sorry?
I still don't understand.
Warning: The rest of this post is serious but also totally silly. I mean I am being serious, but I am clearly a silly person. If you're just gonna get frustrated at me being silly AND/OR me being serious, you should totally do yourself a favor.
I will briefly address some of Jack's questions.
Q: "where did i 'claim' this?" (this refers to the idea that "songfight should be a specific way for three reasons")
A: Jack's post says "multiple fights means more work for the fightmasters", "it's called Songfight! ", and "it's not about choice", and each of these is in bold letters. I thought it was pretty clear that Jack was claiming that songfight should maintain a single fight per week for three distinct reasons. He doesn't claim they're at odds with each other; I claimed that. Read the sentence, and you'll see if you don't already. Heck, at the bottom of this post, I even paste the sentence in and overanalyze it for you (although one might say this is just the right amount of analysis since I derive the correct meaning).
Q: "where did i say my opinion was fact?"
A: Jack never said that. Jack did ask to be proven wrong, which isn't something a person usually says after just throwing out some opinions unless they sort of expect people to try to debunk their arguments. Jack also asked that we give some " some real evidence and facts that having multiple fights is better", which does imply that a person only wants to deal with facts and not clutter the boards with mere opinions and hearsay. The argument that thinking about yourself over the fightmasters is immoral also sort of promotes the idea that you don't want to hear personal opinions or anecdotes. Jack just wants facts which is fair, although it's a little hard for me to differentiate knowledge from personal experience.
Q: "how's that for simple?" (that refers to, I assume, the notion that I "haven't figured out [Jack's] point without breaking it down word by word and overanalyzing the syntax".)
A: It still doesn't seem very simple.
I just thought you were saying there were three good reasons why single fight format is better than alternatives. So I was pointing out several things that seemed flawed about those three reasons.
Regardless of who said what, I will try to abstract this so it's not so personal sounding. Here are
some counterarguments to three arguments that I thought were made and could be made.
I. "more work for the fightmasters"
1. The FMs like at least a little work because songfight is and will always be an investment of energy. They enjoy the return and therefore there are other things to think about outside of finding less work for the FMs.
2. We shouldn't be so afraid of being selfish or whiney that we keep our opinions to ourselves
a) Especially given that Spud was like
Hey, let us know how you feel.
b) Spud probably didn't want us to think for him (i.e. "Hey, you should have one fight because, regardless of what I think, I think you think it would be less work.) The FMs, besides being dedicated, seem like pretty sharp guys who can do that part on their own after reading posts that at least one of them asked for pretty darned directly.
3. Most importantly, (and cleverly disguised as the third item in this list), we all do this songfight thing for fun. It's super fun. They do what's amusing. There's no quantifiable dalek reasoning behind doing an eleven fight format one time and then discarding the templates... it's just fun and haha, remember? Good times! That's why we're here. Sometimes doing something unnecessary is fun! It's not a big leap to say going out of your way to have fun IS necessary, redefining necessary! Is it even work? Who knows? I know that it's not excessively whiney or selfish to post opinions when asked for them.
II. "It's called songfight" so we should only have one fight at a time
1. This is a grammatical argument that is absurdly overanalytic of the singular form of the word fight in the title of this competition. I think this is the definition of overanalyzing grammar and syntax.
2. It hasn't always been singular
a) There have been lots of fights over time.
b) There is always a fight being fought and a fight being prepared.
(this is a new argument)
c) There have been multiple week fights before for long stretches of time.
III. Don't say you want more titles because it gives you more choices. If you're uninspired, just don't fight.
1. Talking about how more titles affects the rate at which you enter fights is good.
a) The FM probably like it when some people fight because songfights, as previously established, are fun. I don't know how the FMs feel about fights with just 3 people or fights with 35 people. Or fights with just drew for that matter.
b) It's probably good for people to share that "I'd fight more if there were more titles" if that's true, or the reverse or whatever is true.
c) That way, the FM can look and say "I have a general idea of how adding or subtracting fights could affect participation and enhance my hosting experience and tireless devotion to this site!"
2. Although INFINITE choice is bad (e.g. Pick any title you want) for the format of songfight, but that doesn't mean that ONLY ONE choice is necessarily the bestest for the format of songfight. Maybe somewhere between one and infinity, at like 1-11 is the right range to hover around.
Overanalyzing to derive correct meaning:
I said "That's cool, but in order to enlighten me, could you let me know for what sake you were arguing when you claimed songfight should be a specific way for three reasons that seem a little at odds with each other?"
Jack asked where he had claimed songfight should be a specific way for three reasons that seem a little at odds with each other. He said I was making assumptions about what he said. It got confusing.
My sentence was compound and it can be seen as two sentences: "That's cool." and "In order to enlighten me, could you let me know SOMETHING." The interesting subject at the moment is the something: "For what sake you were arguing when you claimed songfight should be a specific way for three reasons that seem a little at odds with each other?" (That actually makes more sense with "were you" and I don't know if it's proper grammar, but) the part in question comes a tad later: "you claimed songfight should be a specific way for three reasons that seem a little at odds with each other", the dependent clause of questionable syntax.
I say that Jack claimed songfight should be a specific way for three reasons, AND I claim that those three reasons seem a little at odds with each other. See, in a previous post I wrote and wrote and wrote and some of that writing addressed how I thought these claims were contradictory.
So I am, in other words, saying "Jack claimed that songfight should be a specific way for three specific reasons, and I claim those reasons seem at odds with each other." The fact that I actually did say "seems" in the original sentence pretty much absolves all wrong. I really don't know how I could spend more than a couple of seconds explaining all of this (remember: silly).
/wtf
I might as well just keep typing.
Somebody posted three arguments and asked for people to prove him wrong without using self-centered arguments, and then I got laughed off for trying to use syntax (one of the few unselfish proofs I'm familiar with). One of the arguments was that songfight was singular so that should dictate how many fights we have, and I am the one being criticized for overanalyzing syntax!
