Red.
Smash Ace
rofl thats even better 
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Oregon Smash Community [OSC] - Oregon's official Smash Community est. 2005
- Thread starter T0MMY
- Start date
Yeah... Wiki, you are very much entitled to your opinion and you have the rights to vote against it. Lets try not to make an entire page of arguing... anyways. does anyone else have any other votes to cast? cause the tally in my last post still stands.
v4p
Smash Apprentice
I forget if I have voted. I vote Bart's format
panelists=
Bart
Jesse
Timmy
***minh
panelists=
Bart
Jesse
Timmy
***minh
Digital Watches
Smash Ace
Alright: My vote:
Bart's format.
Panelists:
Bart
Timmy
Juce
Tudios (maybe Cmin if he's not active)
Bart's format.
Panelists:
Bart
Timmy
Juce
Tudios (maybe Cmin if he's not active)
This is a quote from a PM I received last night:
Please take this into consideration when deciding what you want for your own state.
One of my goals while making my PR thread was quality; quality to help others improve or create their own regional Power Ranking threads. By doing so, I hope to give something to the smash community as a whole.knuttz45 said:
Please take this into consideration when deciding what you want for your own state.
Good thing Kenpachi is keeping track, look at results for yourself.
Foos doesn't even need my support to be considered a Panelist, all he has to do is say he wants to be one. I supported him, which is more than was sufficient.
Keyword bolded.
I'd like to see people refrain from posts like this, obviously it doesn't help anything.
I think Tudios doesn't want to be panelist, he should post & say so just to clarify.
And where is Jesse? He hasn't posted once.
Jesse doesn't really post a whole lot, but he did post a while back I believe regarding the whole ordeal.
Anyway, do we really need to vote on how many panelists we should even have? Most people seem to agree that 6 is far too many, and that four is plenty.
Anyway, do we really need to vote on how many panelists we should even have? Most people seem to agree that 6 is far too many, and that four is plenty.
Hey Oregon, I remember looking at the three first Oregon power rankings threads looking for ideas for our Idaho power rankings thread(which is in PR discussion). Looking at the base format of the 3 power ranking threads that got locked, T!mmy's thread made the most sense after looking at the requirements for state power rankings. Yes, it was incomplete, but the overall format of what a state needed. The rest is up to the state (you guys). Going off his as a template and modifying it to the states needs would be the best choice. This is what I'm doing with Idaho. We are taking the base template and trying to mold it to our own.
BTW:4 panelists is not a good idea for anyone who thinks it is. It can be a 2 vs. 2 when discussing someones rank, and can be very problematic. Look at Utah. 3 or 5 is an odd number and, and discussions will only be 2 vs. 3, or 2 vs. 1.
BTW:4 panelists is not a good idea for anyone who thinks it is. It can be a 2 vs. 2 when discussing someones rank, and can be very problematic. Look at Utah. 3 or 5 is an odd number and, and discussions will only be 2 vs. 3, or 2 vs. 1.
Digital Watches
Smash Ace
I concede knuttz's point about the need for an odd number of panelists.
Knuttz, I agree that having an even number of panelists seems almost counterproductive, which is why it seemed alright to just have the three original panelists we had. But, Timmy wants to be included, and I want to include him. There shouldn't really be too much discrepancy with four panelists, though, because it's mostly about discussion.
Wikipedia
Smash Lord
I'd like to agree with what Knuttz says which agrees with what I said a page ago. Five panelists should be used. I don't get the argument, "Oregon's smash scene isn't big enough." Isn't big enough for what?
Since T!mmy want to be included, and you want to include him too, you guys right know have 4 panelists. 5 should be ok. Anything after 5 is too much, but 5 should be ok. Doesn't Socal have way more than 5? (but i know they have TONS more smashers) I would think that Oregon would be fine with 5 panelists, with the size of the community. ( For us in idaho, 5 is too much)...
There are several things you can do for a 5th panelist, either someone else who is deserving and is willing to step up , or have a "guest" panelist, and switch out the panelists for the 5th panelist every month or every 3 months. (don't give them a choice...you say, YOU ARE the guest panelist).
Wikipedia
Smash Lord
You are the one making the claim, you have to support your claim. You have to answer why five panelists is too many and u can't use "we have X amount of players" because that's not actual support. You actually have to say what's wrong with it, you know, use reason.
I consider the fact that we don't have very many players reason enough.
Let's say an area has six players. What exactly would be the reason for them having five panelists? Would you still argue that number of players isn't enough of a reason?
Let's say an area has six players. What exactly would be the reason for them having five panelists? Would you still argue that number of players isn't enough of a reason?
