GameFAQs Contests

If Squirtle actually beats Cloud, what kind of shot are we giving him against Snake and Sora? If he beats Cloud in a match that favors him due to Stand Out Factor, I don't see why he couldn't do the same against Snake in the next round. The possibility is at least there.

And yes, I'm just speculating because my stupid support of Nathan Drake has killed my bracket and this is aaaaall there's left for me to do.

Oh so you're one of those. The illogical, foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Pokemon types who literally and unironically uses the term "Pokedrones". Like KP in the early stages of the Dante/Squirtle match, before he calmed down and became regular KP.

Jigglypuff. And Lugia. And hell, Magikarp. The Pokemon that have actually done well are good Pokemon, fan-favourites. Missingno is a legend of sorts; Squirtle, Charizard and Pikachu are all RBY starters (as well as being in Smash). Drones.

Oh I still think Pokedrones is a thing, there's just no sense in going on and on about it. The point has been made.

If you're going to go all ad hominem on me, at least use something better than "illogical" and "foaming-at-the-mouth." "Mouth-breather" or "Basement dweller" would have been more amusing. Based on my post, perhaps arrogant or condescending would have been more fitting, though I think I was neither. But my posts certainly were not illogical nor were they filled with rabid, frothy rage. Those adjectives may have been better suited to some people's posts during the Draven match.

Also, if you're going to "quote" me, and especially (incorrectly) use the word literally, at least use the term I actually used. I used Pokefans, a simple portmanteau of Pokemon fans, and one which has far less of a negative loaded connotation than Pokedrones, Though now that you mention it, perhaps drones would have been a better word to describe some voters.

Anyways, I full well realized when writing my first post that I was going to be arguing into a brick wall based on what I know of this community's general paradigm regarding these contests. If I made at least a few people recognize their hypocrisy, I'm happy. I won't carry this argument on further and derail any further from this topic.

XIII, you're making me sad after I defended your plea on the LoL subreddit a few days ago :( Yes, that was me on a different moniker.

I'm sticking to that 'there are other games' statement. There's actually little reason for Pokemon like Squirtle, Pikachu, or even Charizard to be as universally backed and almost equally strong as they are - the entire point of the Pokemon franchise is that you have a lot of options for your favorites, but that doesn't really seem to be what applies to the contest. Just comparing it to, say, the FF fanbase, the FF fanbase is significantly more diverse in what it cares about.

I'm sticking to that 'there are other games' statement. There's actually little reason for Pokemon like Squirtle, Pikachu, or even Charizard to be as universally backed and almost equally strong as they are - the entire point of the Pokemon franchise is that you have a lot of options for your favorites, but that doesn't really seem to be what applies to the contest. Just comparing it to, say, the FF fanbase, the FF fanbase is significantly more diverse in what it cares about.

raginbull911 posted...

I'm just tired of all the mindless automatons just voting for anything to do with Pokemon characters when in reality they're just random animals with nothing to them

Indeed, it's getting crazy.

Ad Hominem makes arguments interesting and is often required, tbh. I'm not obeying some unwritten rule that I cannot insult somebody who is being dumb because it "hurts my argument". No it doesn't, and if I insult someone they have earned it.

Also, no. This is wrong. There's no hypocrisy, and I do want evidence that a significant amount of people are anti-Draven because he "lacks character". That was not the problem the vast majority of this board had with Draven's dominance. I want to see actual evidence to the contrary, because it seems to me like you're making a ridiculous leap of faith to have a dig at Pokemon fans that you cannot justify when pushed into doing so.

(On a side-note, by implying "drones" is a good term to use you retroactively meant my use of the word literally is correct so thx)

XIII_rocks posted...

Ad Hominem makes arguments interesting and is often required, tbh. I'm not obeying some unwritten rule that I cannot insult somebody who is being dumb because it "hurts my argument". No it doesn't, and if I insult someone they have earned it.

Also, no. This is wrong. There's no hypocrisy, and I do want evidence that a significant amount of people are anti-Draven because he "lacks character". That was not the problem the vast majority of this board had with Draven's dominance. I want to see actual evidence to the contrary, because it seems to me like you're making a ridiculous leap of faith to have a dig at Pokemon fans that you cannot justify when pushed into doing so.

(On a side-note, by implying "drones" is a good term to use you retroactively meant my use of the word literally is correct so thx)

1. If you think ad hominem attacks don't weaken your argument, you're proved yourself not even worth arguing with.

2. Despite being on this site for 11+ years, I don't know how to find archived topics LOL. It was there; if you want to be naive about it that's fine by me -- refer to point 1. You probably think Draven was stuffed across the globe too.

3. You're welcome!

Back to this match, go Drake!

1. If you think ad hominem attacks don't weaken your argument, you're proved yourself not even worth arguing with.

2. Despite being on this site for 11+ years, I don't know how to find archived topics LOL. It was there; if you want to be naive about it that's fine by me -- refer to point 1. You probably think Draven was stuffed across the globe too.

3. You're welcome!

Back to this match, go Drake!

Ad Hominem attacks only "weaken" an argument if the debate is being scored or judged.

