your response aurbere

[tunewalker]

Well, Sel has Krayt and she won her match.

 

Jarons had Cade and, well... he was out of his depth to begin with.

 

All jokes aside, what makes you feel this way?

 

 

 

I felt the need to take it out of the thread, because lets face it, this conversation really doesnt belong there.

 

 

 

When a person can move a black hole with enough mass to be able to cause high speed maneuvers as the thrusters of a fighter ship. Or enough mass to swallow an entire ship, and that person is given less credit then some one who MAY have held together a single 600 meter ship (and it is MAY the wording the person uses is a bit more vague then you want to believe, I am not contesting that he likely did, but that doesnt mean the reality isnt a little vague, its called reasonable doubt) a ship that DOESNT have this kind of gravitational pull, Gravity is created by mass if it doesnt create that kind of gravity.. it doesnt have any where near its level of mass.

 

 

That's called a beast of a fight to get credit for the character.

 

 

When said same character gives another character accolades to be equal to them in force powers, and that character cant even get credit FOR THAT... that's call a beast of a fight to get credit for that character.

 

When you link 5 saber fights and then get called for not giving any saber feats to a character... that's called a beast of a fight to get credit for a character.

 

When the "proper thing to do" is to admit that a character is less powerful then an opponent that beats featless opponents, when that character has actually defeated or fought evenly with characters with feats... that's called a beast of a fight to get credit for a character.

 

 

When you have to give 5 feats for one character for every 1 accolade the other gets .... that's called a beast of a fight to get credit for a character, because if it was even... it would take 1 accolade to cancel 1 accolade, it should be 1 magnitude feat to counter 1 magnitude feat, it should be 1 precision feat to counter 1 precision feat, its not.

 

 

Edit: if I HONESTLY wanted to dig, I am sure I could find examples from BEFORE this fight even started. Every time a character not Name Luke from Post RotJ is even suggested to be able to even contend with a Pre-quel era or OR counter part, it's either laughed out of the room or the person that made the claim has to fight tooth and nail for that recognition to be gained.

Edited July 26, 2015 by tunewalker

[Aurbere]

Huh...

 

Allow me to make a response.

[tunewalker]

If you want I can do an experiment and list feats with names removed. And any time they do something to a character I can list some feats for that character they did it to all with names removed and see what people think.... Wont use any ones that are used recently it would be to obvious. Edited July 26, 2015 by tunewalker

[Aurbere]

If you want I can do an experiment and list feats with names removed. And any time they do something to a character I can list some feats for that character they did it to all with names removed and see what people think.... Wont use any ones that are used recently it would be to obvious.

 

Go for it. Best to get this resolved now.

[Aurbere]

I felt the need to take it out of the thread, because lets face it, this conversation really doesnt belong there.

 

Mmk, lemme take a crack at this.

 

When a person can move a black hole with enough mass to be able to cause high speed maneuvers as the thrusters of a fighter ship. Or enough mass to swallow an entire ship, and that person is given less credit then some one who MAY have held together a single 600 meter ship (and it is MAY the wording the person uses is a bit more vague then you want to believe, I am not contesting that he likely did, but that doesnt mean the reality isnt a little vague, its called reasonable doubt) a ship that DOESNT have this kind of gravitational pull, Gravity is created by mass if it doesnt create that kind of gravity.. it doesnt have any where near its level of mass.

 

Well, I have no intention of arguing the magnitude of the two feats, just the idea that Jadus' feat is vague.

 

Well, it is. But there is no need to doubt the feat at all. There is no real evidence against it, and a ton of evidence to suggest the magnitude of it. Every report from Intelligence said the ship was destroyed and that everyone was dead. Not only did Jadus preserve the ship, but also the lives of its crew and passengers. It's fairly obvious that he applied Force Barrier and Telekinesis simultaneously, honestly.

