World's Greatest Draft (1 Viewer)

[higgins]

He absolutely qualifies as a leader. (I wrote more, but deleted it because I said I wouldn't comment during the draft)

flysack, have you spelled out by what criteria you're going to be judging the leaders?

 

[larry_boy_44]

Larry, where did you pull that quote defining leaders? Is it from this draft or some foreign source?

third post in this thread...

 

[Uncle Humuna]

He absolutely qualifies as a leader. (I wrote more, but deleted it because I said I wouldn't comment during the draft)

flysack, have you spelled out by what criteria you're going to be judging the leaders?

number of people killed + number of sold out stadiumsornumber of people killed in sold out stadiums

 

[Doug B]

Villain is thinning out ... at least the name guys. Here's my make-up pick:

8.12 - Vlad Ţepeş, Villain

aka Vlad the Impaler, Vlad Dracula, or Dracula

When he came to power, Vlad immediately had all the assembled nobles arrested. The older boyars and their families were impaled on the spot. The younger and healthier nobles and their families were marched north from Târgovişte to the ruins of Poienari Castle in the mountains above the Argeş River. Vlad was determined to rebuild this ancient fortress as his own stronghold and refuge. The enslaved boyars and their families were forced to labor for months, rebuilding the old castle with materials from another nearby ruin. According to tradition, they labored until the clothes fell off their bodies and then were forced to continue working naked. Very few of the old gentry survived the ordeal of building Vlad's castle.

...

Vlad Ţepeş's reputation was considerably darker in Western Europe ... In the West, Vlad III Ţepeş has been characterized as a tyrant who took sadistic pleasure in torturing and killing his enemies. The number of his victims ranges from 40,000 to 100,000. According to the German stories the number of victims he had killed was at least 80,000. In addition to the 80,000 victims mentioned he also had whole villages and fortresses destroyed and burned to the ground.

The atrocities committed by Vlad in the German stories include impaling, torturing, burning, skinning, roasting, and boiling people, feeding people the flesh of their friends or relatives, cutting off limbs, drowning, and nailing people's hats to their heads. His victims included men and women of all ages, religions and social classes, children and babies. One German account includes the following sentence: "He caused so much pain and suffering that even the most bloodthirstiest persecutors of Christianity ... and all other pagans combined hadn’t even thought of."

Impalement was Ţepeş's preferred method of torture and execution. His method of torture was a horse attached to each of the victim's legs as a sharpened stake was gradually forced into the body. The end of the stake was usually oiled, and care was taken that the stake not be too sharp; else the victim might die too rapidly from shock. Normally the stake was inserted into the body through the [anterior sphincter] and was often forced through the body until it emerged from the mouth. However, there were many instances where victims were impaled through other bodily orifices or through the abdomen or chest. Infants were sometimes impaled on the stake forced through their mother's chests. The records indicate that victims were sometimes impaled so that they hung upside down on the stake.

As expected, death by impalement was slow and painful. Victims sometimes endured for hours or days. Vlad often had the stakes arranged in various geometric patterns. The most common pattern was a ring of concentric circles in the outskirts of a city that constituted his target. The height of the spear indicated the rank of the victim. The corpses were often left decaying for months.

There are claims that thousands of people were impaled at a single time. One such claim says 10,000 were impaled in the Transylvanian city of Sibiu (where Vlad had once lived) in 1460. Another allegation asserts that during the previous year, on Saint Bartholomew's Day (in August), Vlad had 30,000 of the merchants and officials of the Transylvanian city of Braşov impaled for breaking his authority. One of the most famous woodcuts of the period shows Vlad feasting in a forest of stakes and their grisly burdens outside Braşov, while a nearby executioner cuts apart other victims.

Vlad Ţepeş is alleged to have committed even more impalements and other tortures against invading Ottoman forces. It was reported that an invading Ottoman army turned back in fright when it encountered thousands of rotting corpses impaled on the banks of the Danube. It has also been said that in 1462 Mehmed II, the conqueror of Constantinople, a man noted for his own psychological warfare tactics, returned to Constantinople after being sickened by the sight of 20,000 impaled corpses outside Vlad's capital of Târgovişte. Many of the victims were Turkish prisoners of war Vlad had previously captured during the Turkish invasion. The total Turkish casualty toll in this battle reached over 40,000. The warrior sultan turned command of the campaign against Vlad over to subordinates and returned to Constantinople, even though his army had initially outnumbered Vlad's three to one and was better equipped.

