Mastamind wrote:This is getting pointless.
I for one think that this is a good idea. Not that I support it, but I can see where both sides are coming from. The only reason I can't see this happening is because tiers are only useful where you have a very complex competition, where the competition is so tight that the tiers are what determine the difference between success and failure. AFAIK, Iron chefs are not that complex, or at all much of a head-on, direct competition (at least to the point where the competitors actually play to win). However gotegenks has a valid point, and arguing with that point will never get you anywhere. It's been established that many people honestly don't care about the sources used, but I'm of the same mindset as gotegenks as of this point.
gotegenks wrote:I HIGHLY doubt that would ever happen. Even if the Org went so far as to do this crap, people would end up ignoring it. Even if they didn't ignore it it's not like there would be enough ics to make unpopular sources popular, and even if there WERE enough ics, the majority of ics here are never uploaded from what i understand.
ICs aren't really big or competitive enough to implement something so complex though. I just wanted to see what everyone else thought about it.
JaddziaDax wrote:but the problem with that Pwolf is that not everyone has the same sources..
However I do agree with your statement that's how it should be done... often times they are done with "whatever is sitting on my hd" at the time.
gotegenks wrote:JaddziaDax wrote:gotegenks wrote:I was mostly trying to argue his ability to like anything based on quality of editing alone. LIKE it, not appreciate.
I don't have to entirely like every single thing about a video for it to win a vote from me. As I said, most of weather or not I "like" a video is not based on sources but weather or not I like the concept and execution. In other words: the EDITING. You must be getting some pretty bad judges if they can't see past the sources. IC in my opinion is rarely about the sources, but more so about the editor's ability.
Ah yes, and since your "god tier" is so easy to edit with it's sweeping camera movements and intentional music sync, and your "shit tier" is so hard with all its duplicate animation and still frames, shouldn't it be named the other way around? Cause the way you make it sound, it's as though you need to be a "god editor" to be able to work with and win with a "shit tier" anime.
*Anyway as someone already mentioned the "quality tiering" would all be subjective... if you really wanted to make an IC completely fair you would use the same exact sources as your opponent.
I GET IT! you can see past liking a video, he said he could like anything that was "well edited"
Nobody consciously takes sources into account, how many times do i have to say this. It's easier to build a comfortable chair when you have cushions already made as opposed to having wood and some cotton. that's all i was getting at.
...srsly? the tier labels have to do with the sources involved, and i just stole those names from 4chan so you don't have to attack the structure, it doesn't matter, this would never happen anyway.
Good idea, good different idea, i'm sure a lot of people already do that, or should do that.jaddziadax wrote:If editors are on the "same (exact) skill level" then the IC is to prove who can make a better presentation in a short amount of time.
Is a presenter not going to make a better presentation if he has an electronic whiteboard w/internet and a pen tablet as opposed to the presenter using a traditional blackboard and chalk? It's possible, but these are presenters on the exact same skill level, most likely the whiteboard-wielding clone will do better as he has more tools and more resources available to him, and unless the blackboard clone is good at drawing, he's going to have a rougher time getting his audience to visualize his idea or message or w/e the hell he's presenting.

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests