The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Posted: **Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:22 am**

Egg wrote:
jack wrote:
Egg wrote:arguing for the sake of arguing
this is my stop.
you claimed songfight should be a specific way for three reasons that seem a little at odds with each other?

jack wrote:
HeuristicsInc wrote:
Either because certain whiners, for reasons that mystify me, kept pestering to go back to one fight, or because the FMs want to do less fights
-bill
well, i kind of expected this thread to be chock full of "whiners" (i.e. people with opinions) complaining (i.e. discussing) how big this fight is, and how it mandates the need for more than one fight. so far it's been quiet so i'm going to throw down some joe-friday logic and try to break this down in simple terms.

multiple fights means more work for the fightmasters
that's right, believe it or not, all of you people that feel the need for more fights are asking 2 very kind and upstanding guys that run this for free to give even more of their limited time and resources. gee, maybe the reason the fightmasters took a week to get the fights up was because they had to deal with multiple versions of the homepage, collecting multiple cover art, re-tagging and sorting multiple songs. personally, i feel like everyone that has "whined" (i.e. discussed) about multiple fights are doing so for their own selfish reasons (too many songs for ME to review, too many songs for ME to listen to, but seemingly all about the individual). really, how are mutiple fights better for everyone, the community at large and specifically the very benevolent fightmasters? it's more work for them.

it's called Songfight!
hey, lets just change the name of the site to Songfights! change the URL too. i won a songfight that had 2 other entries in it (and yes, this was after the change to multiple fights from the original formula). wow, i won a fight against 2 other artists. big whoop. hardly anyone probably listened to that fight, i know it got minimal reviews. a proud accomplishment indeed. would i rather have the satisfaction of winning a single fight, the only fight for that week. absolutely.

it's not about choice
don't like the title? uninspired? don't play. it's pretty simple. i was in 2 fights the past year. there was a time when i entered every week, sometimes multiple times under multiple names back when songfight was small. but now i enter only when i'm inspired. my muse dictates my participation, not a choice of titles.

prove me wrong. give me some real evidence and facts that having multiple fights is better for everyone and not just you. otherwise your opinion is a grain of salt to me.

where did i "claim" this? where did i say my opinion was fact? i was giving my opinion like everyone else, which like i said, ends now. my reasons may be at odds with you but not with each other.

sounds like you're making a assumptions about what i actually said, and you know what they say about people that assume.....

if you haven't figured out my point without breaking it down word by word and overanalyzing the syntax, then i'm not going to "enlighten" you with any more of my time or typing.

how's that for simple?

Posted: **Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:07 pm**

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!

Posted: **Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:18 pm**

Themz a lot of write'n words..........I'm not read'n all that, so tell me what happens.

Posted: **Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:37 pm**

Tome of Silly
Chapter 1 - Answering Questions
Chapter 2 - Clarifying Arguments
Chapter 3 - Overanalyzing grammar
Epilogue - confused rambling

It's pretty silly (title), and I doubt anything will come of it (epilogue). However, it's important to be clear (chapters 2 and 3) and answer questions when they're posed (chapter 1 and 3).

Posted: **Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:54 pm**

Egg wrote: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 stablished, 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!

I have nothing to add; I just like how this post looks without the linebreaks.

Posted: **Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:05 pm**

Once again, Mr. Egg has hit the nail on the head. It has nothing to do with the amount of work. Sorry, Jack. As you should well know, I am pretty much willing to do an infinite amount of work if I think it will amuse or get some sort of a reaction (see: 11 fights, templates discarded (thanks, egg)).

As far as the syntax goes, it might be worth noting (or not) that the header for next week's fight still says "next weeks' fights". Seeing as how I have never bothered to change it, even though I am willing to do an infinite amount of work, one could presume that we will eventually go back to the multiple fight format. One would be out on a limb, but whatever.

