[THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

azurepudding · 2018-09-24 04:25:04

Pingohits wrote:

azurepudding wrote:
A world with double the favorite:play and nearly triple the like:play ratios than its opponent loses
It is fallacious to assume world statistics influence the enjoyment of a level, for there are many variables that implicitly control this. Do consider the amount of time a world was open; it is not remarkable for a world to exist only when the owners want it to. In other words, perhaps they kept it invisible most of the time and only let a certain quota of players in; perhaps they left immediately after completion. I base these off of hypothesis, so please correct me.
I do not understand the purpose of your comment; is it to express dissatisfaction? Are you expecting a result? A change? It is perfectly acceptable to dissent, but it is difficult for me to grasp what you want the contest judges to do.

Alright professor,

The world had 200 plays before it was finished, which I subtracted from the play count for an accurate play to like/fav ratio, so yes I did consider that. It wasn't even close, double and almost triple. If it was close- fine. But that is a considerable amount more. Far more people liked my level.

I don't expect anything to change. I can be upset about it, yes?

Wizard2002 · 2018-09-24 06:32:33

Yo azurepudding, just wanted to tell you that your levels were honestly my favorite out of the tournament. I'm not exactly sure what made the judges not like your worlds so much, but I just wanted to tell you they were really good in my opinion.

Anyways, good luck to you in the future. Would have liked to face off with you but oh well, guess it just wasn't meant to be ;-;

azurepudding

Luka504 · 2018-09-24 08:04:58

azurepudding wrote:

Alright professor,
The world had 200 plays before it was finished, which I subtracted from the play count for an accurate play to like/fav ratio, so yes I did consider that. It wasn't even close, double and almost triple. If it was close- fine. But that is a considerable amount more. Far more people liked my level.
I don't expect anything to change. I can be upset about it, yes?

How about we try a different theory then. Your world is simply more noob-friendly. You see, your world has such mindlessly easy gameplay that basically anyone can beat it, and couple that with the fact that you're constantly sitting in your world just to farm plays, you're basically guaranteed to get a solid number of likes and plays.

Then, when you look at /quote's world, you realize that it's not designed for the average player. They get stuck on the first section of the world, and they automatically assume it's impossible and leave. Of course they don't like or favorite a map they couldn't finish, so they just leave, throwing a wrench the like/play ratio. But, for those who are willing to think about their options and solve the puzzles, they realize that the world is so intricately designed that it's a contender for one of the best puzzle worlds EE has to offer.

So no, likes and like/play ratios don't mean anything when it comes to how good a world is.

Slabdrill

Norwee · 2018-09-24 08:07:04

azurepudding wrote:

Pingohits wrote:
azurepudding wrote:
A world with double the favorite:play and nearly triple the like:play ratios than its opponent loses
It is fallacious to assume world statistics influence the enjoyment of a level, for there are many variables that implicitly control this. Do consider the amount of time a world was open; it is not remarkable for a world to exist only when the owners want it to. In other words, perhaps they kept it invisible most of the time and only let a certain quota of players in; perhaps they left immediately after completion. I base these off of hypothesis, so please correct me.
I do not understand the purpose of your comment; is it to express dissatisfaction? Are you expecting a result? A change? It is perfectly acceptable to dissent, but it is difficult for me to grasp what you want the contest judges to do.
Alright professor,
The world had 200 plays before it was finished, which I subtracted from the play count for an accurate play to like/fav ratio, so yes I did consider that. It wasn't even close, double and almost triple. If it was close- fine. But that is a considerable amount more. Far more people liked my level.
I don't expect anything to change. I can be upset about it, yes?

I’ve said it before, but i should probably say it again.
The amount of plays/likes ratio of your level really isn’t relevant. It’s not a part of the judging criteria. You’re just beating a dead horse by this point.
Also many judges liked your level, they just liked Quote’s world more. That’s just how it goes.

