I was thinking it'd be funny if we could flood the nominations to end up causing something really weird to happen.
Like say we got enough Zelda/Ganondorf nominations so that Ganon was stuck with Zelda rather than Link. Then Link gets some other random rival instead. That example is a bit unrealistic since Link/Ganon is gonna have a ton of nominations, but I'm sure there's something amusing that could be done.
This brings up a good point. Say Sonic/Robotnik is the 12th most nominated pair, but Sonic/Knuckles is the 10th most. Sonic obviously gets paired up with Knuckles, but what about Robotnik. Does he still get in with his next highest rival or does he simply get eliminated unless another pair he's in gets enough votes? It seems somewhat unfair that so many people voted him in, but he still gets snubbed, albeit I guess the presence of people being able to nominated multiple pairs negates this somewhat.
--
"Ahem! There is *sand* on my *boot*!"--Kefka Black Turtle beat me, Yesmar in the Fall 2010 Guru Contest!
Might as well get some good out of this contest, and try to get a somewhat unconventional rivalry in. Would probably be one of the most popular ones too!
--
"Ahem! There is *sand* on my *boot*!"--Kefka Black Turtle beat me, Yesmar in the Fall 2010 Guru Contest!
Horrible idea. So the ultimate result from Bacon getting user input was to pick the format (tag teams) that users have been antagonistic towards for years?
Good one. Hopefully this is just a mini contest before the next real contest in January.
--
"Ahem! There is *sand* on my *boot*!"--Kefka Black Turtle beat me, Yesmar in the Fall 2010 Guru Contest!
Any advantage Cloud/Sephiroth might have in a tag team format might be lessened by the phrasing of the teams as "rivalries." That probably helps out characters from older, long running series.
Hey on the plus side, we'll probably be getting a 1v1 24 hour matches for this contest!
--
"Ahem! There is *sand* on my *boot*!"--Kefka Black Turtle beat me, Yesmar in the Fall 2010 Guru Contest!
I should hope that preventing someone from eating a poisoned tomato to begin with is more important than ensuring the company pays a proper settlement afterwards.
Edit:
But smaller business are being regulated, by people who are in bed with the big companies. That's the problem.
I completely agree. I don't see that as being intrinsically part of regulation however, assuming you appoint the proper people as regulators.
--
"Ahem! There is *sand* on my *boot*!"--Kefka Black Turtle beat me, Yesmar in the Fall 2010 Guru Contest!
The Gilded Age was better than the times before it, I'm sure, but that doesn't mean it was good.
There was very little to stop companies from ordering employees to work long hours for low wages in dirty and unsanitary conditions. Small children had to work in factories next to their parents. Women almost certainly did not get paid as much, and I doubt there was much semblance of vacation time or maternity leave for anyone. Companies could just buy up rivals and show smaller competitors out of business through unfair business practices.
For example, take brokerages. To start a brokerage, you need to hire brokers. But to become a broker, you need to pass an exam. To take the exam, you need to be sponsored by a brokerage that is already a member of a quasi-governmental private "self-regulatory organization" that works under the SEC, an actual government regulatory agency. But your new firm obviously is not that, so you're out of luck.
You're forced to hire people who are already brokers, meaning that they currently work for other firms. See how this perpetuates the cycle? And there are still a huge number of other regulatory hurdles you have to get through before you can ever do business with a customer. And when you do get to that point, it's much easier for you to work with rich customers than poor customers, because of government regulations "protecting" poor customers from supposedly unsuitable investments. These are also often the most popular investments with rich people, because they are risky and therefore profitable on average. But you can't encourage poor people to get into these, because they're too risky- why not let them decide what they want instead of bureaucrats? Because the government thinks non-rich people are stupid and need to be protected from themselves.
Well then, just get rid of the rule saying you have to be sponsored by a brokerage to take the test. And I would assume that most poor people can't afford accountants or other financial assistants to manage their assets in the way that a rich person would.
Not that "corporations do evil when they aren't regulated" but that corporations do evil when they get in bed with the regulators.
But if they're in bed with the regulators, then they are not being regulated.
--
"Ahem! There is *sand* on my *boot*!"--Kefka Black Turtle beat me, Yesmar in the Fall 2010 Guru Contest!
And it's because we're trusting government bureaucrats to protect the interests of the public instead of the free market.
Trusting the free market didn't do so well in The Gilded Age. There's no reason why government has to be in league with the companies. In fact it shouldn't be! If we trust the companies to regulate themselves we have no recourse if they don't. With the government there is (or should be) some accountability and transparency. You can directly say in the laws this is protecting the interests of the people. There's no reason to think that the free market would.
And are there examples (on any wide scale) of small businesses being stopped by unreasonable regulations? What specific regulations are you talking about?
--
"Ahem! There is *sand* on my *boot*!"--Kefka Black Turtle beat me, Yesmar in the Fall 2010 Guru Contest!
For the record the Tea Party is a ****ing joke as are both major parties. If anyone wants any real, legal 'change' they will vote for Ron Paul. Both parties are practically the same organism who have the same general economic and foreign relation policies...it is quite obvious the only answer is to bring in someone outside of the two party influence.
The biggest problem in today's society is probably corporate influence. If Ron Paul's policies went into effect, these corporations would have even more power, not less.
--
"Ahem! There is *sand* on my *boot*!"--Kefka Black Turtle beat me, Yesmar in the Fall 2010 Guru Contest!
Who doesn't have the sense to just break when the blue shell comes so that it hits the person in second place too?
Edit: The items that various places get are balanced in regards to what's more useful to them. Why would you need a speed item if you're in second place? If anything that would make the game more unbalanced. If you're in the lead you want to keep it, so getting bananas/bombs and stuff to attack the people behind you makes sense. You don't need to attack people if you're in the back of the pack, you have to catch up! The items people in the lead get are less fun to use so people think that they're not as useful when they are.