Finally, as far as choices go, the worse the title, the more creative you have to be. Are you creative or not? Anyone who uses this argument is a total wiener. Some really good friends of mine fall into this category, so I wouldn't say that if I didnt' mean it. If you aren't in the mood to fight, I understand. I do. It has happened to me a lot in the last few years. You can always blame it on Deep Throat. That's what he's here for.

SPUD

Posted: **Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:37 pm**

Just wanted to chime in and say that I always liked 2 fights going on at once. There've been a few times where I just REALLY wanted to fight, or I had a large amount of free time in which to do it one week, and I would absolutely not be able to come up with a song for one of the titles, then switch to the other and all was well. It's also just really nice to have the choice.

The other thing is that it keeps the fights smaller. To me, it's a lot more manageable that way, when I'm doing reviews. But man when I see like 35 songs in one fight, I get pretty easily discouraged, and will have a hard time doing reviews. Well, this week I've just been ridiculously busy and all my free time is going to the fight due this Friday that I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to get finished.

Posted: **Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:53 pm**

Egg wrote:Tome of Silly
Chapter 1 - Answering Questions
Chapter 2 - Clarifying Arguments
Chapter 3 - Overanalyzing grammar
Epilogue - confused rambling

It's pretty silly (title), and I doubt anything will come of it (epilogue). However, it's important to be clear (chapters 2 and 3) and answer questions when they're posed (chapter 1 and 3).

.. isn't this the same format your crappy songfight band used for all of its "songs" ?

Posted: **Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:08 pm**

we should, um... have multiple concurrent songfights. that way we solve the songfight gap problem.

so, in the month of smapril:
Smapril 1-7th: Writable Surface
Smapril 5-11th: Important Notice
Smapril 9-15th: Why Am I So Tired

or maybe have an 'A' fight and a 'B' fight with different due dates. somebody who's better at thinking things through than i am, think that through.

Posted: **Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:22 pm**

I suggested to Spud in a PM that there could be three tiers: 1) a weekly fight; 2) a bi-weekly fight; and 3) a monthly fight. That way, people who want more time can have it, people who don't like the current weekly title don't have to wait long for another and people who are really picky about production can take a whole month to write and record a song. This would be a total of seven titles per month (not terrible) and none of the titles have to compete with each other for more attention (since they're all different contests). I personally would probably like the two-week fight because I tend to be getting really good ideas just about the time the title is due and then I can't find time to record.

Of course, this flies in the face of my one-fight preference, but it doesn't bother me as much as three fights a week.

Posted: **Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:22 pm**

blue wrote: .. isn't this the same format your crappy songfight band used for all of its "songs" ?

The very same.

But I swear we're not crappy.

Concerning layered fight deadlines: cool idea. I don't know if that's so unconventional it'll get shot down immediately, but it's pretty neat.

Posted: **Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:36 pm**

I vote for whatever the fuck, because no matter what happens I'll still get more than 4 pages of entertaining cock-comparison and the subsequent bickering that follows. And that totally rules.

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:33 am**

frankie big face wrote:I suggested to Spud in a PM that there could be three tiers: 1) a weekly fight; 2) a bi-weekly fight; and 3) a monthly fight. That way, people who want more time can have it, people who don't like the current weekly title don't have to wait long for another and people who are really picky about production can take a whole month to write and record a song. This would be a total of seven titles per month (not terrible) and none of the titles have to compete with each other for more attention (since they're all different contests). I personally would probably like the two-week fight because I tend to be getting really good ideas just about the time the title is due and then I can't find time to record.

Of course, this flies in the face of my one-fight preference, but it doesn't bother me as much as three fights a week.

I'll have to admit, it would be nice to have the time to spend on a song to write and produce it the way I'd like.
But on the other hand, I'm a natural born procrastinator, so I'd probably wait to the last minute anyway, lol.

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:32 am**

I like that this keeps in mind that one of the many cool characteristics of songfight is that it's artists throwing (often very good) songs together in a week. When I tell friends about the site, they're usually dazzled by the time restriction alone, and they kind of figure the songs must suck. And then they come here and get dazzled twice because most of the songs don't suck. And there are frequently songs that are so amazing/produced/inspiring/etc. that you're like "WHAT?"