 

[mad sweeney]

I don't want to reopen the Luther debate but you said everyone felt that way back then. That's historical context! And yes we are more civilized. We have the UN, sanctions, international human rights agencies. We invade other coiuntries who abuse their citizens. Mutual assured annihilation keeps us in check. We are still violent and war like but very much more civilized. If you don't see the difference between the violence of ages past when leaders ruled by the sword then you are quite simply blind. I'm not suggesting we are not bad or violent, but expectations in the modern civilized world are a lot different, no matter how hard you try not to admit it. And it's the difference between expectation and action that mskes modern villains seem worse.

And again you are using the absolute definition of historical context in your defense of Luther.

 

[FUBAR]

Villain is thinning out ... at leas the name guys. Here's my make-up pick:

8.12 - Vlad Ţepeş, Villain

Been considering him for awhile now. Almost left Attila as the leader and took Dracula to be my villain. Even without the legend, Vlad is one bad mofo.

 

[larry_boy_44]

On to the Categories:

1. Leaders This would be the heads of state, whether king, prime minister, dictator, president, etc. The men (and women) who run countries.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I don't want to reopen the Luther debate but you said everyone felt that way back then. That's historical context! And yes we are more civilized. We have the UN, sanctions, international human rights agencies. We invade other coiuntries who abuse their citizens. Mutual assured annihilation keeps us in check. We are still violent and war like but very much more civilized. If you don't see the difference between the violence of ages past when leaders ruled by the sword then you are quite simply blind. I'm not suggesting we are not bad or violent, but expectations in the modern civilized world are a lot different, no matter how hard you try not to admit it. And it's the difference between expectation and action that mskes modern villains seem worse. And again you are using the absolute definition of historical context in your defense of Luther.

we think we are more civilized...but the last 100 years of human history show us emphatically that we are not...

 

[Doug B]

Even without the legend, Vlad is one bad mofo.

No ... actually I'm quite sure that he really could turn into rubber bat on a string.

 

[Doug B]

Did Usual21 ever make up his 8th rounder?

 

[mad sweeney]

I don't want to reopen the Luther debate but you said everyone felt that way back then. That's historical context! And yes we are more civilized. We have the UN, sanctions, international human rights agencies. We invade other coiuntries who abuse their citizens. Mutual assured annihilation keeps us in check. We are still violent and war like but very much more civilized. If you don't see the difference between the violence of ages past when leaders ruled by the sword then you are quite simply blind. I'm not suggesting we are not bad or violent, but expectations in the modern civilized world are a lot different, no matter how hard you try not to admit it. And it's the difference between expectation and action that mskes modern villains seem worse. And again you are using the absolute definition of historical context in your defense of Luther.

we think we are more civilized...but the last 100 years of human history show us emphatically that we are not...

You have no concept of the terms empirical , relative or context. I said we were still violent and warlike but internationally we take of each other more whether by helpig or by fear. Countries depend on each other too much to allow someone to take over a major country that lives entirely by the sword as they did in the past. We will never be free of being evil but our awareness and tolerance can and has changed.

 

[dparker713]

I think the main problem with body count is the different resources available to people. Someone like Stalin was killing to gain and maintain power, so was Vlad Tepes - Stalin just had a much larger population to conquer and supress.

Personally, I somewhat discount the more modern villians, sure they gave orders, but their personal death counts often dont compare. And even when they did go in there to do dirty work, it was often with a gun rather than a more viceral tool.

 

[Mario Kart]

What is the date today? The day is Thursday, on the 26th of March in the year 2009 ACE. How do we know this? This standard had to come from somewhere, right? Well, this guy helped revise the calendar, as we know it, to better tell the time of the year to work with the moon and other bodies to be much more accurate on a day-to-day, year-to-year, millennium-to-millennium basis. He also helped reform some of the most important works prior to him. The Church as we know it today is, quite possibly, due to his reformations. And, the date we know today is due to him. Mario Kart selects:

8.20 - Pope Gregory XIII - Religious Figure

Reform of the Church

Once in the chair of Saint Peter, Gregory XIII's rather worldly concerns became secondary and he dedicated himself to reform of the Catholic Church. He committed himself to putting into practice the recommendations of the Council of Trent. He allowed no exceptions for cardinals to the rule that bishops must take up residence in their sees, and designated a committee to update the Index of Forbidden Books. A new and greatly improved edition of the Corpus juris canonici was also due to his concerned patronage. In a time of considerable centralisation of power, Gregory XIII abolished the Cardinals Consistories, replacing them with Colleges, and appointing specific tasks for these colleges to work on. He was renowned for having a fierce independence; with the few confidants noting there were interventions that were not always welcomed nor advice sought for. The power of the papacy increased under him, whereas the influence and power of the cardinals substantially decreased.

Formation of clergy and promotion of the arts and sciences

A central part of the strategy of Gregory XIII's reform was to apply the recommendations of Trent. He was a liberal patron of the recently formed Society of Jesus throughout Europe, for which he founded many new colleges. The Roman College, of the Jesuits, grew substantially under his patronage, and became the most important centre of learning in Europe for a time, a University of the Nations. It is now named the Pontifical Gregorian University. Pope Gregory XIII also founded numerous seminaries for training priests, beginning with the German College at Rome, and put them in the charge of the Jesuits.

In 1575 he gave official status to the Congregation of the Oratory, a community of priests without vows, dedicated to prayer and preaching (founded by Saint Filippo Neri).

The Gregorian Calendar

The switchover was bitterly opposed by much of the populace, who feared it was an attempt by landlords to cheat them out of a week and a half's rent. However, the Catholic countries of Spain, Portugal, Poland, and Italy complied. France, some states of the Dutch Republic and various Catholic states in Germany and Switzerland (both countries were religiously split) followed suit within a year or two, and Hungary followed in 1587.

However, more than a century would pass before Protestant Europe would accept the new calendar. Denmark, the remaining states of the Dutch Republic, and the Protestant states of the Holy Roman Empire and Switzerland adopted the Gregorian reform in 1700-1701. By this time, the calendar trailed the seasons by 11 days. Great Britain and its American colonies reformed in 1752, where Wednesday, September 2, 1752 was immediately followed by Thursday, September 14, 1752; they were joined by the last Protestant holdout, Sweden, on March 1, 1753.

The Gregorian Calendar was not accepted in eastern Christendom for several hundred years, and then only as the civil calendar. The Gregorian Calendar was instituted in Russia by the Bolsheviks in 1917, and the last Eastern Orthodox country to accept the calendar was Greece in 1923.

While some Eastern Orthodox national churches have accepted the Gregorian Calendar dates for feast days that occur on the same date every year, the dates of all movable feasts (such as Easter) are still calculated in the Eastern Orthodox churches by reference to the Julian calendar.[citation needed]

My next pick may take some time. I have an hour.

 

[Ozymandias]

All those in favour of Larry only being allowed 3 posts to refute someone's opinion, please raise your hand.

 

[Ozymandias]

What is the date today? The day is Thursday, on the 26th of March in the year 2009 ACE. How do we know this? This standard had to come from somewhere, right? Well, this guy helped revise the calendar, as we know it, to better tell the time of the year to work with the moon and other bodies to be much more accurate on a day-to-day, year-to-year, millennium-to-millennium basis. He also helped reform some of the most important works prior to him. The Church as we know it today is, quite possibly, due to his reformations. And, the date we know today is due to him. Mario Kart selects:

8.20 - Pope Gregory XIII - Religious Figure

Reform of the Church

Once in the chair of Saint Peter, Gregory XIII's rather worldly concerns became secondary and he dedicated himself to reform of the Catholic Church. He committed himself to putting into practice the recommendations of the Council of Trent. He allowed no exceptions for cardinals to the rule that bishops must take up residence in their sees, and designated a committee to update the Index of Forbidden Books. A new and greatly improved edition of the Corpus juris canonici was also due to his concerned patronage. In a time of considerable centralisation of power, Gregory XIII abolished the Cardinals Consistories, replacing them with Colleges, and appointing specific tasks for these colleges to work on. He was renowned for having a fierce independence; with the few confidants noting there were interventions that were not always welcomed nor advice sought for. The power of the papacy increased under him, whereas the influence and power of the cardinals substantially decreased.

