not sure). Have met someone like that, in fact.

 

However. The standard English and scientific definition of blue is not dependant on what our eyes see. It's actually based on the frequency of light. So regardless of the eye design or how a brain handles it, blue light will be blue.

 

Hypothetically, again, if a person had normal eyes but had some sort of alteration that did what you said, they would know the difference and be able to say "The sky looks orange to me!" However, they wouldn't logically be right if they said "The sky is orange, whether you think it's blue or not!" Because the scientific definition of blue can be measured with objective instruments. Besides, more likely they would realize their eyes were modified, because it would be common sense that if suddenly the sky looked orange (and all other light was also changed, as would happen in that example), and everybody they asked said it was still blue, they'd realize the problem was their eyes, not the sky.

 

Think of it like putting on color glasses. If you look at a blue sky with purple-plastic, you will see purple. Did the sky change? No, just the lense you're using.

 

So, if you had the opinion "the sky is blue, objectively, but I see it differently", you would be right; if you had the opinion "the sky is orange, objectively, because I see it differently" you'd then be wrong. Maka sensa?

 

 

 

Anyways, sorry if that was too wordy. I just love that subject. Ah, fond memories of childhood. Fleeting and few as they are, Re: My motto; "Forgetting things since... um...."

 

The point is that "opinions" can be wrong. Even if an example could be shown of something that wasn't an opinion, that is irrelevant to other opinions that can be shown wrong. BTW, I figure it's worth just putting the dictionary.com definitions here for the record:

 

1) a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2) a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

4) a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc

The first one is the one that shows that a logic-opinion can be wrong. The second one can mean both logic-opinion and taste-opinion. The third is also logic-opinion and emphasizes judgement or estimate, which are things that can be wrong. So half of #2, basically, is where taste-opinions fall in, and where some opinions can be exempt from being wrong. How do you know? If it can be stated as an "I like" statement--then it counts as taste-opinion.

 

So, basically, look at those definitions if you wanna know whether any example would be an opinion. In your example, GB, that would, quite literally, be a "view." So it would be an opinion.

 

 

 

And I must agree with the above post; a colorblind person can say that the sky is orange because, to him, the sky is orange.

Only if they say "it looks orange to me." That would be a true statement. But the statement "the sky is orange" can be falsified with scientific instruments, and it would be.

 

 

Of course, he could read every book that says the sky is blue, but I will make the assumption that he is illiterate and cannot read.

For the sake of the hypothetical, yes that's fine. Of course, he'd also talk to other people and ask, if he wasn't born that way (if he was born that way, he would think the word "blue" meant orange so there would be no issue or disagreement). But we'll assume he's highly antisocial too.

 

 

Also, I must point out a very helpful tool to both defencive and offensive debators, one I have used time and time again: When you are being debated and are being pounded or resisted, the best move to make (besides surrender) is to debate yourself. That way, one can see through one's own shield.

Thanks for that advice, EW. Could you possibly give a short example of that? Do you mean debate yourself mentally, or do you mean, when you present your argument, include possible rebuttals and your views of them? Or something else, lol? I don't want to assume I've understood it correctly...

*crosses fingers*

Glad you agree, DV. Yep, good way to sum that up.

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 suggest you ask that question to the blog staff, DV.

That is correct, Wysp--what is considered a "fact" is that which is 100% agreed (or 99.9999% lol; you get the idea) at any given time. With opinions, however, there isn't enough evidence for everybody to agree 100%, so the presence of some people who disagree with the idea makes it an opinion, rather than a fact. Also note, of course, people can hold opinions that are correct and do happen to be considered facts. Don't think this means opinions are always wrong, lol.

 

Also, don't make the mistake of thinking there aren't people who still don't dispute facts--but those would fall into the 1% or so, and unless they provide reasoning that logically argues against the fact (rather than just doubting it, which is fine), that isn't considered to debunk the fact. As one example, a few people have posted doubts about the 2001 Rahi's poor sales. Yet the poor sales are a fact based in real sales results that cannot logically be denied--the doubts indicate honest lack of knowledge, rather than evidence against its "factness."

 

Some facts, however, cannot be reasonably argued with, even as we learn more about the universe, such as the fact that opinions can be wrong. (Because logic itself proves this, with the example in the above reply to Anoobus, and logic is the tool used to determine what is considered fact at any given time. It's impossible to argue the fact that opinions can be wrong, because to do so is to say that -that- opinion is wrong, which is self-defeating.)

 

That is much like the argument that there are no absolutes. It is an absolute fact that there are absolutes, because to argue against that is to assert an absolute (that there are "absolutely" no absolutes). That's a commonly seen example of inarguable facts. However, these are rare, heh.

 

 

In laymen's terms, it's simplest to think of facts as things that are definately true, as far as anybody can know.

Anoobus--I will reply to the lastest PMs in my inbox later. Been busy.

 

It is a fact that opinions can be wrong. Consider this: It is my opinion that opinions can be wrong. Am I wrong?

 

Or consider if someone said this: "It is my opinion that Anoobus doesn't like the Bahrag." Would they be wrong? Obviously, that person would be wrong, because you just said you did like them.