Luka504, Onjit, Yonanoke

azurepudding · 2018-09-24 08:53:54

Luka504 wrote:

azurepudding wrote:
Alright professor,
The world had 200 plays before it was finished, which I subtracted from the play count for an accurate play to like/fav ratio, so yes I did consider that. It wasn't even close, double and almost triple. If it was close- fine. But that is a considerable amount more. Far more people liked my level.
I don't expect anything to change. I can be upset about it, yes?
How about we try a different theory then. Your world is simply more noob-friendly. You see, your world has such mindlessly easy gameplay that basically anyone can beat it, and couple that with the fact that you're constantly sitting in your world just to farm plays, you're basically guaranteed to get a solid number of likes and plays.
Then, when you look at /quote's world, you realize that it's not designed for the average player. They get stuck on the first section of the world, and they automatically assume it's impossible and leave. Of course they don't like or favorite a map they couldn't finish, so they just leave, throwing a wrench the like/play ratio. But, for those who are willing to think about their options and solve the puzzles, they realize that the world is so intricately designed that it's a contender for one of the best puzzle worlds EE has to offer.
So no, likes and like/play ratios don't mean anything when it comes to how good a world is.

What's wrong with having an easy world? Okay, so you can throw out likes then if you want, but favorites mean more. It means the level was enjoyable enough that they'd like to replay it later on, since favorites are used as a bookmark system.

As for "sitting in my world farming for plays"... well.. yeah, I am. But? I'm doing the same thing in end quote's world too. You don't think I'm that unfair, do you?

If likes and favs mean nothing, then why do we even have them? A like means.. someone liked the world. More liked is more liked, less liked is less liked. I saw people who managed to beat or nearly beat this world and still show dissatisfaction with it. If we cannot use likes and favs to measure how liked a world is, then what even is the point of the system. I don't think people like worlds that they do not like.

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

I’ve said it before, but i should probably say it again.
The amount of plays/likes ratio of your level really isn’t relevant. It’s not a part of the judging criteria. You’re just beating a dead horse by this point.
Also many judges liked your level, they just liked Quote’s world more. That’s just how it goes.
https://i.imgur.com/OgBFanO.png

I'm not fighting for a change, I know that's not happening, but I can be upset about it. I mean, worlds don't appear in just a snap of a finger, so of course I'm gonna be upset losing about 80 hours in on world creation. Not only did my world receive more likes and favs, but my opponent got away with a joke world in a previous round while I've always gone 100% effort, and the team that beat me the first time dropped, making my first loss for nothing, and a joke world gets to go further than me. So yes, I think I can be upset.

I am glad my world is liked by the judges, but I feel I got burned a few times there, and.. I only get +350 max energy to show for it. Now I can go 73 hours without hitting cap instead of 60, and when I play every day (or at least check in for daily bonus).. yeah.. I feel like I got nothing. Gems might've been nice, but this tournament has way too many rounds if going this far gives you practically nothing. I know I'm coming off totally ungrateful here, but that was a ton of time, energy, and effort. I became physically ill after finishing this round after spending a good 15 hours in a row working on it (I'm a slow builder I know), skipping sleep and stressing like all hell.. and all that passion just blew into bits just like that, and I'm just sitting here with a world with vastly more likes and favs. So disagree with me, but I hope you can at least understand.

TaskManager · 2018-09-24 09:27:06

hoLY **** gUYs STOp

Onjit · 2018-09-24 09:49:14

TaskManager wrote:

hoLY **** gUYs STOp

shut

we don't get drama very often so we have to drive everything we can get into the ground

TaskManager, Slabdrill

Luka504 · 2018-09-24 12:11:30

Azurepudding wrote:

What's wrong with having an easy world? Okay, so you can throw out likes then if you want, but favorites mean more. It means the level was enjoyable enough that they'd like to replay it later on, since favorites are used as a bookmark system.

I mean, when I say "likes" I'm refering to both likes and favorites, as people tend to give both at the same time. Though you are right about one thing, favorites are rarer than likes, however favorites are also not a factor in how good a level is.

Azurepudding wrote:

As for "sitting in my world farming for plays"... well.. yeah, I am. But? I'm doing the same thing in end quote's world too. You don't think I'm that unfair, do you?

I should have also mentioned that you tend to also guest-bomb your own worlds, but yes. You're right here.

Azurepudding wrote:

If likes and favs mean nothing, then why do we even have them? A like means.. someone liked the world. More liked is more liked, less liked is less liked. I saw people who managed to beat or nearly beat this world and still show dissatisfaction with it. If we cannot use likes and favs to measure how liked a world is, then what even is the point of the system. I don't think people like worlds that they do not like.