Formation of clergy and promotion of the arts and sciences

A central part of the strategy of Gregory XIII's reform was to apply the recommendations of Trent. He was a liberal patron of the recently formed Society of Jesus throughout Europe, for which he founded many new colleges. The Roman College, of the Jesuits, grew substantially under his patronage, and became the most important centre of learning in Europe for a time, a University of the Nations. It is now named the Pontifical Gregorian University. Pope Gregory XIII also founded numerous seminaries for training priests, beginning with the German College at Rome, and put them in the charge of the Jesuits.

In 1575 he gave official status to the Congregation of the Oratory, a community of priests without vows, dedicated to prayer and preaching (founded by Saint Filippo Neri).

The Gregorian Calendar

The switchover was bitterly opposed by much of the populace, who feared it was an attempt by landlords to cheat them out of a week and a half's rent. However, the Catholic countries of Spain, Portugal, Poland, and Italy complied. France, some states of the Dutch Republic and various Catholic states in Germany and Switzerland (both countries were religiously split) followed suit within a year or two, and Hungary followed in 1587.

However, more than a century would pass before Protestant Europe would accept the new calendar. Denmark, the remaining states of the Dutch Republic, and the Protestant states of the Holy Roman Empire and Switzerland adopted the Gregorian reform in 1700-1701. By this time, the calendar trailed the seasons by 11 days. Great Britain and its American colonies reformed in 1752, where Wednesday, September 2, 1752 was immediately followed by Thursday, September 14, 1752; they were joined by the last Protestant holdout, Sweden, on March 1, 1753.

The Gregorian Calendar was not accepted in eastern Christendom for several hundred years, and then only as the civil calendar. The Gregorian Calendar was instituted in Russia by the Bolsheviks in 1917, and the last Eastern Orthodox country to accept the calendar was Greece in 1923.

While some Eastern Orthodox national churches have accepted the Gregorian Calendar dates for feast days that occur on the same date every year, the dates of all movable feasts (such as Easter) are still calculated in the Eastern Orthodox churches by reference to the Julian calendar.[citation needed]

My next pick may take some time. I have an hour.

GIVE US BACK OUR ELEVEN DAYS!

 

[Abrantes]

All those in favour of Larry only being allowed 3 posts to refute someone's opinion, please raise your hand.

 

[FUBAR]

I think the main problem with body count is the different resources available to people. Someone like Stalin was killing to gain and maintain power, so was Vlad Tepes - Stalin just had a much larger population to conquer and supress. Personally, I somewhat discount the more modern villians, sure they gave orders, but their personal death counts often dont compare. And even when they did go in there to do dirty work, it was often with a gun rather than a more viceral tool.

I concur, which is why, after Hitler, #2 is wide open IMO. IMO, it's more villainous to kill 10,000 by impaling them than 1,000,000 by bomb. There have been many studies conducted on warfare which clearly show it's easier on a normal human being to hit a button and drop a bomb than to look someone in the eye and shoot them with a rifle or a knife.

 

[flysack]

Larry, where did you pull that quote defining leaders? Is it from this draft or some foreign source?

third post in this thread...

Thanks. Knew it was familiar, just wasn't sure if it was from here or not.

 

[flysack]

He absolutely qualifies as a leader. (I wrote more, but deleted it because I said I wouldn't comment during the draft)

flysack, have you spelled out by what criteria you're going to be judging the leaders?

Is it ok if I make a pie chart out of the names, stand back 20 feet, blindfold myself, and throw darts?

 

[thatguy]

He absolutely qualifies as a leader. (I wrote more, but deleted it because I said I wouldn't comment during the draft)

flysack, have you spelled out by what criteria you're going to be judging the leaders?