 

When said same character gives another character accolades to be equal to them in force powers, and that character cant even get credit FOR THAT... that's call a beast of a fight to get credit for that character.

 

Sucks for that character. Whoever didn't give it credit is wrong then.

 

When you link 5 saber fights and then get called for not giving any saber feats to a character... that's called a beast of a fight to get credit for a character.

 

Not my fault.

 

When the "proper thing to do" is to admit that a character is less powerful then an opponent that beats featless opponents, when that character has actually defeated or fought evenly with characters with feats... that's called a beast of a fight to get credit for a character.

 

Regarding the Wrath?

 

When you have to give 5 feats for one character for every 1 accolade the other gets .... that's called a beast of a fight to get credit for a character, because if it was even... it would take 1 accolade to cancel 1 accolade, it should be 1 magnitude feat to counter 1 magnitude feat, it should be 1 precision feat to counter 1 precision feat, its not.

 

If you have to do that, it means that the character you're supporting doesn't have that great of accolades, lol

 

Edit: if I HONESTLY wanted to dig, I am sure I could find examples from BEFORE this fight even started. Every time a character not Name Luke from Post RotJ is even suggested to be able to even contend with a Pre-quel era or OR counter part, it's either laughed out of the room or the person that made the claim has to fight tooth and nail for that recognition to be gained.

 

Or you're attempting to compare characters that are incomparable, hence the reactions.

[cs_zoltan]

I'll be the first to acknowledge that I hate post ROTJ. Force Unleashed got nothing on the NJO era in regard to over the top ********.

OCW is getting criticized for being inconsistant when Windu's feat in that series is a *********** Monday in post ROTJ, you know the guy who is second next to Yoda...

 

The whole era was built by inept writers, who could only do one thing, which is spectacle creep. So yeah, go ahead and take Grievous' and Shaak Ti's OCW feat with a big grain of salt. I'm gona do the same with NJO, whether you agree or not.

[tunewalker]

Ok lets get this fun experiment out of the way

 

 

 

Character 1 vs Character 2

 

 

Character 1 is primarily a saber duelist and hand to hand martial artist, they are of a race that is physically super fit, and are noted as a master of telekinetics.

 

They have fought other super strong saber duelists and used tact to over come them.

 

They have fought through being electricuted, slashed with a lightsaber, and suffering head trama and poisoned all at the same time, and still were able to overcome their opponent with their own combat skills, even when reinforcements arrived.

 

They tanked a Grenade that exploded only a meter away and stayed standing and fighting deflecting more blaster bolts that came their way.

 

 

This character has taken a stab through the chest of a lightsaber and still prevailed against their opponent who was able to Telekinetically held in place a person who defeated a Sith Spawn that would take whole squads of jedi down, who was a master combatant themselves.

 

This character telekinetically held a ship in place against winds powerful enough to easily lift it off the ground.

 

This character Telekinetically hurls boulders, and even deflects them with the force when they are thrown at them.

 

This character could sense people on the other side of the galaxy.

 

 

Character 2 this character is a well rounded combatant, master of several techniques both force and hand to hand.

 

 

They have beaten a Sith Spawn that would take whole squads of jedi down.

 

They have deflected Lightning from a powerful sith that other jedi couldnt.

 

Capable of chucking large boulders at people

 

Capable of collasping buildings with TK

 

Occassionally uses choke against non-force sensitives

 

this character killed a rancor with force lightning.

 

This character could sense people on the other side of planets.

 

 

 

 

needless to say both characters are missing quite a few feats, but which do you think wins... or do you think its a draw?

 

Every one is free to have their opinion.

[Selenial]

Tune, I really shouldn't be replying to this thread but I'm going to at least make this small post. This whole bias debate is a double edged sword.

 

Look at my debate. I had Krayt, Wyyrok, and Talon. The last time any of those characters made a large appearance on this forum was 2 years ago. That was Krayt, and people decided he'd lose to an ROTJ Luke, that's how bad things were.

