Suggesting a new VP awarding system

[Hannibal]

"I, Hannibabble, am adamantly against this medal inflation. In recent centuries, our Olympic Games have undoubtedly been ruined by this practice of giving medals to LOSERS. It's called a medal - why should anyone who lost get one? It's against the spirit of the games. It wasn't like that in my day, when you had to WIN to get a medal. Bah, namby-pamby do-gooders, they've ruined it. It's all about who wins, nothing for the losers, I say! Silver medals, bronze medals, who gets any satisfaction out of them, apart from the the silver and bronze medal winners themselves, and they don't count...oh, and maybe their countries/clans. Those earlier winners from the Good Old Days, Elitides and Keepitsmallides would be turning in their tombs if they could see we were handing out medals to losers, when they had to actually WIN to get any recognition. The future of the Olympic Games is as nothing compared to its venerable past, so we should preserve the system that venerates those 2,000 year-old victories, unsullied by a modernist trend to reward degrees of failure. A bronze medal is nothing more than a medal for showing up! Ridiculous. It's called "Games" for a reason: only winners should win anything. The fact that everyone else loses merely serves to make the one winner more happy with his Victory, in direct inverse proportion to how unhappy everyone else feels about having lost, just as it should be. The happiness of the fewest number, as Kant nearly said.

Those who come out of an Olympic Games happy with having achieved a "Bronze" medal are just deluding themselves, a false view that they have any merit at all. We should just call it "Points for turning up" - I'm sure they'd be equally happy once they got used to the new terminology, and the rest of us who matter can instantly see it for the sop that it is, I'm sure they won't notice. This phrase that's creeping in....."I hope to medal in this event".......it's got to be stomped on.......we want them to fully feel they've failed if they don't win......we'd rather they stayed away than take anything away from the supreme value of being The Winner. Hell, a rubbish athlete who kept coming third would think himself above the athlete who won once, and we can't have that. Best if such wannabe's stay away from our hallowed sport, we can do without them.

And as for introducing this system of three medals in "fighting" sports, it's even more ridiculous!! Boxing, Judo, even Tennis - these are COMPETITIVE games, warlike in their inception, absolutely NO justification for awarding prizes for coming close in Games that are intrinsically about fighting it out for one winner......But beware, reader.........there are those who say that competitors should be able to SHARE the gold medal.....half each.......now, that is surely not in our tradition of reserving reward for the winner and making everyone else a loser.

Now, there are those who say we might end up with fewer competitors if we revert to the pure form of "only winners count", but I laugh at that notion. If the only thing that can keep them interested in participating in our Olympic Games is that they would get satisfaction from coming second or third, I say our sport doesn't need them! Let them look elsewhere! Our Olympic Games will thrive without them, all the better for remaining pure. Games are about winning, not about the enjoyment of also-rans! Who needs 'em?

- Hannibabble"

[Undertaker]

Nice read!

Hannibal, are you trying to say something?

[Ecrivian]

I agree with Taker here, very good read. I further agree with Hanibabble, personally I'm sick of all the "Co-s" out there, its disgusting either you are or you aren't!

[Hannibal]

"I, Hannibabble, am adamantly against this medal inflation. In recent centuries, our Olympic Games have undoubtedly been ruined by this practice of giving medals to LOSERS. It's called a medal - why should anyone who lost get one? It's against the spirit of the games. It wasn't like that in my day, when you had to WIN to get a medal. Bah, namby-pamby do-gooders, they've ruined it. It's all about who wins, nothing for the losers, I say! Silver medals, bronze medals, who gets any satisfaction out of them, apart from the the silver and bronze medal winners themselves, and they don't count...oh, and maybe their countries/clans. Those earlier winners from the Good Old Days, Elitides and Keepitsmallides would be turning in their tombs if they could see we were handing out medals to losers, when they had to actually WIN to get any recognition. The future of the Olympic Games is as nothing compared to its venerable past, so we should preserve the system that venerates those 2,000 year-old victories, unsullied by a modernist trend to reward degrees of failure. A bronze medal is nothing more than a medal for showing up! Ridiculous. It's called "Games" for a reason: only winners should win anything. The fact that everyone else loses merely serves to make the one winner more happy with his Victory, in direct inverse proportion to how unhappy everyone else feels about having lost, just as it should be. The happiness of the fewest number, as Kant nearly said.

Those who come out of an Olympic Games happy with having achieved a "Bronze" medal are just deluding themselves, a false view that they have any merit at all. We should just call it "Points for turning up" - I'm sure they'd be equally happy once they got used to the new terminology, and the rest of us who matter can instantly see it for the sop that it is, I'm sure they won't notice. This phrase that's creeping in....."I hope to medal in this event".......it's got to be stomped on.......we want them to fully feel they've failed if they don't win......we'd rather they stayed away than take anything away from the supreme value of being The Winner. Hell, a rubbish athlete who kept coming third would think himself above the athlete who won once, and we can't have that. Best if such wannabe's stay away from our hallowed sport, we can do without them.