Is it ok if I make a pie chart out of the names, stand back 20 feet, blindfold myself, and throw darts?

Yes, just make sure that Asoka's portion of the pie is the biggest.

 

[flysack]

Villain is thinning out ... at least the name guys. Here's my make-up pick:

8.12 - Vlad Ţepeş, Villain

aka Vlad the Impaler, Vlad Dracula, or Dracula

Another great mid-round villain pick.

 

[flysack]

He absolutely qualifies as a leader. (I wrote more, but deleted it because I said I wouldn't comment during the draft)

flysack, have you spelled out by what criteria you're going to be judging the leaders?

Is it ok if I make a pie chart out of the names, stand back 20 feet, blindfold myself, and throw darts?

Yes, just make sure that Asoka's portion of the pie is the biggest.

 

[Doug B]

IMO, it's more villainous to kill 10,000 by impaling them than 1,000,000 by bomb.

There have been many studies conducted on warfare which clearly show it's easier on a normal human being to hit a button and drop a bomb than to look someone in the eye and shoot them with a rifle or a knife.

Let's just say Vlad is not hurting in the depravity department.

 

[flysack]

forget the write-up, way too much to say on this one. So links instead:

Pope John Paul II Leader

Move Attilla the Hun to villain.

ETA: I might move him to celebrity, but leader for now.

FUBAR, in the interest of fairness, I want you to know that I see Pope John Paul II as qualifying for the Leader category by virtue of being sovereign of Vatican City, not head of the Catholic church. Just as I feel Tolstoy's essays on passive-resistance shouldn't be a factor in judging him as a novelist/short story writer, I don't feel Pope John Paul II's acts of Papal authority should be considered when judging him as the head of a state. Those are religious functions.

I will judge him on how he managed Vatican City.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I will judge him on how he managed Vatican City.

I think this is a problem for the same reason that we discussed in the other thread. To me, and to many others there, and hopefully here, the purpose of the categories was not simply to get the best painter or singer against his peers, but to make sure that in the top 400 people drafted, there was a wide mix of different people and not just military commanders and politicians, kings and popes.To me the categories are for that purpose and the people selected while being fit into a category need to be judged for their whole life and not just the category they sit in. For your example, to judge a pope - any pope - strictly on his administrative skills in running the Vatican is pretty much a useless endeavor.

 

[thatguy]

I will judge him on how he managed Vatican City.

I think this is a problem for the same reason that we discussed in the other thread. To me, and to many others there, and hopefully here, the purpose of the categories was not simply to get the best painter or singer against his peers, but to make sure that in the top 400 people drafted, there was a wide mix of different people and not just military commanders and politicians, kings and popes.To me the categories are for that purpose and the people selected while being fit into a category need to be judged for their whole life and not just the category they sit in. For your example, to judge a pope - any pope - strictly on his administrative skills in running the Vatican is pretty much a useless endeavor.

I agree with this. And the problem we encountered in the last draft was that Tim told judges to rank based solely on contribution in the category selected because he would go back and adjust the rankings to take into account body of work. He never did this.

 

[FUBAR]

forget the write-up, way too much to say on this one. So links instead:

Pope John Paul II Leader

Move Attilla the Hun to villain.

ETA: I might move him to celebrity, but leader for now.

FUBAR, in the interest of fairness, I want you to know that I see Pope John Paul II as qualifying for the Leader category by virtue of being sovereign of Vatican City, not head of the Catholic church. Just as I feel Tolstoy's essays on passive-resistance shouldn't be a factor in judging him as a novelist/short story writer, I don't feel Pope John Paul II's acts of Papal authority should be considered when judging him as the head of a state. Those are religious functions.

I will judge him on how he managed Vatican City.

thanks. Celebrity it is then! Unless I move Mohammad to leader... ok, PJP to celeb (until I move him to wildcard)

 

[FUBAR]

I will judge him on how he managed Vatican City.

