Re: Gor-GorIf you see the things I said and how I started them. You should understand that I wasn't at fault. You should still remember your argument against me on Demonstrative Introduction.
Think about your attitude when you replied to my claim that there was a format beyond what we did in Round 1. How did you look back to how you judged me? What made you completely speechless after I posted an example? (I don't even know whether you read it.) This is one of the situations when people just can't think clearly based on the facts themselves.
Since you know the kind of things I wrote in Round 1, you can assume that I have the similar ability to read posts. It doesn't matter how you word your posts. Insincerity permeates. If you really wanted to see the example, you wouldn't have just said: I learned a lot from Estok.
You were embarrassed. The others were just doing the same thing that you did before you felt embarrased. I wasn't trying to do that. You as well as others were defending on nothing even though I told you the facts. You need to understand that I am very relaxed when I post things and ideas. How did you think about the idea of Demonstrative Introduction? Didn't it make sense?
Re: Weaknesses of the Contestants5MG: Not everything I post are based on logics. Also rationale. Sometimes you don't have basis to prove something using logics. In all other forums, if you win a contest, you get congratulated. That is common sense. GOR-GOR did it because it is common sense, plus he is a newcomer. Just think about it, everyone practically ignored the winner. Being busy is not an excuse. Too busy to type one word? The fact is that people in this forum aren't that normal.
Round 1. Nine entrants. Four out of nine simply disappeard after submitting the work. You start to sense some level of irresponsibility. From the way I see it. The contestants had hidden emotions. For what reasons those emotions are hidden is not important. The point is that that can be dissolved. I came across a good description of the situation:
There are three levels of thinkers: Those that think in the Garden of Eden, those that let everything goes, and those that can think critically.
1. Garden of Eden
This type of thinkers can't really think for themselves, they need authority to set the rules. These thinkers can't thoroughtly justify their believes and conclusions. (i.e. Why do you believe that? Because that is what my teacher said.) You need to understand that this is not an insult or a word due to disrespect. But you
were in this catagory when you asked for credentials after reading my critiques.
2. Anything Goes
This type of thinkers have a false application of open-mindedness. They believe that truth is very relative, and it is quite pointless to argue who is right and who is wrong. (i.e. You have your opinion and I have mine, yours is valid for you as mine is valid for me. No point to argue, it is just a matter of opinions.) Again this is not an insult. This is a fact you can observe. S/S is in this catagory.
3. Critical Thinkers
This type of thinkers understand open-mindedness and also understand that are basis to argue and compare the options. To thinkers in stage 2, Critical Thinkers look closed-minded because they believe that there is absolute right and wrong, just like the Garden of Eden thinkers. But it is fundamtally different. Because Critical Thinkers can justify rightness and wrongness not by authorities, but through logic and reasoning.
To make it clear, these aren't options. These are stages in a scale. It means that 3 is better than 2 and 2 is better than 1. I am telling you plain where you were and what you needed to change.
For s/s, you really need to think about this because you are very deep into Stage 2. You believe that you are open-minded and a good thinker, but you are not. There were obvious logical flaws in the way you evaluated, and I told you what the flaws were. If you had been using those kind of reasoning in your writers group and it didn't catch the flaws, the group hasn't given you sufficient pressure to evolve. You need to recognize this. It isn't that you 'maxed out' on your thinking ability. You were in a too weak of an environment for you.
Stage 2 thinkers is a major cause that you, 5MG, was not congratulated. Because no matter what you did, if it was fundamentally different from what they believe, they don't sincerely think that you did something good. They have a sense of undisturbable superiority because they think that they are entitled to what ever set of rules they believe. That is a weakness in the contestants. These weaknesses aren't used to judge the entries. But as forum members we have a responsibility to evolve. And the contest can be designed to promote the changes.
The contest needs to be designed in a way so that people thinking in stage 2 start to think critically. The current system lacks that motivation because the entrants were exempted from verbally comparing their own entries against the others. As long as we avoid comparing them critically, you can't see that they
can be compared critically. No more dodging and hidding in a corner thinking that everyone is entitled to their own views uncontested.
Does this motivation make no sense?
Re: ClichenessI know that you wrote it in 20 minutes. I don't think I could do that in 20 minutes. There is no reason to copy exactly what you did. I was just trying to get a feel. What we did was not the same.
I didn't say it in a way to suggest that you didn't think of the contest considerably to just submit something harsh. I said it to tell you that time is not a factor that determines the paradigm used in a piece. So if there are paradigm/ideological errors in the piece, they can't be fixed simply by time. To substantiate what I said:
Quote:There is no excuse for clicheness. There are only two explanations: The contestants didn't try to be creative, or failed to be creative. In my case, I just tried what 5MG did and wrote it right before the deadline. I submitted it an hour too early, and formatted it in the next hour.
I tried to be creative and failed.
Re: Vague RulesRules are mutual. Both the judge and the participants need to understand the rules. A 'vague' rule such as page limit is legitimate when both the judge and the participants understand it. In this round, the page limit was a perfectly reasonable and applicable rule, because the contestants shared an understanding of it (even though it is a fuzzy rule), especially after the judge had posted the sample.
Your notion that it is solely in the hands of the judge show you that you are a Stage 1 thinker. This is not an insult. This is something you need to change. You are incorrect that is it completely in the hands of the judge. There are reasonings behind rules to groven how they should work.
You are also incorrect that it is not our responsibility to raise flags. It is our responsibility. TechnoGoth is not an "Authority" in the design of the contest. The contestants and the viewers are equally responsible to improve and define the contest. This is supposed to be a mutual experience. TechnoGoth doesn't necessarily know everything. If you see something wrong. Say it. Things change. Autonomous feedback.
Quote:The rules that are posted are not a legal document, Estok, thus you should not interpret them as such.
Yes. This is the reason why you should be using common sense, instead of trying to argue against it like a legal document: "Ah ha! Since it doesn't explicitly state the word limit, it is up to everyone's interpretation."
Stage 2 doesn't work here neither. Common sense. I posted it because we are all participants. I never see the contest as a one directional thing. I said it was too long and s/s and trapperzoid used the legal argument. I told them that that was a really bad argument, and that if you were involved, and you use that argument, it sounds really like an excuse.
Re: Dialectic CommunityIt wasn't me who brought up the term 'dialectic community'. It was how s/s described how the community should be. A dialectic community is a community where people can discuss logically. It wasn't my expectation. It was s/s's expectation.
Dialectic means to argue. When intelligent minds meet, it is bound to have arguments. The question is whether the ones involved can uphold a reasonable argument. The problem is in an argument, you will point out weaknesses, especially when the participant is making invalid statements. If by simply saying, "you didn't think right" ticks the participant, there is no basis for a dialectic communication. You need to get through that chapter, and understand that arguments are necessarily, and there are bound to be misinterpretation and faulty reasonings.
I only demand explanations when you are not making sense. Did what I said about the types of thinkers make sense to you? It wasn't like I am trying to be a judge. To you, if you continue to resist, the reasonings will be overwhelming. To you it will sound like I am judging you. I am just stating the obvious in length because you didn't comprehend.
Every single post I made started really short. When you don't understand I need to explain. When you keep rejecting, the reasonings get piled up fast, because the reasons are overwhelming.
Sit down. Take some time off and think over what I said.
This is round 2. Think in stage 3 and to actually discuss the entries--not just to listen to critiques.
[Edited by - Estok on October 6, 2005 2:09:53 AM]
