Forum

spoiler[Kuroko, A, chiding Mikoto, B, about the latter's lack of awareness of her Level 5 status. From some part of the Index franchise... Uh, Railgun season 1?]

If key overrules CrowLia and says that Raftina's answer was correct, this could get complicated.

CrowLia wrote:

I already said I'm not accepting the answer unless Key or Errinundra say otherwise

Since I have long specified in the rules that "episode number" is acceptable as context, and since there were no errors in what Raftina said, the answer must be accepted. The "as loose or picky as he/she wants" part was always intended to be for cases where the context might be partially but not completely accurate, such as a case where two but not all three of the other non-bolded speakers are ID'd correctly.

That being said, I also entirely agree that Raftina's answer was a very weak one and not in tune with the spirit of "context."

On that note, I have long been in favor of a tighter standard on context requirements, but there has always been heavy resistance to that. If that attitude is changing then I would be happy to consider adjustments to that rule.

Night fox's quote will still stand (and sadly, I was busy at work all day or I would have gotten that in a heartbeat!), so it will be Vaisaga's turn once the (obviously-correct) answer is confirmed.

Key wrote:

The "as loose or picky as he/she wants" part was always intended to be for cases where the context might be partially but not completely accurate

Should have just said "loose" then. "Loose" has the connotation of being lenient, while "picky" has the connotation of being strict. If we're only allowed to be lenient and not strict, remove the picky portion of the rule.

@Key: My problem is not just the lack of context, but that Raftina didn't even name the other three speakers -I would've accepted the answer (somewhat begrudgingly), even without the context, if he had-, I already pointed out why previously :

Quote:

I don't think it's an outrageous requirement to ask that, if there are 4 characters in the conversation, at least all 4 of them are named, even if only the main speaker is specifically pointed. Otherwise I could've just left the bolded line, without providing the rest of the conversation, but then that wouldn't be "memorable". It's memorable because of the responses it gets, thus why I think it's basic to at least acknowledge who is partaking in the conversation.

I still don't believe Raftina deserves a point for that half-baked answer, especially because he had the opportunity to fix it and decided not to, but if that's your ruling then that's that.

I think the playing field should be leveled. If quote givers can be as lenient as they desire, then they should also at least be allowed some level of strictness. I do agree there should be some limitations to how strict that can be or the game wouldn't be fun for anyone -hence my proposal that if the context includes at least two of the approved criteria it has to be accepted no matter what-.

Last edited by Raftina on Wed Sep 21, 2016 5:24 pm; edited 1 time in total

Key wrote:

On that note, I have long been in favor of a tighter standard on context requirements, but there has always been heavy resistance to that. If that attitude is changing then I would be happy to consider adjustments to that rule.

Most of the comments that come up when this rule is discussed seem to favor a change to this rule. As the most vocal supporter of the limited discretion standard, my objection is with users to misinterpret the current rule to demand more discretion than is actually allowed--as CrowLia attempted with the previous turn. I do not object to raising the requirements for the context by changing the rules.

That being said, the specific way to raise the requirement matters. I suggest simply that a description of the scene is always required, with the addressee(s) or episode number being permissible supplements for when the description is vague.

The spirit of the context, after all, is to orient users other than the guesser and the turn holder on what is going on in the scene. If the requirements were to be raised, then it would make most sense to require a description.

I do not think it is appropriate for the turn holder to demand identification of any character other than the speaker(s) of the bolded quote. The context requirement does it stand on its own. It should be consistent with the other rules. Specifically, the bold line requirement exists at least in part so that the turn holder gets to use his turn to quiz others on a single quote only. Allowing the turn holder to demand identification of other characters is an unsubtle end-run around the single quote limitation.

Vaisaga is correct. spoiler[(You even got the right season)]

Sorry about the late reply, but I've been busy watching Sweden play in the hockey world cup. Wink

Dub:

"Tsk, do you even lift? Come at me, bros."

Raftina wrote:

I do not think it is appropriate for the turn holder to demand identification of any character other than the speaker(s) of the bolded quote.

But then what is even the point of having conversation quotes if it's not gonna be required to at least mention who else is partaking on the conversation. How can it be a context requirement to describe the scene, but not to mention who else is speaking in the quote? That makes no sense at all.

Why not remove the context requirement altogether? The other game only requires character and franchise. It would remove these arguments.

Errinundra wrote:

Why not remove the context requirement altogether?

That would take a lot of the fun out of posting quotes in my opinion. It feels slightly like a slap in the face whenever someone comes up with a very effortless answer to a quote. It may be a bit petty and nerdy, but I think that requiring context makes the game more fun and satisfying.

Night fox wrote:

Sweden play in the hockey world cup. Wink

*picks up a voodoo doll and starts chanting ominously* Well, to us Finns, the most important thing is not that we win, but that Sweden loses. Actually, I don't watch hockey. Apparently we are getting our asses kicked, but I couldn't give a damn.

CrowLia wrote:

But then what is even the point of having conversation quotes if it's not gonna be required to at least mention who else is partaking on the conversation. How can it be a context requirement to describe the scene, but not to mention who else is speaking in the quote? That makes no sense at all.

