Official Soulcalibur V Post-EVO 2012 Rule Changes!
- Thread starter Jaxel
- Start date
Jaxel
Administrator
Because its NOT a "secret group"... I've stated many times that I don't like secret groups, they lead to boys clubs that have their own ulterior motives. Why don't I give any names? Because its no one in particular. I talk to people at tournaments, I spoke with people at EVO, I read the chat room (although I don't talk in the chat room often, I actually do read it a lot)...
The decisions are mine and mine alone. If you don't like it, blame me, not someone else. I take criticism, as well as advice from others. Ceirnian was bringing up issues all last night, and while he may have felt I was ignoring him, I clearly was not. I do make mistakes, and I am willing to change my decisions for the good of the community.
Bibulus, why am I in charge? Why am I making decisions? BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE WANTS TO. I've said many times that being a leader isn't necessarily about making the right decisions; its about knowing that a decision must be made, and making them. If you worry too much about making the wrong decisions, you end up not making any decision at all, which helps nobody (re: SC3).
And of course the "democratic council" method doesn't work either. We tried it with SC4 and both myself and ChaCha became irrelevant because we didn't agree with DancingFighterG and the rest of his cronies. It became a "boys club", and no one knew what was going on, and ChaCha and I had to wash our hands of it.
The only effective method of decision making is a dictatorship. People have been talking about banning the Viola infinite for a while now, and unless someone stepped in and said "yes, it is banned" or "no, it is not banned", arguments would have continued... and arguments help nobody as they are directed like buckshot at the entire community.
At least with me making the decisions, the arguments within the community stop... and instead they are directed at ME. Now the problems with the community are ME, not the community itself. It makes me the scapegoat, and I'm okay with this... "Soulcalibur has dumb rules; Jaxel is a fuck-head" is better than "Soulcalibur has dumb rules; the community is retarded".
m216xlegendx
[10] Knight
"OFF WITH HIS HEAD"
the community is retarded (except hates)
the community is retarded (except hates)
Dr. Hates
Jerk.
Couple of issues:
1. Jaxel, you're incorrect in your assertion that nobody wants to make decisions. You're not nobly shouldering some burden for everybody's benefit here. I know, I know, it's hard to accept that after spending so much money on a movie-quality replica of Christian Bale's Batman outfit from The Dark Knight, but that's just reality. The reason you don't see anybody else "stepping up" is because, generally, nobody's rocking that level of hubris.
2. The major problems as I see them stem from the fact that these rules, however well-reasoned, are being put forth as binding. Everybody knows that these are unilateral determinations, and I suspect it chaps a lot of asses when people are told "Surprise! This is how things are gonna be!" In other words, I see this as a marketing failure.
Instead of official and binding, why not just say it's "recommended" from the outset and make a reasonable case for every specific change? That at least maintains the fictions of autonomy and collaboration, and it'd be bound to ruffle fewer feathers. In the end, all of these rules are solely under the purview of individual tournament facilitators. They can do whatever they want with 'em for their own events. It's silly to pretend that isn't the case and to in essence make demands of people with whom we should be working rather than to whom we should be dictating.
1. Jaxel, you're incorrect in your assertion that nobody wants to make decisions. You're not nobly shouldering some burden for everybody's benefit here. I know, I know, it's hard to accept that after spending so much money on a movie-quality replica of Christian Bale's Batman outfit from The Dark Knight, but that's just reality. The reason you don't see anybody else "stepping up" is because, generally, nobody's rocking that level of hubris.
2. The major problems as I see them stem from the fact that these rules, however well-reasoned, are being put forth as binding. Everybody knows that these are unilateral determinations, and I suspect it chaps a lot of asses when people are told "Surprise! This is how things are gonna be!" In other words, I see this as a marketing failure.
Instead of official and binding, why not just say it's "recommended" from the outset and make a reasonable case for every specific change? That at least maintains the fictions of autonomy and collaboration, and it'd be bound to ruffle fewer feathers. In the end, all of these rules are solely under the purview of individual tournament facilitators. They can do whatever they want with 'em for their own events. It's silly to pretend that isn't the case and to in essence make demands of people with whom we should be working rather than to whom we should be dictating.