 

These were 3 amazingly unknown characters, facing the most overblown character in this tournament (Sion), one of the most powerful force users in history whose credit score was frankly too low (Traya) and a character whose loopholes allow him to match Vader in strength if argued correctly (Nox). Throw on top a character who could disappear at will and cause mass havoc among my team.

 

Look at the way I went about actually arguing the team. Clear cut listings of feats, then comparisons to opponents. You did the same, with one monumental difference. You decided that the forum liked the other team more and were predisposed to them. Your idea of stopping their "bias" was to call them out on it relentlessly, heat the debate up dramatically, and completely underrate the enemy team in an attempt to counter what you perceived to be a bias.

 

Instead of doing what I told you. Not being biased in a debate shows, in an argument. You can really tell when someone is giving a genuine accounting of a battle and when they're just trying to tilt the scales to their team as much as possible. It separates the bad debaters from the good, and the good from the astounding. And it's something you need to work on, really.

 

Do not mistake this post for saying it cost you the match, I'm not saying that at all. But to go on a rampage about bias when you're just as guilty of it isn't helping anyone.

 

Take a page out of my book, read my arguments in my math, and see why I'm saying what I say. I had this same problem in my last Kaggath, a predisposed Bias actually ended up losing my round for me. I've learned since, that I allowed that bias to continue and grow in the way I tried to combat it, im only saying what I say because I learned from my mistakes, time for you to do the same.

 

 

PS: Not trying to toot my own horn, it's just my team is the only one in the same predicament as Tunewalker's.

[tunewalker]

Mmk, lemme take a crack at this.

 

 

 

Well, I have no intention of arguing the magnitude of the two feats, just the idea that Jadus' feat is vague.

 

Well, it is.

 

That's all I care about, as the destruction was NOT witnessed, that means the 100% was a projection of what SHOULD have been destroyed, thus how that projection was prevented when we see chain reactions like the Death Star automatically makes it vague enough that I dont care. it Is, thus it is..... I like solid ground.

 

Sucks for that character. Whoever didn't give it credit is wrong then.

 

That was leia, and that was everyone.

 

 

Not my fault.

 

your right its just the reality as to why it is a beast of a fight to get credit for a character from the NJO.

 

Regarding the Wrath?

 

Regarding any and all characters that beat featless opponents vs a character that fought or defeated characters with feats.

 

If you have to do that, it means that the character you're supporting doesn't have that great of accolades, lol

 

Nope it has to be done because equal accolades are not considered equal. Because... it is a BEAST OF A FIGHT to get credit for a character from the NJO not name Luke. The fact that THIS was your response just proves that fact further.

 

 

Or you're attempting to compare characters that are incomparable, hence the reactions.

Never did try this, the opinion that any character is incomparable must be proven before any reaction should be given, but people dont bother with that. Especially when characters hold fimiliar positions of renown with in their own eras. For example, a Jedi Grandmaster should never be considered incomparable with any jedi regardless of the era they come from. Everything should be taken at face value, its true not all Jedi GM's are created equal, but that doesnt ever mean you write one off with out conversation. Not saying this has occured recently but it does.

 

the fact that this is your defense actually proves the point further.

 

 

Thank you most of these just proved my point. The fact that THIS is your defense, proves why its a beast of a fight to get credit for the NJO.

[Rhyltran]

Tune, I have proven myself on these forums a few times and I want to get into a little bit that Sel has stated. I used to be part of a debate team so take what you want from what I have to say. If your judges are truly biased against you there's not much you can do about it. You're going to lose regardless unless you can change their minds. If you're really good at debate this is always a possibility unless they have some ties with the opposing "players." in this case they didn't. The person you were "competing" against was not part of some popular clique.

 

That wasn't the problem. The moment you start calling out the other side for being biased you begin creating resentment towards yourself. You are essentially insulting the judges as well as your opponent. Most people don't look kindly to insults. At that moment you begin alienating yourself while also giving your judges/opponent a reason to be biased against you. At this point you're digging your grave. Insulting the judges doesn't do you any favors. I will give an example of what I meant.

