I will move Gordon; does anybody else think he should go to Supporting? I mean, if he is a protagonist, he can't go to Supporting for the only reason he has no chance against other Protagonists, can he?
I will move Gordon; does anybody else think he should go to Supporting? I mean, if he is a protagonist, he can't go to Supporting for the only reason he has no chance against other Protagonists, can he?
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I had no problem with Gordy staying here.
Sloth Love Chunk
Well, you can't move him to Protagonist if you also decide to move David to there, (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/...2&postcount=28) unless someone else wants to nominate one of them, in my stead. I apologize sincerely if these make it look like I'm causing problems intentionally... I most definitely would like to have all settled quickly.
I'll fifth Tom Cullen and nominate John Cullen.
It'll take a lot more than words and guns,
A whole lot more than riches and muscle.
The hands of the many must join as one.
And together we'll cross the river.
Puscifer, "The Humbling River"
It is and always has been my opinion that the person nominating should determine what category the nominations should go in. The votes will determine from there.Originally Posted by pathoftheturtle
My opinion, however, is that if characters are nominated in the wrong categories, it lowers their chances to be treated in a fair way by further seconding and, then, voting. Anyway, Purpose, not Random, will always reign in forums run by bears. I am moving Gordon to Secondary, and assume that Chambers is the Protagonist in that story.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This has nothing to do really with purpose and random. I am not trying to create chaos or dissent even. I just stated an opinion. Do with it as you will. It has to do with the fact that people are smart enough to know where they feel their nominations should be. To move them in my opinion implies otherwise. If someone feels a nomination should be in a category other than the one it is in there is no reason it can't be nominated in more than one and it will win or not win based on people's votes. What makes your opinion of where a nomination should lie more than the person who nominates it?
Nothing. I am trying to make the categories in accordance with what is stated in post 1 of every thread, primarily by Aaron. If I see that a nomination disagrees with the destination of a thread, I move it to a more appropriate thread, always referring to the definitions given. I will immediately move a nomination back if the one who nominated it gives me some good reasons why he primarily put it where he did; it may very well be that I overlooked some considerations. I always think before I do it, compare categories, and consult people; however, I, too, can make a mistake, of course.
It is not whose arbitrary opinion is right or wrong, it is what is in accordance with the rules stated, and what is not. And if I want us to play by the rules - which I do - then I have to take upon myself the responsibility to see to it that the rules are observed; that's all.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, since I lack the time or the inclination to defend why I make a nomination should someone decide that it wasn't a worthwhile nomination I'll simply remove myself from nominating or voting entirely.
However I will say this in a poll if we follow whatever is nominated and voted on and adhere strictly to the numbers then we are following all the rules that matter.
I honsetly don't see the problem with Brice's thoughts, the thing is that people get to vote how they feel!?
Brice, this is all about having fun, don't take it so seriously!
OK, enough is enough.
Please do not exaggerate. It's mere demagogy and populism. I've always respected the members' opinions and have been guided, I repeat, by the rules. A game doesn't exist without rules. If you don't understand it yourself - which I hope you do - here are some examples of what makes it impossible to make it the way you're offering:
1. Two people make the same nomination in different categories.
2. Someone nominates a novel in short stories, or a secondary character as minor because he didn't look at other categories - or by any other clear mistake.
3. Someone nominates someone as a minor character, and someone else - not me - points out it is the wrong category.
I can go on, but isn't that enough? The way you're suggesting just doesn't work, while I haven't yet heard anyone except you complaining about how things are run here.
What was the point this time? Path nominated Gordon, I quote:
- that is, stating that Gordon is a protagonist. Heather19 pointed out that he can't be here in Minor Characters, which is true by definition. The discussion went on long enough before its participants convinced me that Gordon should be moved; path concurred, adding that then I should consider moving Carver to protagonist, which I am considering at the moment, having made this idea public in the relevant thread. None of this wasn't my arbitrary decision, it was a result of a discussion, as things are always done in the forums I moderate. I don't know why you chose to completely disregard this fact now.I nominate Gordon LaChance, the protagonist from "The Body".
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If these arguments are relevant, then why is John Shooter in the minor antagonist thread. Seems almost exactly the same argument.
Sorry, don't want to fuel the fire, but I've wanted to make that point for awhile now.
That said, I have no problem with John Shooter being in that thread because he IS a minor character compared to the major antagonists (pennywise, Flagg, etc.). But for that same reason, I had no problem with Gordy being here.
Sloth Love Chunk
it is a good point, I'm asking this question in Best Minor Antagonist now. As I said, such things are a matter of discussion when they are not very clear.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It reeaally doesn't bother me. I just make mention of it, because at the same time that questions about Gordy came up, John Shooter was nominated. I really was using Shooter to defend Gordy as a minor protagonist because I know he has NO chance against saaaaay Roland.
Sloth Love Chunk
I know what you mean - it is hard to achieve full consistance here, that's why in such controversial cases I normally wait for people's opinion. Whatever I do, it will never be perfect, but at least I've really been trying my best.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And you do such a good job! I am by no means complaining.
Sloth Love Chunk
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm of the opinion that no matter the size and scope of the story, be it a thousand-page novel or a three-page short story, the antagonist/protagonist in it should always be considered major, not minor, because in that story they are. "Major/minor" here denotes not the relative value of these characters to all the other characters ever created by Stephen King, but simply to their own tale. Just my opinion.
Right, that's how they are defined in starter posts. I am trying to remain consistent with them.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, I just didn't get that. I've never believed in bending facts just to save face. To serve a higher Purpose, I'll cheerfully admit that I was not smart enough to know where my nomination should be. I say, "Live and learn." No harm meant. Thanks for clarifying the rules.
Henrietta Dodd - Dead Zone
Jud Crandall (Pet Sematary) 3
The coach bus driver at the end of 'Salem's Lot 1
Irv Manders (Firestarter) 1
Speedy Parker (The Talisman - Black House) 4
Rosalita Munoz (DT) 2
Trashcan Man (The Stand) 3
Tom Cullen (the Stand) 5
The woodchuck (Under the Dome) 3
John Cullum (TDT) 1
Henrietta Dodd (The Dead Zone) 1
Woofer: did I understand it correctly that you were nominating John Cullum?
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If Woofer was nominating John Cullum I will Second him, if not i will Nominate him.
“There are no men like me. There's only me”- The Kingslayer
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