I feel like if we ever have to sit through four days of 65-35 midcard/near-elite vs. fodder/near-fodder matches this topic would be filled "please give us the 12 hour matches back, this is awful!"

I like the 12 hour format for the early going to thin out the field. I'm not sure I'd really like to see a 64-game 1v1 24 hour battle - there would be a huge number of near-elite/elites that'd get snubbed in place of fodder with dedicated fanbases and recently released games. 12 hour matches beget a big reduction of the risk of big snubs by allowing an expanded bracket. Once we're down to characters who've made it through a couple of rounds though, I think they deserve 24 hours to battle it out. This contest is a bit different because we kill off so much of the bracket each round that we'll actually be down to 27 entrants (instead of 32, in a 128 entrant contest) by round three. Which underlines another weakness of this format - it might profess to get more entrants interesting matches, but it actually murders them in more brutal batches than straight 1v1s would.

Ad Hominem attacks only "weaken" an argument if the debate is being scored or judged. When they're not, like here, they're necessary because sometimes you have to go to the person, not the argument. Arguments are surface, they're like a shield. You can attack them and dismantle them and do nothing to the person presenting the argument, meaning that they will just pop up again some other time with the same illogical argument. In that situation, there's no point just being friendly and attacking only the argument, because it does nothing, changes nothing. Sometimes you have to attack both the shield and the person erecting said shield to get through to them. By comparing you to first-30-minutes-of-Squirtle/Dante-raging-KP, I hope to show you what it is exactly that you're doing wrong.

XIII_rocks posted...

Ad Hominem attacks only "weaken" an argument if the debate is being scored or judged.

Can we all please ignore him now that he's been reduced to this nonsense

I don't remember exact text strings to go finding it in Google, and I've already wasted too much time on this silly internet argument to look for a needle in a haystack with Google. On one hand you say ad hominem fallacy doesn't apply because it's not being scored (which is a fair statement), but on the other hand you demand concrete evidence to the contrary rather than hearsay, which would imply that this is a formal debate. I don't need to convince you of anything, I know what I read and I know that I'm not BSing. You're free to believe what you believe, I'm fine with that too, and I fully admit I haven't given any indisputable evidence supporting my claim. We can both be happy with that result I hope!

I honestly don't want to derail the topic anymore even though this has been a pretty good discussion, if you want to debate further PM me!

Cathrine or Knuckles for second? sucks that we don't have the pic for that match up yet. then again Cathrine should get less pic factor in this rounds format, but she got rallied round 1.

XIII and raginbull911 right now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q37LvDLHew

Kotetsu534 posted...

I feel like if we ever have to sit through four days of 65-35 midcard/near-elite vs. fodder/near-fodder matches this topic would be filled "please give us the 12 hour matches back, this is awful!"

I like the 12 hour format for the early going to thin out the field. I'm not sure I'd really like to see a 64-game 1v1 24 hour battle - there would be a huge number of near-elite/elites that'd get snubbed in place of fodder with dedicated fanbases and recently released games. 12 hour matches beget a big reduction of the risk of big snubs by allowing an expanded bracket. Once we're down to characters who've made it through a couple of rounds though, I think they deserve 24 hours to battle it out. This contest is a bit different because we kill off so much of the bracket each round that we'll actually be down to 27 entrants (instead of 32, in a 128 entrant contest) by round three. Which underlines another weakness of this format - it might profess to get more entrants interesting matches, but it actually murders them in more brutal batches than straight 1v1s would.

The reason we have the 12-hour format is to avoid having a very long contest. If we wanted a 128 character/game contest with 24-hour matches for the entire contest, it would take 127 days to complete and Bacon has stated that he would never run a contest for that long. And I don't think Bacon will ever go back to a 64 character/game contest again. The Rivalry Rumble was an exception here, as that was more of a mini-contest that had 64 entrants. I could also imagine 64 entrants if we ever had another Villains or Series Contest again.

To get 24-hour matches for the entire contest with 128 characters/games, you would need to do something like this:

Run 2 polls at the same time, but that will hurt vote totals for the lower match.

Go back to 4-ways again, and have 4-way matches for the entire contest.

Or you could do a mixed format and have 4-way matches for round 1 and switch over to 1v1s in round 2 and beyond. Only 1 character/game would advance out of each 4-way match in round 1.

The reason we have the 12-hour format is to avoid having a very long contest. If we wanted a 128 character/game contest with 24-hour matches for the entire contest, it would take 127 days to complete and Bacon has stated that he would never run a contest for that long. And I don't think Bacon will ever go back to a 64 character/game contest again. The Rivalry Rumble was an exception here, as that was more of a mini-contest that had 64 entrants. I could also imagine 64 entrants if we ever had another Villains or Series Contest again.

To get 24-hour matches for the entire contest with 128 characters/games, you would need to do something like this:

Run 2 polls at the same time, but that will hurt vote totals for the lower match.

Go back to 4-ways again, and have 4-way matches for the entire contest.

Or you could do a mixed format and have 4-way matches for round 1 and switch over to 1v1s in round 2 and beyond. Only 1 character/game would advance out of each 4-way match in round 1.