And as for introducing this system of three medals in "fighting" sports, it's even more ridiculous!! Boxing, Judo, even Tennis - these are COMPETITIVE games, warlike in their inception, absolutely NO justification for awarding prizes for coming close in Games that are intrinsically about fighting it out for one winner......But beware, reader.........there are those who say that competitors should be able to SHARE the gold medal.....half each.......now, that is surely not in our tradition of reserving reward for the winner and making everyone else a loser.

Now, there are those who say we might end up with fewer competitors if we revert to the pure form of "only winners count", but I laugh at that notion. If the only thing that can keep them interested in participating in our Olympic Games is that they would get satisfaction from coming second or third, I say our sport doesn't need them! Let them look elsewhere! Our Olympic Games will thrive without them, all the better for remaining pure. Games are about winning, not about the enjoyment of also-rans! Who needs 'em?

- Hannibabble"

I just wanted to bring this to the fore. Me calling myself Hannibabble in March 2004. Note it is unedited, unchanged , I changed nothing.

(The argument was in favour of giving VP's more widely, to reward and retain newbies by giving points for coming 3rd, 4th or 5th, not just for the winners, which tends to turn 8 out of 10 people off the game ... I lost the argument, and WOK continued to lose newbies, but the vets were happy. This was a satirical dig at the vets' view that "only us winners should get any vp reward")

The point here now is my intro and sign-off: "Hannibabble", which I then used on a few more occasions to poke fun at myself (nothing if not self-aware!).

Han/ Hannibal/ Hannibabble/ Prolix The Relentless

[Duke]

Two things,

Ec, you actually read the whole thing?

Han, how long did it take for you to dig that old stuff up? And how do you remember that you have refered to yourself as Hannibabble?

I only remember like one post I wrote. ( A story based on an X-game by Nick where one of the characters put fire to his own fart)

[Hannibal]

Two things,

Ec, you actually read the whole thing?

Han, how long did it take for you to dig that old stuff up? And how do you remember that you have refered to yourself as Hannibabble?

I only remember like one post I wrote. ( A story based on an X-game by Nick where one of the characters put fire to his own fart)

Back on an occasional visit.

Well, to answer you, it took me only about a minute to dig it up (perfect eidetic memory, no problem). Then about 90 minutes to decide on action/reply (indecisive, big problem). Then about 1 minute to reply (words come easily). Then about 90 minutes to review and revise (indecisivenesss). So that makes about 1 hour 32 minutes, OK? 2 minutes of doing stuff, 90 minutes of slowing it down! That answer your question? Hey, I don't criticise YOUR way of posting! My way is weird, yes, but wonderful (IMHO). Or at least, I don't care if some others find it unpalatable; some will appreciate it! (Unfortunately : a) people who are game players don't tend to appreciate such, poor overlap by set theory), and b) it really annoys the types who say "I hate writing", who have a chip on their shoulder ....... )

So it goes (Vonnegut)

~ Han

[Raw]

Herpes....you think they are gone, but they always seem to come back.

[Lord Fredo]

That's only because you rock out with your cock out too much.

[Raw]

That's only because you rock out with your cock out too much.

LOL

Rocking out with your Cock out is better than Hangin out with your wang out.

[korexus]

Well, to answer you, it took me only about a minute to dig it up (perfect eidetic memory, no problem). Then about 90 minutes to decide on action/reply (indecisive, big problem). Then about 1 minute to reply (words come easily). Then about 90 minutes to review and revise (indecisivenesss). So that makes about 1 hour 32 minutes, OK?

1 + 90 + 1 + 90 = 182 minutes = 3 hours, 2 minutes. A maths degree hasn't removed my ability to count. (Either that or I'll feel really stupid when I wake up! )

Not that I don't appreciate Han's style, but we have to keep people accurate! *Fans the flames*


korexus.

[Duke]

Two things,

Ec, you actually read the whole thing?

Han, how long did it take for you to dig that old stuff up? And how do you remember that you have refered to yourself as Hannibabble?

I only remember like one post I wrote. ( A story based on an X-game by Nick where one of the characters put fire to his own fart)

Back on an occasional visit.

Well, to answer you, it took me only about a minute to dig it up (perfect eidetic memory, no problem). Then about 90 minutes to decide on action/reply (indecisive, big problem). Then about 1 minute to reply (words come easily). Then about 90 minutes to review and revise (indecisivenesss). So that makes about 1 hour 32 minutes, OK? 2 minutes of doing stuff, 90 minutes of slowing it down! That answer your question? Hey, I don't criticise YOUR way of posting! My way is weird, yes, but wonderful (IMHO). Or at least, I don't care if some others find it unpalatable; some will appreciate it! (Unfortunately : a) people who are game players don't tend to appreciate such, poor overlap by set theory), and b) it really annoys the types who say "I hate writing", who have a chip on their shoulder ....... )

So it goes (Vonnegut)

~ Han

Hey, you get me all wrong Han. I dont mind your way of posting at all. Actually I like it. Dont pay any attention to my cracks at you. You make a good target, thats all.

I'll get off your back from now on. I'd hate to see you leave due to me bullying you away.

Sorry.

[Duke]

Who is Vomitgut?

Sorry. Now I am done. It is out of my system now. *takes a deep breath*

Must....resist...