 

 

Also, notice that the definition you quoted confirms that opinions can be wrong. It says "Opinions are not facts"--only facts cannot be wrong.

 

It also says "opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified." Not falsifiable does not mean "correct"--it means there's no known way to figure out one way or the other whether it is. This happens sometimes, as I explain in the Guide, when there is not enough to evidence to prove for sure one way or the other. "Not proven or verified" means that, in fact, it is possible for it to be wrong. Otherwise, there would be no need to prove it.

 

BTW, that definition is close to the official dictionary.com one I quote in the Guide (orange link, sig). I recommend reading the Opinion section there.

Duty forces me to point out that if it is sarcastic, you really should say so in this case, DV. This sort of statement, if meant seriously, comes across very much as trolling (or confirming that much of what you've been posting lately, especially towards me with your hypocrisy accusation, was trolling). We have a rule against that, as you know.

 

You really do not want ambiguity in that respect.

 

Your "infamy" in recent days has come from things you've posted that do not seem to make sense and appear intended to be combative, at least in my view, though I could be biased since some are aimed at me. That should not surprise you.

 

I like the ambiguity, thank you. And I'm confused as to how this would be considered trolling? It was a remark on an observation. <<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.

No no--all that you need to do is define what you mean by the words off the bat. Everybody defines words differently all the time--that's why in debate it is vital for both sides to explain what they mean by them. Also, it's best to try to use words that most people will think mean about the same thing you mean by them. Again, this is all explained in the debate terms guide...

 

In your case, all you would have needed to add was a "to me" or "personally" to the "unacceptable" to make it clear. You have to realize that unlike Spock, we humans aren't telepathic, and we can't know what you mean unless you actually say what you mean in language that the average standard English speaker is going to understand.

 

 

Logic vs. Likes and Dislikes

 

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.

 

 

Sorry but wrong, P. Bionicle sets are action figures, with a quick build. That's because roleplayers are main fanbase.... The finished product IS worth the while of the tastes of the main fanbase. If you aren't as satisfied by it, that simply means that you're not quite like the fans that the sets are targeting. Which is OK. Just don't assume that if it isn't satisfying for you, it must not be for others.

 

LEGO is a construction toy, plain and simple. And it was once not even that, so ultimately it's a toy company. I've been over this countless times before, don't really feel like rehashing lol. I'm planning a blog entry coming up on this very subject, so I'd rather wait till then to write up tons of stuff on it.

 

And for the record, if you like to build at all, you're a MOCer in at least some way. :-P But yes, that term can also mean a MOCer like DV, sorry if that was confusing... I in hurry. I would consider myself a MOCer in the sense that I enjoy MOCing (and virtually all my sets are MOCs now lol). I wouldn't consider myself a MOCer in the sense of DV or others who are obviously focused on that aspect very much and have much experience in it. Anyways.... As an example...

 

 

 

Response to DV really still pending. I got half of it typed up and saved, but was busy with top secret stuff today. Maybe tommorrow....

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

 

So to sum up--it's great that you prefer MOCing. Hopefully you can understand why Bionicle can't market primarily to MOCers, though.

 

Reply to DV's post forthcoming...

Also, one last random thing. The S&T has been sort of boring for me lately. Usually if there are question topics that aren't speculating question topics, I answer them. If there are good theories that are intriguing, I'll post. If there are some that are really loosely based, and mostly speculation, they don't really catch my fancy.

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

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"?

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.

DV--I have no idea why you've been acting so combative lately, but point to the part where I said that. That's a Straw Man fallacy there, my friend. "To each his own" means that I'm not saying you should share my tastes. How many times do I have to say this?

 

Your tastes are "I don't like these gaps." Calling them "unacceptable" is going beyond that, DV, as you well know. What I am objecting to is you or anyone else turning a dislike (or a like) of something into an absolute rule, in what you say. This is the second time this year you've tried to defend your own "absolutism in taste" argument by accusing me of doing the same thing. Nice try, ain't flyin.

 

And with that out of the way, please take a deep breath, calm down, and realize there's no reason to be so combative. We can disagree on what we like and still discuss whether it actually works in the set intelligently. There's no reason to accuse me of things I did not say. It makes you seem desperate, as if you know you've lost an argument and won't admit it--and besides, anybody can just read my post to see what I actually said, lol.

 

 

 

bones, gaps in sets != unacceptable gaps.

I'm objecting to the use of a minority personal preference as the claimed definition of what's acceptable and what isn't. Besides, the Manas gaps are with some of the exact pieces DV circles as "unacceptable" in Maxilos.

 

I think it's important to have a good understanding of what actually sells and what doesn't; that's what I'm saying. I see zero evidence that gaps hurt sales, lol. It's the pieces themselves that make or break the set.

 

 

"We've come too far to be making the same, forgivable mistakes. Additionally, the Rahi have one more thing that separates them. They were good sets for their time."

 

That's purely subjective. Most fans saw them as poor sets, which is why they didn't sell well. This is old news here--why is this myth that the Rahi were great still going around? In 2007? They sold poorly, guys. To most fans, Max is way higher quality than any of the three I pointed out. Point being, don't just assume something is a mistake just because you don't like it, or a buncha people on BZP don't like it. We're a minority here, as has been proven over and over again.