Wikipedia
Smash Lord
No, I don't see the link. If there were six players, heck, make all six of them panelists. They can all just discuss where they all are on the list. You actually have to use something that's called logic to support your claim. I could go around making fallacious claims but if I don't back them up they won't mean anything.
v4p
Smash Apprentice
wikipedia is a goon
The logic is that if there were six players and all of them were panelists, then nobody would have to back up their claims with accurate information, and all players could easily vote that they be number one on their rankings.
Yes, if you have a small number of players then you don't need a large number of panelists in comparison.
Yes, if you have a small number of players then you don't need a large number of panelists in comparison.
Eggz
Smash Hero
You aren't supporting your claim at all either. How can you say "Bart, use/list your logic otherwise I don't believe you." and then not give any reason at all for your opinion? 6 is way too many for such a small smash scene.
Also
What the hell? That's not even an argument. It's like, if he had said "99%" rather than "almost 100%," you wouldn't have anything to say. And obviously, the rebuttal you offered was lacking. Now, you can refute this and say something like "well how are we to know he didn't mean 51% when he said almost 100% for almost is just an adjective given meaning in relation to something else" and the answer is common sense. Nobody says almost 100% and means much lower unless the enthymeme behind their logic is meant to be comical. Bart's point was that timmy described Bart's thread. I still don't see what the problem was with Bart's thread besides the fact that it, like the other PRs, were made without the majority of Oregon's consent/awareness. Which has now been changed, seeing as the majority likes Bart's format.
v4p
Smash Apprentice
t!0mmy <3 trivial bull****!!
Digital Watches
Smash Ace
Can I sidebet that?
Hey, on the topic of panelists, maybe we could have a tie breaker position. Kinda like the vice president to the senate, heh. Someone who only really needs to pop in when things get harsh, then take in all the arguments for both sides and make a call. If that were a valid position, we could just have the panelists decide on who they'd like for a tiebreaker.
Lets just hope they don't split 50/50 while making that decision... heh
-----------------
Hey! 100 posts!
-----------------
also, to joshisrad,
you noted my recording foos as having one vote. In my post i referenced the post the vote count started at. If you can show me the other posts which could be consideted votes for him. but this is the point at which "votes" have been happening.
Lets just hope they don't split 50/50 while making that decision... heh
-----------------
Hey! 100 posts!
-----------------
also, to joshisrad,
you noted my recording foos as having one vote. In my post i referenced the post the vote count started at. If you can show me the other posts which could be consideted votes for him. but this is the point at which "votes" have been happening.
FoosJr
Smash Ace
Wow srsly this isn't even that serious, Josh if you think that having me as a panelist won't help than fine I won't be a panelist. Just understand it's a friggen volunteer position that I was putting myself up for. Lets just have T!mmy, T0mmy, Bart, Jesse, and Minh. That's if Jesse even wants to be a panelist. He hasn't really said much at all about this probably becuase this is just getting rediculously dumb. But honestly this argument is getting out of hand.
No kenpachi, he only has one vote. That was the point.
Foos, now that people are discussing you, the whole idea is becoming a big deal and getting out of hand? Come on man. And please, tell everyone why the PR list isn't serious. Everyone else is behaving as though it were.
Foos, now that people are discussing you, the whole idea is becoming a big deal and getting out of hand? Come on man. And please, tell everyone why the PR list isn't serious. Everyone else is behaving as though it were.
FoosJr
Smash Ace
No it's not even the fact that people are discussing me it's the facts that it's been going on for so long. It's dumb because OR was doing just fine before we even started one. and my bad on saying not that serious, I meant important. It can be as serious as people want to make it. I just don't see this being that serious yeah sure it's cool and people shouldn't just make a random power rankings list. (I'm not saying that anyone's has been random so far) I'm just saying that people should try to chill out over it and let people who want to be a panelist become a panelist.
v4p
Smash Apprentice
I was kidding about being a gp rep . I am the only person in gp who plays well. I guess I sounded serious.
SRY GUYZ
SRY GUYZ
No. Panelists need to be people who keep up with the game and know about the game, its characters, its stages, and anything else.
A PR list is important because it will help Oregon improve. To say that Oregon was fine before a PR was created is just blind ignorance.
Wikipedia
Smash Lord
Nice use of a straw man's argument...again. Obviously arguing the six player argument is much easier, regarldess, that could still happen in any situation... each panelists could just put themselves at number one. That isn't unique to a situation with all the players being a panelist member. Try actually arguing what the situation is in front of us. I'll even get you started, The problem with having 5 panelists when we have 30 players is...
Eggz, I've already supported why having 5 panelists is the best, it is an odd number so it prevents ties in voting and you will get a broader perspective of opinions. 3 doesn't work because Timmy needs to be a panelist and 4 is an even number. Get it now?
