BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

[fool]

Great point!

Which is why I am stepping in to enforce the rules more accurately.

The word limit is a "reccomended word limit".

Therefore I would have to CHANGE the rules to make the word limit a hard count.

Get it?

I didn't think so.

Also please do not waste valuable space commenting on why a question wasn't responded to if that question was not in your official question list. The 6,000 word limit is extremely tight in a debate of this complexity therefore we want to save as much space as possible for actual content.

Get it?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I know it must be tough for RightIdea to be taking the side he is on, but I am growing to respect RightIdea more and more for it :thumb:. Bob and Knight, I'm disappointed you have taken this as casual as you have. I'm sure Sam reading these posts would have a different opinion of the new "interpretation" of the rules.

This is simply an issue of integrity. The word count has been an issue since the start of Battle Royale and Sam pointed out that Bob's posts were excessive. No one was informed that in reality they weren't excessive until Round 9.

Bob, it is easy to claim that this wouldn't have happened if the roles were reversed. To say that this excuses Knight's ruling and gives you the right to post as you like is laughable.

The word count has not been an "issue".

And if it were an "issue" it was an "issue" in error.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Get it?

I didn't think so. :dunce:

 

[novice]

Oh give me a break!

So Bob goes over a few hundred words and everyone has a cow. What is the big deal? Clearly this is a non-issue.

 

[fool]

Knight: how can you reconcile those two quotes of yours I posted for you?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight: how can you reconcile those two quotes of yours I posted for you?

I already did, try to keep pace.

 

[RightIdea]

So, your asking that I change the rules that were agreed to by both participants?

You want me to change the rules from "recommended limit" to "hard limit"?

I don't think that seems very fair.

Nobody had that interpretation until the end of round 9. Rules have to be interpreted by someone. That's why God gave judges to men. You're the judge. And no one had this interpretation until now, least of all Bob.

I'm not talking about changing rules. They are what they are. I'm talking about a change in interpretation. First the rules say recommendation. Then you describe the limit as "extremely tight." Then we hear that it's all about the average word count of each participant. And now, at this late date, suddenly you say that "extremely tight" actually means "extremly loose" just in time to allow Bob to post an otherwise impossible post. At the very very best, it gives a huge appearance of impropriety, an appearance of favoritism, even if you rationalized some other reason in your mind at the time.

 

[defcon]

The word count has not been an "issue".

And if it were an "issue" it was an "issue" in error.

So Knight, is Sam ok with this ruling? I mean - since he has mentioned the word count a few times, and now you say that the 6,000 word limit won't be enforced on Bob, surely you let him know of the ruling and explained the reasons, why your quote of "extremely tight" after Round 3 was to be interpreted differently, etc., right?

 

[RobE]

"Rather, I think you gave into temptation in the heat of the moment, out of frustration, something that is completely forgiveable, but I do think you need to repent of it first."--Rightidea.

This is a mischaracterization of Bob. As he well knows - Rules in debates are only guidelines! The purpose of the debate is to give the arguments for both sides. Have you ever seen a presidential debate where one of the candidates kept talking after his time expired? The problem with Bob's word count is that he spent most of his early posts trying to get Sam to 'bite' (talk along certain lines) on specific ideas that favor his position. Sam wasn't going to be led down certain avenues of thought so Bob spent his time trying to get these 'key' points of his argument answered by the closed view. The word count doesn't matter in this debate. It's a non-issue. Bob knows it! Knight knows it! And to be quite honest Sam knows it(He just doesn't have the time to go into lengthy responses)! Sam doesn't want to be inundated with Bob's retoric without the opportunity to respond.

By the way, I'm enjoying the debate except for the word limit arguements. And "Hi, Bob" if you're reading this. I haven't spoken to you in a long time. I did see you in St. Pete, though. The family says hello as well.

 

[RightIdea]

Oh give me a break!

So Bob goes over a few hundred words and everyone has a cow. What is the big deal? Clearly this is a non-issue.

It's not a few hundred. It is thousands. Including thousands in just 8b alone.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Nobody had that interpretation until the end of round 9. Rules have to be interpreted by someone. That's why God gave judges to men. You're the judge. And no one had this interpretation until now, least of all Bob.

The very reason I decided to get involved! It wasn't worth commenting on until certain folks began to make a big issue out of it.

I didn't want Bob to think he had to adhere to a hard limit when there was no such hard limit.

I'm not talking about changing rules. They are what they are. I'm talking about a change in interpretation. First the rules say recommendation. Then you describe the limit as "extremely tight." Then we hear that it's all about the average word count of each participant. And now, at this late date, suddenly you say that "extremely tight" actually means "extremly loose" just in time to allow Bob to post an otherwise impossible post. At the very very best, it gives a huge appearance of impropriety, an appearance of favoritism, even if you rationalized some other reason in your mind at the time.

Again, when I said "extremely tight" it was a plea for the participants to stop wasting words on minutia! Which of course is exactly what we are doing here.

Who wants to read a debate where the participants bicker about how to debate each other which is what was going on early in the debate.

 

[RightIdea]

So Knight, is Sam ok with this ruling? I mean - since he has mentioned the word count a few times, and now you say that the 6,000 word limit won't be enforced on Bob, surely you let him know of the ruling and explained the reasons, why your quote of "extremely tight" after Round 3 was to be interpreted differently, etc., right?

If Knight had talked with Sam on this before the post, I'd think Knight would have already mentioned by now.

 

[fool]

The word count has not been an "issue".

And if it were an "issue" it was an "issue" in error.

You made it an issue when you said "the 6000 word limit is extremely tight".
What you should have said was "the 6000 word recomendation is a non-issue."
There is no hope, this debate is the fruit of a poison tree.
denying these facts makes things worse and causes me to question your integrity, as well as Bob's

 

[Nathon Detroit]

...and now you say that the 6,000 word limit won't be enforced on Bob

:doh:

The word limit IS being enforced that's what I am doing!

I am enforcing the fact that the limit is a "recommended limit".

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You made it an issue when you said "the 6000 word limit is extremely tight".
What you should have said was "the 6000 word recomendation is a non-issue."
There is no hope, this debate is the fruit of a poison tree.
denying these facts makes things worse and causes me to question your integrity, as well as Bob's

And of course I should have banned you last night when you acting equally stupid on the other unrelated thread.

 

[defcon]

You made it an issue when you said "the 6000 word limit is extremely tight".
What you should have said was "the 6000 word recomendation is a non-issue."
There is no hope, this debate is the fruit of a poison tree.
denying these facts makes things worse and causes me to question your integrity, as well as Bob's

:thumb: Me too.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

:thumb: Me too.

Me too, what?

 

[Poly]

You made it an issue when you said "the 6000 word limit is extremely tight".
What you should have said was "the 6000 word recomendation is a non-issue."
There is no hope, this debate is the fruit of a poison tree.
denying these facts makes things worse and causes me to question your integrity, as well as Bob's

You could care less about this whole debate, fool. You've basically said nothing about it until this issue came up. You saw it as a great opportunity to attack Bob because of how much you despise him.

 

[Mr. 5020]

Now, everybody knows that I despise Bob, but this is ridiculous. Knight is the administrator, and the owner, of this site. There is no doubt that he is biased at times, as we all are; however, this is his site and these are his rules. If he feels like enforcing a rule strictly sometimes and loosely other times, that is his choice, NOT OURS.

 

[defcon]

Me too, what?

I'm questioning Bob's and your integrity just like fool is, because as I said from the beginning - this is an issue of integrity.