 

 

 

 

 

"Lego shouldn't be putting out sets like that anymore."

Careful with the "should" opinions--can you explain why they should not? This is a matter of preference, so you'd need to show that your preference on this one is a majority among the Bionicle fanbase (not just BZP). Doubtful. Have you considered that there's a good reason LEGO is still using this element? They don't just do things at random, lol.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure, many fans'll buy him. Why? For the same reason fans keep buying. Because they're fans. It's what they do.

Come on, DV, that's silly. They buy what they like. That statement completely ignores market reality as seen for seven years now; sets that haven't been liked by most fans have sold poorly. You make it sound like they'll buy anything, so might as well give them what you like. That's pure fantasy.

 

If it was true, the Rahi should have sold well, the Bahrag should have sold well, the Kal should have sold well, the Vahki should have sold well, etc. But they didn't.

 

 

 

 

If there's one thing I have a right to criticize as a MOCist, it's actual set design.

You absolutely have the right to criticise design that doesn't please you, especially on your blog.

 

My issue is when it appears that you're going beyond just defining why you don't like it, and saying that it's a universal rule that must apply to everybody, whether they like it or not. Look at my "Ruthless Elegance" entry in my blog for example; I make it clear at the start that it's only a matter of preference and shouldn't be mistaken for a universal rule. (Although, yes, in general that style does seem to be popular, but that's not my fault. )

 

Remember these are toys here, not machinery with a purpose. If you wanted to say that a jackhammer had to have certain technical specifications, and as an engineer you could define them, that's one thing. But a toy need not have any technical specifications. It simply needs to please most fans, so that makes everything about it a matter of taste.

 

(Besides things like child safety of course, but that's not the issue here.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pennywise: "You might work for LEGO if [y]our fans know more about set design than you do."

In most cases, the opposite seems to be true; that LEGO knows more about what works in set design than many BZPers, lol. Look at gears, for example. BZPers were wrong on that. They've been wrong on Technicism, etc. etc. It's really just minority preferences being different from majority preferences.

 

 

 

 

DV:

 

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

Then why did you circle a few examples of that? Four of the eight circles in your image are gaps in the pieces. Two of them the same pieces as in the Manas, ironically.

 

 

 

 

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

Thank you for stating that. We agree there--but you also have to understand why things should or should not change. You can't just change everything to any old thing and expect it to sell. Look at the Hordika.

 

 

 

 

"3- I think it's time you got off the 'it's just your preference speaking' high-horse. Cool, your preference is one that's being dug right now. Fans are in. Sweet. I'm glad for you."

 

I'm glad to see that--and I would be happy for you if things were switched, as I was in 2001 (not you personally, but anyone who liked the Technicism style, which I just assumed must have been popular). You're on the right track here. Consider, though, avoiding wording things like "unacceptable" if you want to convey the impression that you are OK with others differing from you. Words like that don't give the idea that you're glad for them.

 

As for a "high horse", I'm not going to stop being logical, sorry. I'm going to put everybody to the same standards of logical analysis equally, because this is important. I want Bionicle to do well, and if there were good reasons beyond your personal taste for LEGO not to do this, then there'd be a real problem here. That is why it's vital to point out where arguments seem to be based on individual taste alone and where there seems to be more to it.

 

 

 

 

 

"But I'm tired of having not only my preference, but the preferences of many other members and fans out there belittled"

 

Show me one instance of it being "belittled" by me. Some members on my "side" have done that, and I have been the FIRST to chastise them, DV. And the loudest voice doing so. In fact, since I'm being objective about it, I'm one of a few who can do so with credibility.

 

As for me, what I have done is pointed out that (at least on some things) your preference is in the minority. That is not belittlement; that's a statement of reality. Real world market forces dictate how LEGO then has to react to them. I don't blame you for being tired of the real world forces, believe me. I am tired of excessive homework even though I know I must do it, etc. I get that. But don't take it out on me, please.

 

 

 

"We get it Bones. As long as it sells you'll keep buying it."

Then you definately don't get it, XD. I buy what I like, plain and simple. Remember that I was one of the few who actually liked the Kal, and bought a few. I've been in the minority. But this isn't about me. You make that mistake many times, I've noticed; assuming that I'm talking about my preferences when I talk about what LEGO should do. No. If I do talk about what I want, I make that clear off the bat, and I wrote a whole giant guide about not basing "should" opinions on individual preferences. By now, that should be crystal clear, XD.

 

 

 

 

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. [Emphasis mine.]

 

Now you're hitting the nail on the head, as I see it. Maxilos does seem to me to be a step away from the "coolified" look that Brutaka and Axonn sported, yes. That worries me, because my understanding has been that most fans prefer that. 2006's overall results prove that, in a general sense. At this point, I have to consider, though, that with the titans there might be a difference again between me and most fans, okay? It's possible LEGo found that Axonn and Bruty were overdoing it for most fans and decided to step it back a little. I dunno; we'll see. I just see no evidence of that, given 2006's great success.