--
"Ahem! There is *sand* on my *boot*!"--Kefka Black Turtle beat me, Yesmar in the Fall 2010 Guru Contest!
Just reeks of people expecting everyone else to have the same random nostalgia as they do. I actually watched DuckTales and I barely remember who he was. How does anyone under the age of 20 know him?
--
"Ahem! There is *sand* on my *boot*!"--Kefka Black Turtle beat me, Yesmar in the Fall 2010 Guru Contest!
Probably has something to do with independents being the most likely to think critically about politics. Totally unshocked there's a correlation between that and holding socially progressive views.
But most independents in the U.S. are conservative.
--
"Ahem! There is *sand* on my *boot*!"--Kefka Black Turtle beat me, Yesmar in the Fall 2010 Guru Contest!
Neville Chamberlain gets a bad rap. He knew how crazy Hitler was at Munich, but he also knew that the UK wasn't strong and that they needed more time to build up their forces, which is what appeasement gave them. It wasn't something that went on indefinitely. I got this from a Cracked article, so who knows how mainstream this viewpoint is. Makes sense to me though.
--
"Ahem! There is *sand* on my *boot*!"--Kefka Black Turtle beat me, Yesmar in the Fall 2010 Guru Contest!
I'm definitely not seeing Alyx > Luigi minus a rally. Gordon would do worse than 75/25 Alyx based on what we've seen here, and there's no reason to think he'd get that much against Luigi. Mario has always looked just as popular on Gamespot as it has here. Any sort of "NintendoFAQS" influence on Mario's popularity on this site has been overrated. What Mario entrants in the past couple of years have looks disproportionately popular?
--
"Ahem! There is *sand* on my *boot*!"--Kefka Black Turtle beat me, Yesmar in the Fall 2010 Guru Contest!
People didn't just die or starve en masse in the 1920's
They were certainly worse off than they are now. The amount of seniors under the poverty line, for example, has decreased greatly
Edit: I should also point out that I can guarantee that if you asked these private charities what their feelings on the subject of government welfare are, they would almost universally approve of it, and in fact probably want more. Conservatives hold up these private organizations as role models, which is odd since many private charities have been extremely supportive for government help. Jane Addams didn't think that Hull House was enough to take care of people without government help. Look at the attitude of the current Catholic church, probably the biggest operator of charities in the United States if I had to guess. Their official stance, in America at least, is consistently one encouraging a greater sense of social welfare amongst the government. If you hold up these organizations as role models who know what they are doing, surely you should listen to their opinions on this front.
--
"Ahem! There is *sand* on my *boot*!"--Kefka Black Turtle beat me, Yesmar in the Fall 2010 Guru Contest!
Oh man, balloon fetish. I remember watching a porn from an otherwise normal web site, where apparently one of the guys was into balloons. Nothing sexual happened with the balloons, they were just on the bed while they had sex. So weird and out of nowhere.
--
"Ahem! There is *sand* on my *boot*!"--Kefka Black Turtle beat me, Yesmar in the Fall 2010 Guru Contest!
My point is more general about "trusting the experts." Historically, the experts have an accuracy rate that is pretty darn close to 0%. Intuitive individual minds make discoveries and prove them wrong on a nearly constant basis. To trust the experts is to embrace mediocrity.
I'm pretty sure that most medical discoveries in the past fifty years have been made by professionals (or students advancing in a professional system.)
--
"Ahem! There is *sand* on my *boot*!"--Kefka Black Turtle beat me, Yesmar in the Fall 2010 Guru Contest!
Because we respect the opinions of professional doctors?
I believe you might be thinking of the APA in terms of homosexuality being considered a disorder, but if it did happen with the AMA as well, I am sure that their opinions changed due to professional research on the subject, as should be expected in any scientific field.
--
"Ahem! There is *sand* on my *boot*!"--Kefka Black Turtle beat me, Yesmar in the Fall 2010 Guru Contest!
Wouldn't you be upset if you wanted to move but couldn't?
That happens to plenty of people when prices get too high as well. Do you disagree that home prices were too high for most Americans in the past decade?
As for the mortgage issue, every financial institution offering mortgages would have gone absolutely bankrupt(more than they did already) if that were the case. Nobody would be able to extend any credit.
Well then they shouldn't have been making risky mortgages. It's not like the bubble bursting was entirely unforeseen. And I would also be supportive of the government stepping in to give money in a crisis, and to establish standards that banks can't make too many risky mortgages.
--
"Ahem! There is *sand* on my *boot*!"--Kefka Black Turtle beat me, Yesmar in the Fall 2010 Guru Contest!
How can you afford to build something if you will give it away for free?
Because it's your home. If you can't afford to move, don't move. If you were using the house as equity, well that's the risk you took*.
*Aside from mortgage issues, which I personally think should be adjusted to the current market rate for the house in question. Within reason of course.
--
"Ahem! There is *sand* on my *boot*!"--Kefka Black Turtle beat me, Yesmar in the Fall 2010 Guru Contest!
The problem is that we're monetizing basic resources like shelter. Should people who just want a roof over their head be held hostage by those wanting to make money off of their house?
--
"Ahem! There is *sand* on my *boot*!"--Kefka Black Turtle beat me, Yesmar in the Fall 2010 Guru Contest!
They were ridiculously high to begin with when you adjust for inflation, and hopefully they drop even further so that people will be able to actually afford buying/renting a place to live.
--
"Ahem! There is *sand* on my *boot*!"--Kefka Black Turtle beat me, Yesmar in the Fall 2010 Guru Contest!