 

In the most powerful force users people originally thought Plagueis was around Vader's level. I managed to change some people's perceptions about him. I was brushed off originally but I pointed to certain events in the novel as well as listed page numbers. I pointed to the wording and even Palpatine's own perception/view of his master.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Rhyltran

[tunewalker]

Tune, I really shouldn't be replying to this thread but I'm going to at least make this small post. This whole bias debate is a double edged sword.

 

Look at my debate. I had Krayt, Wyyrok, and Talon. The last time any of those characters made a large appearance on this forum was 2 years ago. That was Krayt, and people decided he'd lose to an ROTJ Luke, that's how bad things were.

 

These were 3 amazingly unknown characters, facing the most overblown character in this tournament (Sion), one of the most powerful force users in history whose credit score was frankly too low (Traya) and a character whose loopholes allow him to match Vader in strength if argued correctly (Nox). Throw on top a character who could disappear at will and cause mass havoc among my team.

 

Look at the way I went about actually arguing the team. Clear cut listings of feats, then comparisons to opponents. You did the same, with one monumental difference. You decided that the forum liked the other team more and were predisposed to them. Your idea of stopping their "bias" was to call them out on it relentlessly, heat the debate up dramatically, and completely underrate the enemy team in an attempt to counter what you perceived to be a bias.

 

Instead of doing what I told you. Not being biased in a debate shows, in an argument. You can really tell when someone is giving a genuine accounting of a battle and when they're just trying to tilt the scales to their team as much as possible. It separates the bad debaters from the good, and the good from the astounding. And it's something you need to work on, really.

 

Do not mistake this post for saying it cost you the match, I'm not saying that at all. But to go on a rampage about bias when you're just as guilty of it isn't helping anyone.

 

Take a page out of my book, read my arguments in my math, and see why I'm saying what I say. I had this same problem in my last Kaggath, a predisposed Bias actually ended up losing my round for me. I've learned since, that I allowed that bias to continue and grow in the way I tried to combat it, im only saying what I say because I learned from my mistakes, time for you to do the same.

 

 

PS: Not trying to toot my own horn, it's just my team is the only one in the same predicament as Tunewalker's.

 

It really is, but I can only list every feat they have and have people say, that's nothing look this guy beat this featless opponent... THIS FEATLESS OPPONENT... I mean come on... how could they ever even compete using tactics, teamwork or terrain to their advantage when this guy beat THIS featless opponent so many times before I actually HAVE to tear down a featless opponent, because if I dont I am looking at 1 guy beating everyone.

[Rhyltran]

It really is, but I can only list every feat they have and have people say, that's nothing look this guy beat this featless opponent... THIS FEATLESS OPPONENT... I mean come on... how could they ever even compete using tactics, teamwork or terrain to their advantage when this guy beat THIS featless opponent so many times before I actually HAVE to tear down a featless opponent, because if I dont I am looking at 1 guy beating everyone.

 

You have to do that sometimes. In debate people will create distractions. Sometimes telling people to ignore the distractions isn't enough so then you have to tear down those distractions. It's all part of debate. If your opponent frustrates you or tires you out they're going to beat you. I think the problem here is that you want to argue just facts but the thing is you aren't. It's not just about facts but debating skills. This isn't some chess game or a game based on twitch skills.

 

It's about trying to convince everyone that your side and your choices are right while the opponent's choices are wrong. The opponent can win even if he isn't right by simply discrediting or getting you so flustered that you do that yourself.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Rhyltran

[tunewalker]

Tune, I have proven myself on these forums a few times and I want to get into a little bit that Sel has stated. I used to be part of a debate team so take what you want from what I have to say. If your judges are truly biased against you there's not much you can do about it. You're going to lose regardless unless you can change their minds. If you're really good at debate this is always a possibility unless they have some ties with the opposing "players." in this case they didn't. The person you were "competing" against was not part of some popular clique.