 

My point is, gaps seem to be irrelevant to that. I'm talking about the pieces, not the air in between them, XD.

 

 

If you'd posted a blog entry saying that the picture speaks for itself and foregone the circles and had the text say "A step down in overall design" I'd be agreeing with you (though likely for different reasons). That isn't what you did though.

 

 

As for "same old thing" that you didn't define in this sentence, that's probably either the humanoid complaint or the coolified look complaint, which of course I cannot agree with (except the part mentioned elsewhere about the humanoid complaint). As far as the coolified look goes, Max is pretty strong in that category (and especially Spinax!), in body design and tool design. The foot design, head, and Cordak blaster are the main problems, I'd say. Not sure if that's what you meant though...

 

 

 

"And dear LEGO: please, for the love of something greater than ourselves, STOP GIVING US HUMANOID 'TITANS'. Let's try something new."

 

 

Gadunka. Fenrakk... O_o

 

In general, that idea is OK, for variety's sake, but keep in mind that even among MOCers the humanoid shape seems to be the most popular. Just glance through bshelf sometime. For roleplayers, they can identify with that shape better too. There are good reasons to have humanoids. Variety is fine too, but it seems to me that one non-humanoid titan a year is probably variety enough. Though I'd agree that it would be nice to see two again, like MOL, as an experiment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Design is what I do. Critiquing designs is what I do. This isn't a preference, it's laziness."

 

Possibly, but possibly not. I tentatively agree with that generalized statement, but not about gaps...

 

But please realize, DV, that your critique still seems to be coming from how to design a set that would please you, or the tastes of an engineer. All I'm saying is, it's fine for you to critique in terms of what would please you; keep it in that context, but you didn't seem to do that with this entry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I miss having sets that were unique. Bahrag, Exo-Toa, Boxor, Rahi, Gukko bird, Ussal Crab, etc. "

Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Missing or wishing for what you don't have is not a crime. I would feel the same way if things were reversed. But I wouldn't take that too far into a "should" opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I miss a story that makes sense, and doesn't sound forced from a DC comic book. "

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"And as a fan, I have EVERY right to complain about things I don't like. Because I want to see the line I loved succeed. " [Emphasis mine.]

 

Whoa there, DV. You've just summed up your mistake. Both statements are great, by themselves. But you combine them to make it sound like what you don't like will harm Bionicle's chances of succeeding. By now, surely you have learned that isn't true?

 

 

 

 

BTW, DV, you could really lose some of your cynicism. It isn't helping your arguments any when you open your replies with some accusation about ulterior motives. There's no need for this paranoid "Oh, and I suppose true fans don't complain, eh?" business. Let's define it crystal clear right here:

 

A fan is someone who overall likes whatever he's a fan of.

 

Plain and simple. Nobody has any right to say you aren't one. A fan is someone who just wants to enjoy what he likes. There's no such thing as "loyalty" or "blindness" or whatever you want to call it in being a fan. Why? Because entertainment's job is to please. If it fails at that job for each individual, they are perfectly within their rights to point it out.

 

If there was such a thing as a "true" fan, it would simply be someone whose tastes happen to coincide with what has made the franchise successful, but it is misleading to use that word, because it implies those who do not happen to be like that have committed some sort of crime. Totally false.

 

And it goes both ways, DV. For you to accuse a fan that does happen to like just about everything of being "mindless" is totally false as well. Sheer nonsense. People like what they like, and they have every right to. You should want to see most fans saying "it's all good", because that tells you LEGO is doing a good job of appealing to majority tastes (yes, that IS their job). Unlike the Kal, unlike the Bahrag, unlike gears, unlike clones etc.

 

With those, the core fanbase was complaining. If not with their words (though definately many did!), with their wallets.

 

 

Aaaanyways.... Point is, no need to be so paranoid, DV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I actually really do agree with DV, though... I liked the Barraki better to be honest... If it weren't that I have the habit of cannibalizing my more recent sets to see what I can make, I doubt I would be interested in the Titans at all... I'm picking Kongu up just out of habit, and maybe another Toa. And then a month later they'll be dismembered so I can have fun building.

I agree. Both the Mahri and this year's titans are going away from that coolified look. That's worrisome. Although of course, with the latest high-quality pics, BZPers have already started the annual "Oh I was wrong and these are awesome" parade, XD. But frankly, I don't even think that matters anymore. It's just BZP being BZP; the real test is going to have to remain sales. We'll see....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SZ: "I'm just so sick and tired of it! Why aren't there more topics about how good Bionicle is getting, huh? That's what I want to know!"

 

 

Understandable, SZ. Please realize, though, that this is human nature. People usually don't go into a lot of detail about what they like, although arguably they should make some effort to. But when they see what they think could be a problem (usually, when they don't like something), they're worried about it and they think it's time to make an exception and go into detail or speak up when they normally don't, to point out the possible problem. Nothing wrong with that; it's healthy for a fanbase.

 

The unhealthy part is when they can't understand the difference between a real problem and what they don't like.