I think this is a problem for the same reason that we discussed in the other thread. To me, and to many others there, and hopefully here, the purpose of the categories was not simply to get the best painter or singer against his peers, but to make sure that in the top 400 people drafted, there was a wide mix of different people and not just military commanders and politicians, kings and popes.To me the categories are for that purpose and the people selected while being fit into a category need to be judged for their whole life and not just the category they sit in. For your example, to judge a pope - any pope - strictly on his administrative skills in running the Vatican is pretty much a useless endeavor.

I agree completely with this and it's how I saw the drafts from the get-go.

 

[FUBAR]

BTW, is Mario going to pick 9.01?

 

[flysack]

I will judge him on how he managed Vatican City.

To me the categories are for that purpose and the people selected while being fit into a category need to be judged for their whole life and not just the category they sit in.

I disagree. There is no "lock out" effect being done by the categories. If he wants Pope John Paul II's overall body of work as a person to be considered, he should declare him as a Wildcard. If he wants his work as a religious figure considered, he should slot him as a Religious Figure. If he wants his work as a head of state judged, he should slot him as a Leader.

For your example, to judge a pope - any pope - strictly on his administrative skills in running the Vatican is pretty much a useless endeavor.

Yep. I agree. This is why I thought it fair to comment on FUBAR's pick.

 

[flysack]

I will judge him on how he managed Vatican City.

I think this is a problem for the same reason that we discussed in the other thread. To me, and to many others there, and hopefully here, the purpose of the categories was not simply to get the best painter or singer against his peers, but to make sure that in the top 400 people drafted, there was a wide mix of different people and not just military commanders and politicians, kings and popes.To me the categories are for that purpose and the people selected while being fit into a category need to be judged for their whole life and not just the category they sit in. For your example, to judge a pope - any pope - strictly on his administrative skills in running the Vatican is pretty much a useless endeavor.

I agree with this. And the problem we encountered in the last draft was that Tim told judges to rank based solely on contribution in the category selected because he would go back and adjust the rankings to take into account body of work. He never did this.

I don't think he should either. See my above post for why.

 

[Mario Kart]

BTW, is Mario going to pick 9.01?

Still thinking

 

[Doug B]

I agree with this. And the problem we encountered in the last draft was that Tim told judges to rank based solely on contribution in the category selected because he would go back and adjust the rankings to take into account body of work. He never did this.

The balance between weighing "category-specific accomplishments" and "body of work" shifted a lot during the GAD.I took my President and my initial Artist before any of the judges came on board. At the time, both picks looked pretty solid because early on IIRC, tim was going to pretty much be the sole judge and he was a "body of work" type of guy. And both my guys had tons of accomplishments outside of their categories.

Enter the judges. Each had their own ideas on "category-specific accomplishments" versus "body of work". I got lucky that the Presidents judge appreciated my President's overall body of work. But the "temporary" Artist judge (who bailed before the end ) let everyone know he was prepared to vote my guy as #20 because he didn't think my Artist was much of an artiste.

( ... and then I go make another Artist pick to satisfy the "temporary" Artist judge ... and then that judge disappears and leaves the category for a fellow drafter to judge. Burnt a Wild Card pick for nuthin' D'oh! )

 

[thatguy]

I will judge him on how he managed Vatican City.

I think this is a problem for the same reason that we discussed in the other thread. To me, and to many others there, and hopefully here, the purpose of the categories was not simply to get the best painter or singer against his peers, but to make sure that in the top 400 people drafted, there was a wide mix of different people and not just military commanders and politicians, kings and popes.To me the categories are for that purpose and the people selected while being fit into a category need to be judged for their whole life and not just the category they sit in. For your example, to judge a pope - any pope - strictly on his administrative skills in running the Vatican is pretty much a useless endeavor.

I agree with this. And the problem we encountered in the last draft was that Tim told judges to rank based solely on contribution in the category selected because he would go back and adjust the rankings to take into account body of work. He never did this.

I don't think he should either. See my above post for why.

But the problem is that he said he would, and this largely effected who people chose. And then he never did.

 

[FUBAR]

BTW, is Mario going to pick 9.01?

Still thinking

think long enough and maybe take yourself as philosopher or intellectual.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I will judge him on how he managed Vatican City.

To me the categories are for that purpose and the people selected while being fit into a category need to be judged for their whole life and not just the category they sit in.