The best way I can describe it is - A good world often has a lot of likes, but a world with a lot of likes isn't necessarily good.
You have some worlds out there, like those stupid death worlds, that are truly horrendous levels but they still have a **** ton of likes anyway.
Likes and favorites can be a way to determine if a world is worth playing or not, but they are not a factor in the actual quality of the world. That's the purpose of the like/favorite system.

Azurepudding wrote:

I know I'm coming off totally ungrateful here, but that was a ton of time, energy, and effort. I became physically ill after finishing this round after spending a good 15 hours in a row working on it (I'm a slow builder I know), skipping sleep and stressing like all hell.. and all that passion just blew into bits just like that, and I'm just sitting here with a world with vastly more likes and favs.

Nice, a call for sympathy.
I'm sorry but there's no way on Earth you spent 15 hours in total working on your world. The worlds you make can only take you a few hours to make at MOST. 15 hours goes way beyond being a slow builder. This means that you're either a massive procrastinator by constantly taking long breaks, or a liar.

2b55b5g · 2018-09-24 14:47:03

What?? 2 french 1 cup lost?! And what do you mean 2nd place? You still can get into winner round if you survived to the final round of losers.

Kaleb · 2018-09-24 15:58:29

2B55B5G TNG wrote:

What?? 2 french 1 cup lost?! And what do you mean 2nd place? You still can get into winner round if you survived to the final round of losers.

no at best we can play against the loser of round 7 in LR10

Slabdrill · 2018-09-24 20:39:27

Kaleb wrote:

2B55B5G TNG wrote:
What?? 2 french 1 cup lost?! And what do you mean 2nd place? You still can get into winner round if you survived to the final round of losers.
no at best we can play against the loser of round 7 in LR10

You should look at the bracket again. L10 is L9 winner vs W6 loser; W7 is W6 winner vs L10 winner.

Kaleb · 2018-09-26 10:37:28

Slabdrill wrote:

Kaleb wrote:
2B55B5G TNG wrote:
What?? 2 french 1 cup lost?! And what do you mean 2nd place? You still can get into winner round if you survived to the final round of losers.
no at best we can play against the loser of round 7 in LR10
You should look at the bracket again. L10 is L9 winner vs W6 loser; W7 is W6 winner vs L10 winner.

whch is indeed round 7 (Winner Round 7), if not then idk

LukeM · 2018-09-26 10:48:02

Kaleb wrote:

Slabdrill wrote:
Kaleb wrote:
2B55B5G TNG wrote:
What?? 2 french 1 cup lost?! And what do you mean 2nd place? You still can get into winner round if you survived to the final round of losers.
no at best we can play against the loser of round 7 in LR10
You should look at the bracket again. L10 is L9 winner vs W6 loser; W7 is W6 winner vs L10 winner.
whch is indeed round 7 (Winner Round 7), if not then idk

If you win loser round 10 then you compete against the winner of winner round 6 in the final

Kaleb

azurepudding · 2018-09-26 20:55:57

Luka504 wrote:

Azurepudding wrote:
What's wrong with having an easy world? Okay, so you can throw out likes then if you want, but favorites mean more. It means the level was enjoyable enough that they'd like to replay it later on, since favorites are used as a bookmark system.
I mean, when I say "likes" I'm refering to both likes and favorites, as people tend to give both at the same time. Though you are right about one thing, favorites are rarer than likes, however favorites are also not a factor in how good a level is.

Favs seem to usually be half or 75% as rare as likes, but anyway, I'm talking like/fav to play ratio here. A world with 10,000 plays but with 50 likes isn't as impressive as a world with 100 plays with 40 likes. So yes- the like count alone isn't all that matters, but the like to play ratio is much more significant, which is what I was comparing, not simply the like count.

Luka504 wrote:

Azurepudding wrote:
As for "sitting in my world farming for plays"... well.. yeah, I am. But? I'm doing the same thing in end quote's world too. You don't think I'm that unfair, do you?
I should have also mentioned that you tend to also guest-bomb your own worlds, but yes. You're right here.

If two guests in a world counts as "guest bombing"... sure. It can be hard to get a new world going that has nearly 0 plays, 0 likes, and only 1 online player in it. It's gonna be at the bottom on any world filter. Is having two guests that harmful?

Luka504 wrote:

Azurepudding wrote:
If likes and favs mean nothing, then why do we even have them? A like means.. someone liked the world. More liked is more liked, less liked is less liked. I saw people who managed to beat or nearly beat this world and still show dissatisfaction with it. If we cannot use likes and favs to measure how liked a world is, then what even is the point of the system. I don't think people like worlds that they do not like.
The best way I can describe it is - A good world often has a lot of likes, but a world with a lot of likes isn't necessarily good.
You have some worlds out there, like those stupid death worlds, that are truly horrendous levels but they still have a **** ton of likes anyway.
Likes and favorites can be a way to determine if a world is worth playing or not, but they are not a factor in the actual quality of the world. That's the purpose of the like/favorite system.

See response for first bit above.

Luka504 wrote:

Azurepudding wrote:
I know I'm coming off totally ungrateful here, but that was a ton of time, energy, and effort. I became physically ill after finishing this round after spending a good 15 hours in a row working on it (I'm a slow builder I know), skipping sleep and stressing like all hell.. and all that passion just blew into bits just like that, and I'm just sitting here with a world with vastly more likes and favs.
Nice, a call for sympathy.
I'm sorry but there's no way on Earth you spent 15 hours in total working on your world. The worlds you make can only take you a few hours to make at MOST. 15 hours goes way beyond being a slow builder. This means that you're either a massive procrastinator by constantly taking long breaks, or a liar.

Right, I forgot I was supposed to be a robot with absolutely zero emotion after spending all this time and work. I am a procrastinator, which is why most of my worlds were put off until the last day, and so while I work I become very stressed, and also easily distracted, constantly getting up wanting to do something else or just to walk around to rid myself of some stress and anxiety. While building I kept telling myself, I really don't wanna build right now, but I have to if I want to win. I built while severely burnt out of building also. I went too many rounds, too many SHORT rounds for comfort. Short rounds, and judging periods growing smaller giving us less downtime to take a break. The contest quickly became less and less fun. I never dreaded working on my worlds this much like I did back in the Designer contest.

Muftwin · 2018-09-26 22:15:53

While building I kept telling myself, I really don't wanna build right now, but I have to if I want to win.

You should've been out sooner

Luka504 · 2018-09-26 22:30:52

Azurepudding wrote:

Favs seem to usually be half or 75% as rare as likes, but anyway, I'm talking like/fav to play ratio here. A world with 10,000 plays but with 50 likes isn't as impressive as a world with 100 plays with 40 likes. So yes- the like count alone isn't all that matters, but the like to play ratio is much more significant, which is what I was comparing, not simply the like count.

Actually I'd argue that like/play ratios have an even bigger potential of misleading someone on how good a world is.
For example, The Square has about 40.000 plays and 1.200 likes. This means that the like/play ratio for The Square is about one like for every 33 plays.
Then you have some random boss to code level with 120 plays and 6 likes. The like/play ratio is one like for every 20 plays.
Obviously a lower number is better, so if you look at these numbers, The Square is worse than a Boss to Code level.
Maybe the example lands a bit on the hyperbolic side of things, but nonetheless I think it proves my point. You cannot use raw numbers to determine how good a world is.

Azurepudding wrote:

If two guests in a world counts as "guest bombing"... sure. It can be hard to get a new world going that has nearly 0 plays, 0 likes, and only 1 online player in it. It's gonna be at the bottom on any world filter. Is having two guests that harmful?

Two guests or twenty, it still is guest-bombing by technicality.
And yes, in a game that has a very small amount of online players on a regular basis, like in EE, two people can boost a world from the bottom of the chart to the top.

Azurepudding wrote:

Right, I forgot I was supposed to be a robot with absolutely zero emotion after spending all this time and work. I am a procrastinator, which is why most of my worlds were put off until the last day, and so while I work I become very stressed, and also easily distracted, constantly getting up wanting to do something else or just to walk around to rid myself of some stress and anxiety. While building I kept telling myself, I really don't wanna build right now, but I have to if I want to win. I built while severely burnt out of building also. I went too many rounds, too many SHORT rounds for comfort. Short rounds, and judging periods growing smaller giving us less downtime to take a break. The contest quickly became less and less fun. I never dreaded working on my worlds this much like I did back in the Designer contest.

I'm not saying you should be an emotionless robot, I'm just saying that you have no right to call for sympathy if you're the cause of your own problems.
No one here forced you to spend 80 hours "making" your worlds, no one forced you to lose out on sleep and no one forced you to risk your own health and well being for a stupid contest. Nobody, except for you, of course. You did this to yourself.
So please, stop telling people you put in a lot of time and effort into your worlds, because the actual time and effort you spent actually making your worlds equates to the amount other people have spent on their worlds. In fact, it might be even less.