 

However, I would agree that complainers would have more credibility if they would admit it when there are positives as well as negatives. Objectivity and balance are going to make a complaint far more convincing then what comes across as constant negativity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why aren't there more topics about how good Bionicle is getting, huh? That's what I want to know!

Because it's not.

You would know full well that's not true if you had paid much attention at all to BZP over the last few years. And besides, many things that BZPers have been whining about have been fixed in recent years and those same BZPers have been silent. Given that, why should LEGO listen to this complaint, if you guys won't be grateful that they listen?

 

Bionicle's been getting better since 2004 (after going down from 2001's medium heights into the pits of 2003), and just last year, did excellently. And yet those were the times when BZP was making the biggest noise about how awful it was, XD.

 

It's not the quantity of complaints that matter, but what type (quality, if you will, though that's a vague concept). When you see a lot of minority taste people saying "I don't like this" it's often actually an indicator that Bionicle is getting better (for most fans).

 

It's when you see them saying "I'm bored" that we usually see sales go down.

 

That said, you cannot look at "I don't like this" complaints as a measure of success, XD. Because we -do- have some aspects in common with the majority here, and we can be useful, like with clonism. The Hordika are another good example; a hero group that sold well... as a villain group. Complainers were right on that one, though often for the wrong reasons.

 

Our complaints are useful when they reflect reality among the Binoicle majority fanbase. So that's the test, every time. Does each complaint do that?

 

I think the complaints I'm making about the Cordak Blasters, Mahri, and Titans, do reflect that, so I'm worried about those issues. 2007 might be going downward a little, though there are also so many positive signs far and beyond even 2006, that hopefully it will maintain that year's strength. Barraki especially; Gadunka, and the coolified aspects of the Mahri (Hahli's wings! Etc.).

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, why doesn't the leg armor look good? Because armor is supposed to protect, and if it's a foot (scale speaking) above the body, that's not too safe, now is it?

Notice your mistake here. You began by asking about taste--why it doesn't look good. Then, you did not answer that question, but instead switched to an answer to the question "why doesn't the armor work in practical terms?" Easy slip to make, but it's an equivocation fallacy nonetheless.

 

The real answer to why it doesn't look good (to DV, you and others) is that it doesn't please your tastes. This does not prove that most fans won't be pleased by it, or that it doesn't look good to them. And it also explains why others have to ask--because it doesn't annoy their tastes, and all individual tastes are equal.

 

As for the practical considerations, three things. 1) It's irrelevant; this is science fantasy and Bionicle purposefully differs from real world rules often to heighten that sense of a different world.

 

2) Playing devil's advocate though... I almost don't even know where to begin. It's a set, not the storyline form, for one. Real Bionicle characters don't have holes all over them either, nor do real humans have seperable legs, arms, and head with a LEGO stud on the top of the head, XD. Sets are representations of the characters, not exact storyline replicas. You can't look at set design and assume that you can then apply storyline logic to it. If you could do that, then Rhotuka are a very strange kind of energy that mimics matter, and protodermis is plastic.

 

3) But going even further with devil advocacy, pretend the gaps were actually there in the storyline form. They're biomechanical, so the question is, what is the armor, and what is the muscle/organic tissue being protected by it? Where did you get the idea that the foot was the armor and the other pieces were muscle? That does not fit with what we've seen in the past; the LEGO pieces are almost always the armor/metallic components, and the muscles either aren't shown in the set at all, or are the rubber pieces. I don't see that any of the pieces you're claiming are not part of the armor are rubber. So seems like a moot point on all counts to me....

 

 

 

"I hate to say this, but I think 2007 is gonna be the year I come out of the closet as a 2001ist."

You prefer Technicism? Then why haven't you embraced your preference all along? You should not be afraid to like whatever you like, Pennywise. 2007's sets are irrelevant to whether you liked things like Rahi or gears in 2001. Or even gaps, XD. After all, 2001 was the year of gaps....

XD

 

To each his own, of course, but guys, come on. They're biomechanical creatures. What argument can there be that gaps don't work for Bionicle? Aesthetically, this speaks to your preferences, which is fine. Personally, I doubt most fans care about a few gaps in sets of creatures who would naturally have gaps, since they aren't just biological. Doesn't even matter that Max is a robot; gaps in biomech. creatures are also to be expected.

 

But as for the idea that Max "can't even be called a set" just because he doesn't appeal to your guys' tastes, that to me makes no sense. The definition of set has nothing to do with whether you like it, and besides, there's nothing un-Bionicle about gaps in sets. Especially pointing to the Technic-style pieces that some of you guys yourselves have said you miss? I don't buy that argument--gaps are in fact more reminiscient of the old style you have been wishing we could return to, DV, haven't you? Remember these:

 

 

Those are chock full of gaps. Most far bigger than the tiny little things you circled. And that's titan-sized; remember canister sized too. All the original Bionicle pieces had gaps, like between the pistons, etc. Look at the old Toa foot, for example, or the Tohunga head. Were those unacceptable too? I really don't see why. It's not the gaps that matter, but the actual plastic, lol. Boils down to Max just being a style that doesn't appeal to you.