 

That wasn't the problem. The moment you start calling out the other side for being biased you begin creating resentment towards yourself. You are essentially insulting the judges as well as your opponent. Most people don't look kindly to insults. At that moment you begin alienating yourself while also giving your judges/opponent a reason to be biased against you. At this point you're digging your grave. Insulting the judges doesn't do you any favors. I will give an example of what I meant.

 

In the most powerful force users people originally thought Plagueis was around Vader's level. I managed to change some people's perceptions about him. I was brushed off originally but I pointed to certain events in the novel as well as listed page numbers. I pointed to the wording and even Palpatine's own perception/view of his master.

 

I know, that's why this isnt in that thread, its here, this isnt about the battle its about the bias that exists in these threads as a whole. That battle and that debate will go as it will go. This is ABOUT the existing bias, not about any kind of actual fight.

 

This thread is a debate about bias in debates.

 

You are all right I shouldnt have said anything in the original thread about the bias, and kept going on my own marry way of attempting to create reasonable doubt of a character while showing my owns abilities.

[tunewalker]

You have to do that sometimes. In debate people will create distractions. Sometimes telling people to ignore the distractions isn't enough so then you have to tear down those distractions. It's all part of debate.

 

And then I Tear it down, and I am called biased for doing so and "low balling" an opponent. and that's when a thread like this starts .

 

 

Edit: I like Chess, I love games... I like when there is a set rules system in place and every one follows them to the letter .

Edited July 26, 2015 by tunewalker

[Aurbere]

Hmm. I think I see the issue here. Query, Tune, do you think Darth Revan has feats?

 

I want to get to the bottom of this, so an answer is appreciated.

[Rhyltran]

And then I Tear it down, and I am called biased for doing so and "low balling" an opponent.

 

Tell the person to focus on the debate and to avoid using Ad Hominems. Point out if they can't make a counterpoint that's their problem. Who cares if they think you're the one who's biased? If it's the judges again there's not much that can be done about that. You ignore it while continuing to try to change their minds or at some point you just agree to disagree. Sometimes you just walk away. Sometimes in online debates the person who's right isn't the one who wins.

 

I'm not supporting you. I haven't read the main thread. I'm just trying to help out with debate in general. Also while you think this thread is separate you are creating perceptions that will carry over into your match. Just so you know. As the thread you made here will be viewed by both the judges as well as the combatant. Also what I said above is true even for competitive debate. We often argued points that we knew were wrong but made them so convincing we won anyway.

 

Lawyers employ the same tactic. Every time someone who's guilty goes free due to the arguments of a good lawyer you're seeing that in play.

 

P.S. Good luck Tune.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Rhyltran

[Silenceo]

Hmm. I think I see the issue here. Query, Tune, do you think Darth Revan has feats?

 

I want to get to the bottom of this, so an answer is appreciated.

 

QUERY: Why is everyone using this term now?

 

STATEMENT: I used it before it was cool.

 

SELF-RIGHTEOUS STATEMENT: In terms of the mentioned match, it was quite... strange... how some of the characters were ranked, despite lack of feats...

Edited July 26, 2015 by Silenceo

[tunewalker]

Hmm. I think I see the issue here. Query, Tune, do you think Darth Revan has feats?

 

I want to get to the bottom of this, so an answer is appreciated.

 

Ya he has quite a few actually. Defeating Jedi and Sith (though many of them dont have much in terms of feats themselves)

 

If we take game mechanics then he has that astroid feat.

 

He speed blitzes royal Guards who can keep up with Jedi in combat. (this is not a game feat)

 

and a bunch of others, but ya he has plenty.