Freckleface · 2018-09-26 22:36:02

AzurePudding wrote:

The contest quickly became less and less fun. I never dreaded working on my worlds this much like I did back in the Designer contest.

Hey look. It seems you dont want to be in the contest after all. Looks like this pointless argument can end right now.

Luka504, Slabdrill

Lictor666 · 2018-09-26 23:35:46

Muftwin wrote:

While building I kept telling myself, I really don't wanna build right now, but I have to if I want to win.
You should've been out sooner

drunkbnu, Slabdrill, Minimania, Kaleb

azurepudding · 2018-09-27 04:17:26

Luka504 wrote:

Azurepudding wrote:
Favs seem to usually be half or 75% as rare as likes, but anyway, I'm talking like/fav to play ratio here. A world with 10,000 plays but with 50 likes isn't as impressive as a world with 100 plays with 40 likes. So yes- the like count alone isn't all that matters, but the like to play ratio is much more significant, which is what I was comparing, not simply the like count.
Actually I'd argue that like/play ratios have an even bigger potential of misleading someone on how good a world is.
For example, The Square has about 40.000 plays and 1.200 likes. This means that the like/play ratio for The Square is about one like for every 33 plays.
Then you have some random boss to code level with 120 plays and 6 likes. The like/play ratio is one like for every 20 plays.
Obviously a lower number is better, so if you look at these numbers, The Square is worse than a Boss to Code level.
Maybe the example lands a bit on the hyperbolic side of things, but nonetheless I think it proves my point. You cannot use raw numbers to determine how good a world is.

A level with that many plays is bound to have a lot of repeat plays from the same users. They should change it to count unique plays, I think.

Luka504 wrote:

Azurepudding wrote:
If two guests in a world counts as "guest bombing"... sure. It can be hard to get a new world going that has nearly 0 plays, 0 likes, and only 1 online player in it. It's gonna be at the bottom on any world filter. Is having two guests that harmful?
Two guests or twenty, it still is guest-bombing by technicality.
And yes, in a game that has a very small amount of online players on a regular basis, like in EE, two people can boost a world from the bottom of the chart to the top.

Then so what? Why use it like it's a bad thing. Bumping the level's the entire point. I just used two guests, which is enough to make it seen, but not an obnoxious amount to make it the very top of the list. I think you are really grasping at any little thing to disagree with me here. Trivial technicalities are one of the most annoying things to argue about.

Luka504 wrote:

Azurepudding wrote:
Right, I forgot I was supposed to be a robot with absolutely zero emotion after spending all this time and work. I am a procrastinator, which is why most of my worlds were put off until the last day, and so while I work I become very stressed, and also easily distracted, constantly getting up wanting to do something else or just to walk around to rid myself of some stress and anxiety. While building I kept telling myself, I really don't wanna build right now, but I have to if I want to win. I built while severely burnt out of building also. I went too many rounds, too many SHORT rounds for comfort. Short rounds, and judging periods growing smaller giving us less downtime to take a break. The contest quickly became less and less fun. I never dreaded working on my worlds this much like I did back in the Designer contest.
I'm not saying you should be an emotionless robot, I'm just saying that you have no right to call for sympathy if you're the cause of your own problems.
No one here forced you to spend 80 hours "making" your worlds, no one forced you to lose out on sleep and no one forced you to risk your own health and well being for a stupid contest. Nobody, except for you, of course. You did this to yourself.
So please, stop telling people you put in a lot of time and effort into your worlds, because the actual time and effort you spent actually making your worlds equates to the amount other people have spent on their worlds. In fact, it might be even less.

Yes, no one also forced me to join the contest... therefore I can't be bummed about losing it either??? No. I needed more of a break between rounds which wasn't given. That's something out of my control. I cannot perform some miracle and keep myself from burning out of world creation. I needed more time, but the break period (judging period) was only becoming shorter. You yourself have gone on at length about how disastrous this contest is, and now that I'm sharing some points you made previously, here you are to disagree with me, as always.