 

For the record, I don't like him as much as Axonn or Brutaka myself. But there's nothing about him that's "unacceptable" lol, in my tastes. Of course, sales will be the final judge... Still, I really don't see how these gaps can be thought of as horrible, or at least, as the worst aspect of the set...

Well, in lieu (or however that's spelled ) of you finishing, I wanted to add something here.

 

It does trouble me often the way we as staff inevitably have to appear to the newer members. As I've said often, I was there once, I understand the fear and uncertainty perfectly. I wasn't around here in 2001; I came as a newbie in 2003, and I made the traditional mistakes and misunderstandings--I viewed the staff and other prominent members as towering above me and in a place I could never reach no matter what I did. I even remember my first topic closing, I felt almost angry that I didn't have a chance to say more about it before it was closed (although it definately -did- need closed, lol). I can appreciate that.

 

Unfortunately when you are in those shoes, of staff members, and you have a thousand real life demands tugging at you and a thousand reports tugging at you too, it is almost impossible to do all of that, and yet also take time out to try to encourage newer members and work hard to bring them into the fold gently. So let me say--I definately appreciate anything you or any other members who have time do in that respect.

 

No point in rehashing where we disagree on certain outlooks of things; you're well aware of where I stand on that, and ultimately I think we do pretty much see things the same way where it counts. Just let me add--I'll be the first to admit I don't do the best job all the time. I would hope that somehow, newer members can come to understand the pressures us staff members are under, and that it isn't always our fault when we come across the wrong way. But--and I can only speak for myself since I am only myself--it's certainly true that I could do better, and I am trying at that. I have to say that the discussions I've had with you have helped me in that way, EW. I thank you for your perspective on this.

I love the basement bricks. Huzzah for Brick Mutilation!

Bonesiii, in your list of criteria, I think that this is more of your opinion than fact.

Again, please read the second paragraph, lol. I made it crystal clear this is only my opinion. No point in trying to convince me of something I already stated as true, XD.

 

However, it being my opinion does not disprove it being the most logical opinion. You are certainly correct that Taipu wants to travel, but look what happened when he went with Takua to Le-Koro. He just got himself kidnapped. Future enemies aren't going to play nice like the Nui-Rama. He could very well get himself killed that way.

 

Also, I've seen several people claiming Kopeke was "forced" to go along, but where exactly is this stated in the storyline or MNOG? I do not recall it; perhaps I need to check again. But it sounds like a rumor to me. I'd like to see proof from the actual storyline, including MNOG, of this assertion. Besides, Kopeke spent most of his time outside the village before going on the Chronicler's company, unlike most Matoran. I fail to see how that does not support him having a desire for travel. Sure, it's not as strong as Taipu's... but then Taipu's intelligence isn't as strong as Kopeke's, lol. Kopeke is the kind of guy who will do his duty, regardless, so even if that was the case, that he didn't like traveling, he still would do the job, and I would still say that overall he'd do a much better job than Taipu, with observativeness, restraint, and staying alive all going in his favor far over Taipu. You gotta admit that, at least, right?

 

That said, again, you're perfectly allowed to pick your own criteria. If, in your tastes, having an eager Chronicler is cooler than having one who's cold, even if he would fit the job better, then that's fine. As I've pointed out before, neither Takua nor Hahli were perfect for the job either, so it's not like the perfect Matoran for the job is an absolute necessity. It's just that me, personally, I prefer to focus on who's best for the job, logically speaking. You don't have to be defensive about your choice.

 

And thanks for the comment, mumu.

Tha last part was a bit more of an opinion to me.

More of an opinion as opposed to what? Yes, this is my opinion, heh. That's why it's on my blog... And I made that clear in the second paragraph. Not sure what else you were thinking of...

 

Just for fin, I made my own evaluation of K & K:

I assume you meant "fun". BTW, I know it was for fun, but I do have some comments that might clarify things further.

 

1)Observativeness. Kopeke has a Wahi-wide surveillance system; I admit you cannot get better than that, but! Remember, he will be in the field, without his cameras. Kapura, on the other hand, does not have anything like that—he had to watch Vakama demonstrate how to teleport. This one, to me, goes to Kapura by a slight 0.5 points.

The ice lenses themselves were not my point--but the character trait that they illustrate. A guy who will go to the trouble of making a system like that has to actively want to observe, possibly above all else. More than someone like Kopeke. For the record on what I meant.

 

 

Kapura is in the Guard, the most experienced fighting force on Mata Nui. Kopeke is not. Kapura pulls ahead with another 1.0.

I don't really see that as a valid argument. First of all, all the Matoran needed to be trained in fighting, especially ones that ventured outside the Koro. Kopeke obviously was, or he never would have been selected to join the Chronicler's company. Second, Kopeke -did- spend so much time outside the Koro, that he must have had runins with infected Rahi all the time. And their experience, though useful, isn't going to help them think on their feet in potentially deadly situations in the future--that takes more mental skills. Again, they're both about equal, but Kopeke seems much more observative, and alert. Also, note that they were fighting mere Rahi, who weren't trying to kill them. For a Chronicler, one obvious method needed to alive is to be able to avoid your enemies. Kapura would, theoretically, be best at this, except that he's got to slow way down to use his "power" (if it is a power). Kopeke, being more observative, would probably see danger coming before it arrives more often and get out of the way, I would think. But mehbe that's just me...