The reason for permitting multi-line exchange was explained in the original, wordier version of the rules JesuOtaku posted. The reason is quite specific, and it has nothing to do satisfying the turn holder's demands for what the answer should contain:

Quote:

You cannot bold a short dialogue. If a short dialogue is needed to give your quote meaning, you may use it, but bold only one character's part, as you can only have one character in a guess, to be fair.

The reason for permitting multi-line quotes at all is not to permit the turn holder to make additional demands of the guessers. It is to permit the turn holder to orient an otherwise ambiguous quote to permit it to qualify for an entry. This rule exists for the edge cases where the bolded line, standing alone, may not be quite "very distinctive, and unmistakably from one show" but the turn holder may nevertheless wish to post. The game in return demands the turn holder give additional "clues" in the form of additional lines.

Using this rule to make additional demands of what the guessers must include is a perversion of the rule's purpose--almost to the opposite end of its intended purpose, in fact.

Errinundra wrote:

Why not remove the context requirement altogether? The other game only requires character and franchise. It would remove these arguments.

That is an interesting idea. It also has the benefit of limiting the arbitrary discretions afforded to the turn holder, who can already decide when to post the quote, how obscure a source to use, which line to bold in a multi-line exchange, when to post hints, and what to describe in the hints.

This is a good opportunity to bring up why the context requirement was originally added, and why it was addressee, episode number, or context (description of the scene), so we have it all in the open:

Quote:

Honestly, though, the change I made to the rule requiring context or the person to whom the quote was aimed should solve the problem. At the very least, it requires a lot more research. You'd have to look up the episode itself, which requires enough effort.

Specifically, finding out any of one of addressee, episode number, or context requires enough effort that it was deemed good enough.

That's all so ridiculous though. If a single line is not memorable on its own and requires additional lines of dialogue, then not guessing who those lines of dialogue are coming from make the whole thing moot. To me this game is about memorable moments in anime. It's not the words alone that are important but why they are being said -completely different from recognizing a character's appearance-, which is why I think the context is important for this game. If there is no minimum requirement for the guesser to acknowledge the moment the speech takes place in, it all becomes pointless. I never thought it was about "effort", but simply proving the guesser understands the context of the words, and being too lazy to provide the names of the speakers and/or a minimum description of what is happening in the scene shows neither effort nor understanding.

This is the first time I've seen anyone get a point without at least acknowledging all of the speakers in a multi-line quote. If that's not gonna be required, then let's just do away with multi-line quotes. Apparently we're already thinking of ending the context requirement anyway. Why is it okay for someone to be lenient, but not to demand a minimum of effort from the guesser?

I strongly oppose removing the context requirement altogether. Not having it encourages blind-guessing, especially once the series is known, and I find an answer that only requires primary speaker and series name to be unsatisfying as both a guesser and quote provider.

I also don't think the Character game is a good comparison here, as the context of a scene is usually much easier to determine from a quote than from a picture.

CrowLia wrote:

That's all so ridiculous though. If a single line is not memorable on its own and requires additional lines of dialogue, then not guessing who those lines of dialogue are coming from make the whole thing moot. To me this game is about memorable moments in anime. It's not the words alone that are important but why they are being said

There is nothing ridiculous about it. By guessing a quote correctly, the turn holder earns the opportunity to challenge other users to guess a single quote. This is why the rules require the turn holder to bold only one line. [1]

Permitting a multi-line entry was intended to avoid arguments and ambiguities in edge cases--memorable is an adjectives for which there are no objective criteria, and distinctive is of limited use when the game is run in a language that is not the work's original language, and the same work can have multiple existing translations. It is also useful to share interesting sounding dialogue. Using this permission to demand that the guessers guess more than one character is an abusive end run around the limitation that the turn holder can only pose a single quote per turn.

[1] This requirement is not strictly enforced, but that is only because when the same speaker says more than one line in a multi-line exchange, it is usually irrelevant which specific line is identified.

Quote:

Why is it okay for someone to be lenient, but not to demand a minimum of effort from the guesser?

I have quoted the passage in my previous post already:

Quote:

You'd have to look up the episode itself, which requires enough effort.

Forum - View topic
Anime Quote Guessing Game, Round 15

That Time I Got Reincarnated as a Slime: The Ways of Monster Nation Manga Ends Due to Artist's Health

Madoka Magica: Magia Exedra Smartphone Game Announced for 2024

Dead Dead Demon's Dededede Destruction Part 1 Anime Film Review

Eiyuden Chronicle: Hundred Heroes Game Review

The ANN Aftershow - What Anime Should You Watch Part 2 (Spring 2024)

Classroom of the Elite Season 3 Anime Series Review

This Week in Games - Nintendo Indies Showcase 2024

The Best Weapons in BLUELOCK to Build The Perfect Team

INTERVIEW: Small-Town Horror Comes to Life in Masaaki Ninomiya's GANNIBAL Manga

Forum - View topicAnime Quote Guessing Game, Round 15

Forum

Forum - View topic
Anime Quote Guessing Game, Round 15