And I guess that with this idea in place, we'd still be able to tell people that artists write a song in a week. We'd just also have this other competition. And we'd get to see how comfortable we are with a month long fight or two week fight and if those fights start stealing the show, we'd get to see if it was a good thing and easily just fall back to our weekly fights. Good little test/transition into the great beyond, if the FMs are even interested in (a little bit) betraying one of the orginal immutable traits of songfight.

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 8:36 pm**

Just for the record. New songs are due tomorrow at 10 am. So far the review thread for this week (King Me) has 69 posts, only 2 sets of complete reviews, one person (wes) reviewed about 6 songs, a somebody reviewed 1.

I suspect this relates in part to the high number of songs in the fight which would be reduced if there was more than one title.

Yes, Jack, I'm whining. Deal.

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 8:49 pm**

cmon people, get off your ass and review!*

*seems your really whining about the lack of reviews, so we're on the same page there.

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 9:16 pm**

rdurand wrote:I suspect this relates in part to the high number of songs in the fight which would be reduced if there was more than one title.

That's just how I feel. I remember when I first joined ... it was at least possible for reviews to be done. Now I just feel badly for the people high in the alphabet since they almost never get reviewed. Don't get me wrong though ... I think the one title fight makes it more of a competition, but sometimes I think it would be good if we switched off the amount of titles frequently. 2-2-3-1-2-1-1-3 etc. Something like that would my choice, but hey. I don't run the site.

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 9:34 pm**

I, too, think that fights this large make it harder to get reviews done. I haven't even had time to listen to all of the songs yet.

Steve

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:47 pm**

So I was thinking about another aspect of the one-title idea, this is prompted largely by the low number of reviews this week, which I don't think is a separate issue, but is related. I realize that another piece of that appears to be the slow download rates, and Blue's mirror is great for fixing that, but read on and I think you'll see my point here.

The large fight and reliance on mirrors narrows the scope of the fights to being about competitors only. In fact, it seems that only a very small percentage of the competitors can be bothered to write reviews. It seems to me that one thing we'd all like, (I can't speak for others here, but I think it's a safe assumption) is that folks besides the artists might be visiting, listening, and voting. I doubt that this happens when there are 32 songs in a fight. I admit, however that I also don't know how much it happened when there were 10 or less. But in talking to my wife tonight over dinner about this week's situation she said, "Well, when there were 7 or 8 in a fight, I used to listen to them, but now if I go, I just go vote, sorry."

So I argue that the large number of entries in a fight, which seems inversely proportional to the number of fights, is decreasing our exposure - to one another, to friends and relatives, and to the occasional curious visitor.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:53 pm**

It' s not review fight.... snicker...snicker.

I was thinking about reviewing the fight the other day, while in the car on the way to work... sadly, that' s as far as I could get with it this week ...or most weeks. But I bet more people at least consider it...and ... uh. CSI is on. Gotta go.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:42 pm**

Leaf wrote:It' s not review fight.... snicker...snicker.

Of course not, but don't you think the review activity might be an indicator of how much interactivity is going on with the site as a whole?
Did you listen to every song before you voted?
Did you vote?
If you answered no to either of these, do you think your answer might have been different if there were only 10 songs in the fight? Just curious, honestly.

I'm sure anyone following can tell I'm probably gonna keep participating either way. Just adding my fourth cent.

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:11 pm**

Well, I love hearing a ton of new songs each week, but it sure would be nice to only review 5.

I think the answer is in two fights per month. When your entry is done and sent in, and you have time before the next title drops, chances are you're going to do reviews. I've got reviews 1/3 done, but the Holiday weekend and the last days to get my song done put reviews on the back burner.
I guess there really isn't a time limit on reviews. But the fire kind of goes away after the new songs are up.

The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Number of fights per week