 

 

7) Real world parallel. I will call this ‘bias’, as What bones wrote seemed to be bias—he likes Kopeke because he and Kopeke were similar. Bias, IMO, has no place in determining the next Chronicler, so no points will be awarded. If I was, Takua would get twenty points .

Bias would be an accurate enough word for that one, yes--but notice that I'm not just saying he's like me. He's also like a lot of other people who have similar jobs. That's a little less biased. Off the top of my head, I can't even think of anyone like Kapura, really, in real life at all, much less a Chronicler-like job, XD. Of course, there are certainly other personality types in reporter-like jobs, but I couldn't seem to connect any to Kapura, so yeah...

 

12) Coolness. I think they tie here: not cool. Jaller’s ‘elite tactician’ mind, to me, was cool: Kapura and Kopeke, not so much. But that’s just me: I’m a tactician.

Heh. It's amazing how much that word varies.

 

 

 

But if restraint is one of the criteria, would it really matter if the Chronicler had a sort of restraint? If Hafu had been Chronicler, wanting to be part of the story himself and wanting attention wouldn't hinder his job that much.

I don't see that it would be a huge issue, no. Takua, of course, was just as bad as Hafu would have been in this category, and he managed. The criteria aren't all listed with the idea "you must have all this perfectly or you fired", but more as things that definately are preferable for the job. Of course, Staying Alive and Observativeness are pretty vital, heh. Those are probably the only two that are absolutely neccessary, IMO.

 

But trying to be the story rather than tell the story can be a problem. It depends, to a degree--if, in being the story, the Chronicler goes too far... that would be bad. Especially if it got himher killed. For people like Takua and Hahli, it left the job vacant pretty fast, lol, although not through death. They were both so into being the story that they are now Toa. So basically, it depends on why they "be the story." If they're doing it because they can help, and their help is needed, then, yes, they should "be the story" in those situations.

 

I brought it up more because of someone like Onepu. I have doubts that we would only "be the story" when the situation demanded it. He's a bit prone to needless heroics and such.

 

It's sort of like where there's a story where the narrator is part of the story and is one of the characters, as opposed to being on the sidelines.

Yes--but if the narrator dies, for example, or becomes incapable of passing on the knowledge through some means, heshe hasn't been the best Chronicler, heh. Even with the Toa example, Takua and Hahli have not been the best Chroniclers, in a sense---compared to someone who may be destined specifically to be a Chronicler, as Kodan apparently was. Ideally, a Matoran would be picked who isn't destined to be a Toa, but can take care of himself and thus won't need to "be the story" in most cases. Think of it like news reporters in the real world, compared to police officers or soldiers or the like--reporters don't do the job of the cops or troops. Make sense?

Aanchir, see my reply to Great Being above about carving--you clearly missed the point of that one.

 

Again, "courage" does not need to be listed here, as it's neither some specific to being a Chronicler nor something either Kapura or Kopeke are lacking in. Adding it in wouldn't change the results, so why bother? They would tie. True, Taipu probably wouldn't do that well in it, but he fails (IMO, and in the vote) in other ways. I could, of course, add a note on it--but it isn't important.

 

Also, as far as what it falls under, I believe you misread, as "staying alive" is not the only thing it falls under. See my reply to Dust, above. (It would fall under desire to travel more than anything, since this is something that requires first and foremost courage--or just plain silliness like with Taipu, XD.)

 

As for this:

Also, you said that it is not a job for "crafters and artists," or something along those lines. I'm sorry to break it to you, but Kopeke is infact an ice carver-- very close to those two roles you eliminated. He's more of a handyman than an adventurer.

Again, you seem to be missing the point. Not sure why--perhaps you should re-read, perhaps wasn't worded as clearly. I am almost getting the impression though, that you're being defensive about it. There's no need to do so. If you prefer Kapura, that's fine. But on this one, you're grasping at straws. Kopeke is hardly a shopkeeper, sorry. I never eliminated "roles" -- I eliminated personality types. Kopeke is nothing like Okoth, lol. Obviously, the skills of a crafter would come in just as handy as an ice carver--but the personality of someone who simply wants to make products for a living isn't really suited to Chronicler. Kopeke is obviously not like this, as MNOG makes clear.

 

Also, Hahli had little to no carving experience, so you might as well cross that off your list of criteria.

What makes you say this? I do not recall any evidence for or against this--except that she did work as a "net-mender", which does require some skill at working with materials as well. \

 

Anyways, you don't seem to understand why it's on the list of criteria--has nothing to do with what Hahli was good at. You don't make a list of what is ideal for a job based simply on one example of someone who had the job. As said already, each Chronicler so far has flaws, and that's actually OK, because stories about perfect people are boring. If you wanted the new Chronicler to be just like Takua, or just like Hahli (or Kodan for that matter) you could not get this, because no two Matoran are alike. It's on the list because it's what stands out as something that would be ideal for a Chronicler to have.