I disagree. There is no "lock out" effect being done by the categories. If he wants Pope John Paul II's overall body of work as a person to be considered, he should declare him as a Wildcard. If he wants his work as a religious figure considered, he should slot him as a Religious Figure. If he wants his work as a head of state judged, he should slot him as a Leader.

For your example, to judge a pope - any pope - strictly on his administrative skills in running the Vatican is pretty much a useless endeavor.

Yep. I agree. This is why I thought it fair to comment on FUBAR's pick.

Then I suggest any judge that follows that line of thinking is a poor judge and the draft becomes less of an exercise. You can't seriously believe that judging people like DaVinci in only one single aspect of his life and therefore ignore the contributions he made in various fields is close to allowing a picture of his greatness to our history.

 

[thatguy]

I agree with this. And the problem we encountered in the last draft was that Tim told judges to rank based solely on contribution in the category selected because he would go back and adjust the rankings to take into account body of work. He never did this.

The balance between weighing "category-specific accomplishments" and "body of work" shifted a lot during the GAD.I took my President and my initial Artist before any of the judges came on board. At the time, both picks looked pretty solid because early on IIRC, tim was going to pretty much be the sole judge and he was a "body of work" type of guy. And both my guys had tons of accomplishments outside of their categories.

Enter the judges. Each had their own ideas on "category-specific accomplishments" versus "body of work". I got lucky that the Presidents judge appreciated my President's overall body of work. But the "temporary" Artist judge (who bailed before the end ) let everyone know he was prepared to vote my guy as #20 because he didn't think my Artist was much of an artiste.

( ... and then I go make another Artist pick to satisfy the "temporary" Artist judge ... and then that judge disappears and leaves the category for a fellow drafter to judge. Burnt a Wild Card pick for nuthin' D'oh! )

Who was your initial artist? You ended up with Rauschenberg as your final artist right?

 

[FUBAR]

I will judge him on how he managed Vatican City.

To me the categories are for that purpose and the people selected while being fit into a category need to be judged for their whole life and not just the category they sit in.

I disagree. There is no "lock out" effect being done by the categories. If he wants Pope John Paul II's overall body of work as a person to be considered, he should declare him as a Wildcard. If he wants his work as a religious figure considered, he should slot him as a Religious Figure. If he wants his work as a head of state judged, he should slot him as a Leader.

For your example, to judge a pope - any pope - strictly on his administrative skills in running the Vatican is pretty much a useless endeavor.

Yep. I agree. This is why I thought it fair to comment on FUBAR's pick.

Then I suggest any judge that follows that line of thinking is a poor judge and the draft becomes less of an exercise. You can't seriously believe that judging people like DaVinci in only one single aspect of his life and therefore ignore the contributions he made in various fields is close to allowing a picture of his greatness to our history.

Is this a World's Greatest *category* Draft or a World's Greatest People Draft? OTOH, the judge is only for slotting in the vote anyway, so the voters will probably use their opinion of the whole person, so maybe this isn't that big an issue?

 

[timschochet]

I will judge him on how he managed Vatican City.

I think this is a problem for the same reason that we discussed in the other thread. To me, and to many others there, and hopefully here, the purpose of the categories was not simply to get the best painter or singer against his peers, but to make sure that in the top 400 people drafted, there was a wide mix of different people and not just military commanders and politicians, kings and popes.To me the categories are for that purpose and the people selected while being fit into a category need to be judged for their whole life and not just the category they sit in. For your example, to judge a pope - any pope - strictly on his administrative skills in running the Vatican is pretty much a useless endeavor.

While I agree with this in principle, as in the other thread, these considerations have got to be up to each category judge to decide. It's their call.

 

[flysack]

I will judge him on how he managed Vatican City.

I think this is a problem for the same reason that we discussed in the other thread. To me, and to many others there, and hopefully here, the purpose of the categories was not simply to get the best painter or singer against his peers, but to make sure that in the top 400 people drafted, there was a wide mix of different people and not just military commanders and politicians, kings and popes.To me the categories are for that purpose and the people selected while being fit into a category need to be judged for their whole life and not just the category they sit in. For your example, to judge a pope - any pope - strictly on his administrative skills in running the Vatican is pretty much a useless endeavor.

