The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Two is still better. And yes, I realize it is probably more work for the FMs, but they DID ask what I thought, and I think that at least 2 is the best. That's my 2 (See what I did there?) cents.

Jack wrote: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.

In your post you suggest that because I posted a positive position for multiple fights I am some how a whiner or asking too much of the fightmasters.

But here's what spud said.

Spud wrote:This is an interesting thread, with some potential for influencing the operation of the site, so keep it up. I like the "occassional" multi-title fight concept, for instance. As previously noted, state your reasons and make your case, don't just vote and then vote again in your post. Thanks.

SPUD

So I was just giving my thoughts, and asking what I think are some pretty reasonable questions consistent with a fightmaster's request for us to do so. Why are you so bugged by that?

i was bugged by heuristics inc. calling those of us with a dissenting opinion about multiple fights "whiners". i was showing that if i'm a "whiner", what does that make him.

i didn't call you, or anyone else directly a whiner. or a weiner. or whatever.

all you people who want multiple fights, by all means voice your opinion. i'm not a censor. i'm just voicing mine.

quit whining.

j$ wrote: You know, yr post could be misconstrued as sounding whiney. Just the use of the word 'seriously' makes one sound whiney.

Really? I don't think so. I was just saying "amen" to Jack's comment. But whatever, I've been called worse.

Bill just makes it sound like a couple of us whined our asses off until we got our way with the Fightmasters and really, that's just not true. Believe me, if I had that much influence over what happens around here, there would be a lot more changes starting with no more polls about the number of fights followed shortly thereafter with no more calling me whiny!

Sheesh, people. Get a grip. I was making a joke! Did I mention that?
Wow, I'll have to remember who is humor-impaired. Sorry I make you feel that way. Really, what the FMs decide is what's happening. I realize it's more work for them.
-bill

people. Get a grip. I was making a joke

Sounds like an instructional introduction for circle jerking ...to comedy.

I hope you realize that the plan is generally to do whatever is least expected. And most entertaining. To us. Heh.

JB

HeuristicsInc wrote:Sheesh, people.

Sheeshpeople would be a good band name. Or song title.

jb wrote:I hope you realize that the plan is generally to do whatever is least expected. And most entertaining. To us. Heh.

JB

Excellent!

Spud said he'd like to hear what people think about the number of titles per week. Now, I appreciate Jack's largesse in discounting his personal experience in formulating his suggestion that we stay the same, but I actually think most of us aren't talented enough to base opinions on what other people think. I, at least, can only base my opinion on what I think people think, at best, in Jack's model.

I sort of assume that Spud was asking what I think about the number of fights. I didn't think that he meant for me to type up what I think he would think of having more than one fight.

Furthermore, the logic of LESS WORK FOR THE FIGHTMASTERS IS THE ULTIMATE GOAL promotes a world without songfight. Then they wouldn't have to do any work. But they, as JB points out are doing this cause it's fun and entertaining. It's an investment that pays off even for the devoted FMs who put a lot of work into it regularly. Maybe Spud was asking for opinions because he wants to hear what people think (even if those thoughts are selfish) so that he could (selfishly) decide if multiple fights would be more fun for him!

Regarding the argument that the title dictates the literal content of the site, I'd suggest this is a superficial argument. After all, songfight has already had long stretches of time where the multiple fight format prevailed and periods where the format fluctuated wildly, climaxing in an 11-fight week, and the site was called songfight in the singular... the universe did not cease to exist. People didn't get really confused. I'm typing in songfights.org because there are 11 fights this week, AND IT IS NOT WORKING. Also, there are many fights in the archive, so the singular doesn't apply to all parts of the site. Additionally, this argument supports changing the name to songfightperweek.org or something else with ridiculous amounts of context included in the domain name, or even the title of the website.

The third argument claims that "it" isn't about choice. I'm not sure what it is about. Rather than extrapolating on the bold words, you mention that we can choose to not fight if the title doesn't inspire us (which is a choice). Furthermore, I think this "Don't fight" scenario can still take place with three titles. If none of the titles inspire you, don't fight. It's not really an argument against multiple fight titles. The bold part sort of claims to attack the motive behind multiple fights ("I want more choices") but then the body of the argument seems to just be truth claims by you accompanied by some anecdotal evidence about what fights you entered and won or didn't... and I don't know if I should even consider those personal experiences since they're about Jack Shite and not about the fightmasters that you claim I should think about over myself and all others.

I don't want this to be a hostile thing, but I think these arguments are largely bunk. I pretty much agree with you on the conclusion that it's up to the FMs and that everybody sounds whiney on the Internet if that's how you read it. I also acknowledge that the current format is not a result of a couple people whining til it happened. I also acknowledge that HInc. had a smiley face in his post. But I can't sit by and totally fail to understand an organized post with multiple arguments in bold letters. I just gotta say something. Maybe I missed something obvious.

Egg is on to something. I asked you all to discuss because it amuses me.

Seriously though, even though we rarely rely on the democratic process here -other than in the voting - it doesn't hurt to have a few opinions filed away when we're considering various changes, options, etc. You never know where the good ideas are going to come from. Just don't expect immediate action based on the results of this thread.

Panel.

Egg wrote:arguing for the sake of arguing

this is my stop.

Spud wrote: Seriously....

I can't believe you used the word "seriously," YOU FREAKING WHINER.

Egg wrote:...AND WROTE AND WROTE.

Now you know why I don't post my reasons for wanting one fight. Spud knows what they are and I can tell you they are the most sound reasons ever reasoned by any reasonable person. If I told you, there would unanimity such that the world has never seen. In fact, SongFight would have to be canceled because everyone would instantly write the same song with the same melody and the same lyrics and everyone would receive the same number of votes (during the weeks that MC Frontalot is not playing). The end.

i vote for multiple fights for no other reason than to vex frank.

blue wrote:i vote for multiple fights for no other reason than to vex frank.

that's the best reason i've heard so far for multiple fights.

blue, that is the most fucked-up avatar since the level nivelo gay disco animated gif thing.

Sven wrote:blue, that is the most fucked-up avatar since the level nivelo gay disco animated gif thing.

i just got glasses.

blue wrote: i just got glasses.

yeah, this is what he looked like before:



more disturbing, or less? you be the judge.

jack wrote:

Egg wrote:arguing for the sake of arguing

this is my stop.

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? Hopefully, your "stop" won't preclude you from answering since I'm pretty curious.

I really don't want to be hostile. I had a lot to say because there was a lot I didn't understand about your post. If there are answers that could make me understand, that would be cool.