 

Hope that helps...

 

 

Slizer--Kopeke may have been ordered to go with Takua, but I'm not talking about that for desire to travel--I'm talking about his traveling out into the Wahi before even meeting Takua. We met him outside the Wahi, remember, if you played MNOG. And he had taken the time to carve the ice-lenses. He appears to spend much time out there. Also, he would not have been chosen for the Chronicler's company if he did not have traits that were ideal for that. That's why Taipu was chosen, for example.

Whatever, you have strong arguments, I think Hafu should have been cronicler.

 

-God of Noobs

He's one I would have supported too. I was dissapointed more people didn't vote for him. Probably that whole ego thing lowered his popularity or something. He'd fit the job better than a lot of runner-ups who got votes.

 

 

A major flaw I see in your grading system- do all of those criteria REALLY make a chronicler? The only two we have really known are:

 

Takua- who fails in restraint and, to a degree, wisdom. Also, I remember few good speeches from him.

 

Hahli- She's hard to judge, as we knew her AS chronicler for such a short time. She never showed us much "Staying Alive"- even as a Toa, she has been a bit of a "damsel in distress". We never saw her carve, and she's not much of a crowd-pleaser, lacking both mysteriousness and coolness.

 

I think Taipu would have been an excellent choice. He has an ENORMOUS desire to travel, and indeed has many parallels to our old friend, Takua. Kapura as well- he is certainly one of the most INTRIGUING of the Matoran, and he excels in all of the categories in my eyes. You left out a great deal of other important traits, such as bravery and endurance, which Kapura also excels in. I voted Taipu, but Kapura still seems a more worthy choice than Kopeke in my eyes. I'm really afraid the win may have been caused by BZPers' common love for Ko-Matoran.

I'm a little confused, Lyichir--where was the flaw? Are you saying that the flaw is, that I did not list every possible criteria? That would be a fair argument--it would have been rather wordy that way though. I felt it would be more concise to include things like "bravery and endurance" under "staying alive" and "desire to travel", etc. However, I said that the criteria for other people would probably be different, so it's not a flaw.

 

Hahli is hard to judge, I agree there. Both Takua and her appear to fail in many of the aspects, so possibly Kopeke will be in some ways even better of a chronicler, lol. Ultimately, all people, human or Matoran, have flaws, and in fiction that's a good thing as they'd be boring if they were all perfect.

 

Also, as far as bravery and endurance go, both Kopeke and Kapura would be tied in those areas, so not much point in listing them anyways. They're also more minor and generic compared to things like staying alive or being observant, which are things directly related to being a Chronicler. Bravery and endurance are generic traits that are useful in just about every important job, so not specifically relevant to Chroniclers.

 

 

 

What about courage as a criteria?

If the matoran is too scared to go on adventures, then it's not going to do a very good job of following toa on adventures. I agree with you, but the list doesn't include everything (that would be hard to do).

As said above, courage is also another generic trait, though I would agree it's more oriented towards Chronicler than many other jobs. Again, the two would be tied, so I don't see the need to list it. I almost did, simply becaue Hafu showed extreme courage in the Bohrok Saga, I felt, so that would go to him over both Kapura and Kopeke, personally. But Hafu wasn't a front runner in the voting. So I decided to count that under Staying Alive, instead, and wherever else it also factors, such as Wisdom, and Desire to Travel.

 

Have courage, will travel. As it were.

 

I still don't see how Taipu may have trouble carving or making speechs. Please explain.(Kopeke was my #2 and I just don't like Kapura)

Not sure what you mean about speeches... Unless I didn't count him for "cool speeches"... *checks*

 

As far as carving, I stated that in the entry--he seems more oriented to digging than carving, so compared to Kopeke who can easily carve an icicle into a fancy and exact key in only a few seconds, Taipu doesn't have that sort of exact skill. That's not to say he couldn't learn the skill--he could, I'm sure, as could just about anyone. But I'm talking about a love of carving. I think that most people can do just about any job if the need is great enough and they force themselves to. But usually the ones who love doing that job you see evidence of them wanting to do it on their own, such as the Wahi-wide security system. No evidence of that with Taipu, or Kopeke. My point isn't that he would have trouble, but that he might not like the job, and that could affect his attitude towards being a Chronicler in general.

 

My understanding of Taipu is also that he's somewhat clumsy--more of a "brute strength" kinda guy in terms of physical skills. So carving doesn't seem like the kind of thing he'd like to do. But, I didn't call him either way on that one, remember, so I'm not saying he would definately have trouble or not. I don't think we have enough info to be sure. But with Kopeke (or Hafu), we do.

 

*finds nothing about speeches*

 

I'm not sure what you mean about speeches, I guess. I didnt' say one way or another for Taipu on speeches. And anyways, that one is "Cool speeches", not the ability to talk. Just means, how interesting I find the speeches. Obviously, others will probably find his speech interesting enough. I just didn't see it as relevant for him over someone like Tamaru, whose speeches really stand out as cool, or Kapura.

 

Does that help?

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

Bones is drowned in work from college/university/whatever

*gasps for breath*

 

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