Freckleface wrote:

AzurePudding wrote:
The contest quickly became less and less fun. I never dreaded working on my worlds this much like I did back in the Designer contest.
Hey look. It seems you dont want to be in the contest after all. Looks like this pointless argument can end right now.

I wanted to be a part of it. I just needed more time between rounds, as well as more time for the rounds themselves. But I mainly wanted more in between break time.

SmittyW · 2018-09-27 04:25:13

Tiralmo wrote:

RavaTroll wrote:
I did not write reviews but I can explain why I picked worlds. You can ask me in PMs - with a link of your team and world if possible.
I'm also not writing full reviews for all levels/matchups, but I'd be glad to explain any of my decisions. Just reach out to me however you feel comfortable (publicly on forums, ingame, via PM here, etc.)!

Requesting reviews for Winners 5 of "2 french 1 cup" vs "beeef brocoli" if there isn't one

21Twelve, Kaleb, Slabdrill, Pingohits, Onjit

Luka504 · 2018-09-27 11:36:20

Azurepudding wrote:

A level with that many plays is bound to have a lot of repeat plays from the same users. They should change it to count unique plays, I think.

And that's precisely why like/play ratios can be misleading. I don't care about how the staff "should" add unique play/like ratios, I'm talking about now. You told me that like/play ratios can be used to determine how good a level is, I showed you that it cannot. But if you really care that much, unique play/like ratio is also a bad way to tell how good a world is, too.

Azurepudding wrote:

Then so what? Why use it like it's a bad thing. Bumping the level's the entire point. I just used two guests, which is enough to make it seen, but not an obnoxious amount to make it the very top of the list. I think you are really grasping at any little thing to disagree with me here. Trivial technicalities are one of the most annoying things to argue about.

The funny part is that you fit that description much better than I do, Azure. If I genuinely wanted to disagree with you on everything, why would I have said this:
"I should have also mentioned that you tend to also guest-bomb your own worlds, but yes. You're right here."
I actually agreed with your point that you also stayed in your competition's world, in fact I didn't even think guest-bombing was all that big of an issue, just that it was worth a mention, but you decided to press the issue and blow things out of proportion, and then accuse me of talking about trivial issues, even though you're doing the exact same thing.
In fact, have you ever admitted fault for anything? Since to my knowledge, you haven't done anything of the sort.

Azurepudding wrote:

Yes, no one also forced me to join the contest... therefore I can't be bummed about losing it either??? No. I needed more of a break between rounds which wasn't given. That's something out of my control. I cannot perform some miracle and keep myself from burning out of world creation. I needed more time, but the break period (judging period) was only becoming shorter. You yourself have gone on at length about how disastrous this contest is, and now that I'm sharing some points you made previously, here you are to disagree with me, as always.

Oh lordy how many times do I have to repeat myself.
I never said that you can't be sad about losing, I am saying that you have no right to complain about issues that you caused to yourself.
The points you originally gave had nothing to do with the contest, they were problems you yourself caused, and those are the only things I called you out for, because I agreed with your other remarks.
I have said numerous times that this contest is a disaster, however I only used points that are related on mistakes that the judges have made throughout this contest, I never used my own personal problems as an argument against the contest itself, unlike you. You clearly have trouble focusing on making your worlds if you need 15 hours to make a world that should only take 2.
I also love that "here you are to disagree with me, as always" remark. Are you out to try and make me look like a villian or something? It really seems like it.

azurepudding · 2018-09-27 20:44:43

Luka504 wrote:

Azurepudding wrote:
A level with that many plays is bound to have a lot of repeat plays from the same users. They should change it to count unique plays, I think.
And that's precisely why like/play ratios can be misleading. I don't care about how the staff "should" add unique play/like ratios, I'm talking about now. You told me that like/play ratios can be used to determine how good a level is, I showed you that it cannot. But if you really care that much, unique play/like ratio is also a bad way to tell how good a world is, too.

I said they can be used to help determine. There are some exceptions of course, but it seems most of the time liked levels are.. liked, less liked levels are less liked.