[tunewalker]

Tell the person to focus on the debate and to avoid using Ad Hominems. Point out if they can't make a counterpoint that's their problem. Who cares if they think you're the one who's biased? If it's the judges again there's not much that can be done about that. You ignore it while continuing to try to change their minds or at some point you just agree to disagree. Sometimes you just walk away. Sometimes in online debates the person who's right isn't the one who wins.

 

I'm not supporting you. I haven't read the main thread. I'm just trying to help out with debate in general. Also while you think this thread is separate you are creating perceptions that will carry over into your match. Just so you know. As the thread you made here will be viewed by both the judges as well as the combatant. Also what I said above is true even for competitive debate. We often argued points that we knew were wrong but made them so convincing we won anyway.

 

Lawyers employ the same tactic. Every time someone who's guilty goes free due to the arguments of a good lawyer you're seeing that in play.

 

P.S. Good luck Tune.

 

Ya, I am honestly trying to pull this away from that main thread honestly. I really really am because it was a topic that is spread much further then that one. It has existed in the Kaggath in the most powerful threads both old and new. Star kind of brought it up in his match. it is just a very prevelant problem that I felt needed addressing as a whole, but ya I will keep these tips in mind when trying to form my debate, since this has turned into "debate tips.... Dealing with bias"....

 

 

Actually that's a pretty good topic if you ask me

[Aurbere]

Ya he has quite a few actually. Defeating Jedi and Sith (though many of them dont have much in terms of feats themselves)

 

If we take game mechanics then he has that astroid feat.

 

He speed blitzes royal Guards who can keep up with Jedi in combat. (this is not a game feat)

 

and a bunch of others, but ya he has plenty.

 

I mean strictly Darth Revan. No KOTOR, no SWTOR, no Revan novel.

[tunewalker]

I mean strictly Darth Revan. No KOTOR, no SWTOR, no Revan novel.

 

He beat a bunch of Mandalorians, Force choked a group of Non-force Sensitives, and has shown good tactical skill, I am sure there is more that I just dont remember, but that's about it that I can recall off the top of my head.

 

other then that, I would call most everything he has accolades. Opinions of other characters that give him merit.

[Aurbere]

Hmm, seems I was wrong then. Or maybe...

 

Darth Revan is stated to have defeated Darth Malak in combat. We don't have much information on it. Would you call that vague?

[tunewalker]

Hmm, seems I was wrong then. Or maybe...

 

Darth Revan is stated to have defeated Darth Malak in combat. We don't have much information on it. Would you call that vague?

 

He beat him, but how he beat him, or how badly he beat him is vague yes.... but he beat him, nothing vague about him winning a combat related contest, only vague in what form of tactic or power or skill gap, size of the gap or what have you that makes it slightly vague yes. So depending on which part you are refering to yes... or no

 

If you mean he defeated him.... is that vague (no he beat him... nothing vague about him beating him)

 

or if you mean he defeated him, thus it makes him better in every way, not neccisarily because you dont have to be better in every way to beat some one thus vague.

 

The feat is there, the feat exists, we can safely assume that as an overall package Revan is better then Malak, but we cant assume by any amount or assume in every category.

Edited July 26, 2015 by tunewalker

[Jarons]

He beat him, but how he beat him, or how badly he beat him is vague yes.... but he beat him, nothing vague about him winning a combat related contest, only vague in what form of tactic or power or skill gap, size of the gap or what have you that makes it slightly vague yes. So depending on which part you are refering to yes... or no

 

If you mean he defeated him.... is that vague (no he beat him... nothing vague about him beating him)

 

or if you mean he defeated him, thus it makes him better in every way, not neccisarily because you dont have to be better in every way to beat some one.

Wait didn't Darth Revan beat him so bad he was forced to use a respirator the breath?

[tunewalker]

Wait didn't Darth Revan beat him so bad he was forced to use a respirator the breath?

 

I dont remember, possibly, in which case that is a bit more accurate and quantifiable and makes things less vague, but that wasnt really the question that was given to me.