*passes baton of logic to Bart*
No, but you aren't understanding how it works. The panelists won't vote, they'll discuss. Each panelist voting for themselves as number one is unique to a situation where panelists vote rather than a situation where the panelists discuss. I have argued what the situation is in front of us when regarding that the panelists are there to discuss and not vote, which has been the case all along and which was stated in the thread that you clearly did not read.
Who brought the idea that panelists vote into this? If I did, then I'm an idiot.
Also, we don't have 30 active players at all. We have like 12 active players in Oregon tops.
Anyway, why don't we just have every single active Oregon player as a panelist, just like in the situation where 100 percent of a region's players were panelists? That way we can get a SUPER ACCURATE SPECIFIC LIST!!
Who brought the idea that panelists vote into this? If I did, then I'm an idiot.
Also, we don't have 30 active players at all. We have like 12 active players in Oregon tops.
Anyway, why don't we just have every single active Oregon player as a panelist, just like in the situation where 100 percent of a region's players were panelists? That way we can get a SUPER ACCURATE SPECIFIC LIST!!
4 panelists being an even number as an argument to NOT have 4 panelists is purely ridiculous.
the panel should be intelligent active players who will show as little bias as possible (which i think you have in your 4 players) and they will simply discus who they think should be where and talk it out until a list is made.
more than 4 panelists for a region as active (or non-active) as oregon isn't necessary at all
the panel should be intelligent active players who will show as little bias as possible (which i think you have in your 4 players) and they will simply discus who they think should be where and talk it out until a list is made.
more than 4 panelists for a region as active (or non-active) as oregon isn't necessary at all
Wikipedia
Smash Lord
Ok, I'm done arguing with you, Bart. Until you can discuss this with reason then I refuse to continue this senseless banter.
And in true Bart, straw man argument, form you condense the argument to 'you don't understand how it works so you are wrong", it is beside the fact that there is going to be voting going on, even if it isn't in the form of a submitted ballot. You still haven't supported what is wrong with a 5 man panel with or without "voting". Regardless, by saying, even in a discussed format, "I think MCS should be first on the list," you are still making a "vote" for MCS to be first. Thus by following your own conclusion, you are an idiot.
Try again, Bart.
EDIT: Gimpy, it is more than just having an equal number of panelist. I personally find it ironic that Bart is the one to argue denying someone of being on the panel when he is the one to advocate more activity in the PR. Wasn't Bart the one that used, "I hate not doing anything on this forum, whine whine whine, let me be the one to edit the first post...I WANT SOMETHING TO DO!" When he is the one denying someone the privilege of contributing to the PR by not allowing a fifth panel position. It is more than just it being an odd number, it allows more activity and sense of responsibility, it allows more discussion and variety of opinion.
You were the one to bring up voting. Note the emphasized text, also, notice that it was at the end of the quote and I didn't have to make it bright red.
And in true Bart, straw man argument, form you condense the argument to 'you don't understand how it works so you are wrong", it is beside the fact that there is going to be voting going on, even if it isn't in the form of a submitted ballot. You still haven't supported what is wrong with a 5 man panel with or without "voting". Regardless, by saying, even in a discussed format, "I think MCS should be first on the list," you are still making a "vote" for MCS to be first. Thus by following your own conclusion, you are an idiot.
Try again, Bart.
EDIT: Gimpy, it is more than just having an equal number of panelist. I personally find it ironic that Bart is the one to argue denying someone of being on the panel when he is the one to advocate more activity in the PR. Wasn't Bart the one that used, "I hate not doing anything on this forum, whine whine whine, let me be the one to edit the first post...I WANT SOMETHING TO DO!" When he is the one denying someone the privilege of contributing to the PR by not allowing a fifth panel position. It is more than just it being an odd number, it allows more activity and sense of responsibility, it allows more discussion and variety of opinion.
yeah, I'm done with all that too. You win the logics.
In any case, I still vote for four panelists, as most people have. If people want to change their votes and vote for five, then they should do that.
Um, Duke, just wanna point out that my "whining" was in response to the whining done by the twins over my taking initiative and creating the PR thread. I find it ridiculous that all of this happened in the first place when Timmy could easily have contacted me and just said "hey, I wanna take part as a panelist."
In any case, I still vote for four panelists, as most people have. If people want to change their votes and vote for five, then they should do that.
Um, Duke, just wanna point out that my "whining" was in response to the whining done by the twins over my taking initiative and creating the PR thread. I find it ridiculous that all of this happened in the first place when Timmy could easily have contacted me and just said "hey, I wanna take part as a panelist."
Wikipedia
Smash Lord
I don't care about winning any stupid argument. Honestly, Bart, it is not what it is about for me. I just want what is best for the state. But I guess you are correct if the majority of Oregon wants your format, four panelist and a monkey smoking a cigar as a mascot, then what the heck, make the majority happy.