Luka504 wrote:

Azurepudding wrote:
Then so what? Why use it like it's a bad thing. Bumping the level's the entire point. I just used two guests, which is enough to make it seen, but not an obnoxious amount to make it the very top of the list. I think you are really grasping at any little thing to disagree with me here. Trivial technicalities are one of the most annoying things to argue about.
The funny part is that you fit that description much better than I do, Azure. If I genuinely wanted to disagree with you on everything, why would I have said this:
"I should have also mentioned that you tend to also guest-bomb your own worlds, but yes. You're right here."
I actually agreed with your point that you also stayed in your competition's world, in fact I didn't even think guest-bombing was all that big of an issue, just that it was worth a mention, but you decided to press the issue and blow things out of proportion, and then accuse me of talking about trivial issues, even though you're doing the exact same thing.
In fact, have you ever admitted fault for anything? Since to my knowledge, you haven't done anything of the sort.

Then there was no need to call me out on guest bombing, as that has a negative connotation and is an accusation. It was not "worth a mention." Calling me out on guest "BOMBING" is misleading as there were only two guests. It's like calling a bump in the road a mountain. I mean, I guess that's correct, but it's misleading to call it that, right?

If you haven't noticed I have somewhat conceded to the like/play ratio but I still think it's accurate most of the time.

Luka504 wrote:

Azurepudding wrote:
Yes, no one also forced me to join the contest... therefore I can't be bummed about losing it either??? No. I needed more of a break between rounds which wasn't given. That's something out of my control. I cannot perform some miracle and keep myself from burning out of world creation. I needed more time, but the break period (judging period) was only becoming shorter. You yourself have gone on at length about how disastrous this contest is, and now that I'm sharing some points you made previously, here you are to disagree with me, as always.
Oh lordy how many times do I have to repeat myself.
I never said that you can't be sad about losing, I am saying that you have no right to complain about issues that you caused to yourself.
The points you originally gave had nothing to do with the contest, they were problems you yourself caused, and those are the only things I called you out for, because I agreed with your other remarks.
I have said numerous times that this contest is a disaster, however I only used points that are related on mistakes that the judges have made throughout this contest, I never used my own personal problems as an argument against the contest itself, unlike you. You clearly have trouble focusing on making your worlds if you need 15 hours to make a world that should only take 2.
I also love that "here you are to disagree with me, as always" remark. Are you out to try and make me look like a villian or something? It really seems like it.

Speaking of repeating things, I already answered this in the very post you are responding to.

And.. yeah, you do. It's gotten to the point where it's becoming/almost becoming a meme. Here you are bursting in to disagree with me, yeah. It happens a lot.

Wizard2002 · 2018-09-27 21:07:41

Wow, you guys are STILL arguing? wow I think half the thread is just you both going back and forth at each other xD

TaskManager · 2018-09-27 22:50:38

Wizard2002 wrote:

Wow, you guys are STILL arguing? wow I think half the thread is just you both going back and forth at each other xD

They're just doing keyboard benchmarking tests

drunkbnu, coinage, Slabdrill, Onjit, Luka504

Introduction · 2018-09-28 01:34:10

when you see azurepudding and lots of quotes in the thread you know what's going on

peace, Luka504

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#151 2018-09-24 04:25:04, last edited by azurepudding (2018-09-24 04:27:10)

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

#152 2018-09-24 06:32:33, last edited by Wizard2002 (2018-09-24 06:34:58)

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

#153 2018-09-24 08:04:58

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

#154 2018-09-24 08:07:04

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

#155 2018-09-24 08:53:54, last edited by azurepudding (2018-09-24 09:01:09)

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

#156 2018-09-24 09:27:06

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

#157 2018-09-24 09:49:14

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

#158 2018-09-24 12:11:30

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

#159 2018-09-24 14:47:03

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

#160 2018-09-24 15:58:29

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

#161 2018-09-24 20:39:27

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

#162 2018-09-26 10:37:28

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

#163 2018-09-26 10:48:02

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

#164 2018-09-26 20:55:57

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

#165 2018-09-26 22:15:53

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

#166 2018-09-26 22:30:52, last edited by Luka504 (2018-09-26 23:33:44)

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

#167 2018-09-26 22:36:02

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

#168 2018-09-26 23:35:46

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

#169 2018-09-27 04:17:26, last edited by azurepudding (2018-09-27 04:18:53)

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

#170 2018-09-27 04:25:13

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

#171 2018-09-27 11:36:20

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

#172 2018-09-27 20:44:43

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

#173 2018-09-27 21:07:41

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

#174 2018-09-27 22:50:38

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

#175 2018-09-28 01:34:10

Re: [THE WINNER!] OFFICIAL Everybody Edits Tournament Results!

Board footer