I agree completely with this and it's how I saw the drafts from the get-go.

I'm sorry to hear that from both of you, but I find this logic ridiculous. If applied you could work any silly technicality to slot people in numerous categories they have no reason inhabiting. Indeed, I doubt this is how most people considered this draft, considering the numerous discussions about WHERE to categorize people, whether they were better Leaders than other Leaders, better Intellectuals than other Intellectuals, or better Philosophers. I think it was fairly implicit throughout that people would be judged on the category they were declared, rather than those categories being flexible "slots" to put picks based on any justification one could come up with.Frankly, I see FUBAR trying to work a "technicality" here. I think Pope John Paul II was a fantastic religious leader, but the criteria given in the third post defines leaders as heads of state. I will judge them as such.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I will judge him on how he managed Vatican City.

I think this is a problem for the same reason that we discussed in the other thread. To me, and to many others there, and hopefully here, the purpose of the categories was not simply to get the best painter or singer against his peers, but to make sure that in the top 400 people drafted, there was a wide mix of different people and not just military commanders and politicians, kings and popes.To me the categories are for that purpose and the people selected while being fit into a category need to be judged for their whole life and not just the category they sit in. For your example, to judge a pope - any pope - strictly on his administrative skills in running the Vatican is pretty much a useless endeavor.

I agree completely with this and it's how I saw the drafts from the get-go.

I'm sorry to hear that from both of you, but I find this logic ridiculous. If applied you could work any silly technicality to slot people in numerous categories they have no reason inhabiting. Indeed, I doubt this is how most people considered this draft, considering the numerous discussions about WHERE to categorize people, whether they were better Leaders than other Leaders, better Intellectuals than other Intellectuals, or better Philosophers. I think it was fairly implicit throughout that people would be judged on the category they were declared, rather than those categories being flexible "slots" to put picks based on any justification one could come up with.Frankly, I see FUBAR trying to work a "technicality" here. I think Pope John Paul II was a fantastic religious leader, but the criteria given in the third post defines leaders as heads of state. I will judge them as such.

And it's silly to forget about crucial moments in our history simply because the person you are looking at was both a general and a leader but you can only look at one aspect.It's ok though. Now I know that the leader category is fairly worthless in terms of the rankings because there isn't a single person that can be slotted there that isn't great in some other venue, but none of that will matter, which makes those people, again, fairly worthless. If other judges feel the same way so be it.I will be interested to see how you can judge someone like Pharoah on only an administrative basis though, or for that matter my guy and many of the others.

 

[flysack]

Is this a World's Greatest *category* Draft or a World's Greatest People Draft? OTOH, the judge is only for slotting in the vote anyway, so the voters will probably use their opinion of the whole person, so maybe this isn't that big an issue?

Are you kidding me? The categories are clearly a structure used to determine the greatest people. One is a means to the other's ends. According to your logic, there shouldn't be any categories. Why have them at all? If this is PURELY a "World's Greatest People Draft," why aren't the teams merely drafting 20 people? Wouldn't that make more sense?

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

Did Usual21 ever make up his 8th rounder?

Not as far as I can tell

 

[Mario Kart]

This is a shot in the dark because I am hung up on a few different people. A couple of my picks went earlier in Round 8, hence the thinking here. It is not what you know but what you are known for and this guy is at least known for something. I would go a different route but I am not sure, and it has not been brought up, if teams could work for this category. Oh well I guess. From Winter, to Spring, to Summer, to Fall, the violin is the best sounding of them all. Mario Kart takes:

9.01 - Antonio Vivaldi - Composer

Antonio Lucio Vivaldi (March 4, 1678 – July 28, 1741),[1] nicknamed il Prete Rosso ("The Red Priest"), was a Baroque music composer and Venetian priest, as well as a famous virtuoso violinist, born and raised in the Republic of Venice. The Four Seasons, a series of four violin concerti, is his best-known work and a highly popular Baroque piece.

The Four Seasons (Italian: Le quattro stagioni) is a set of four violin concertos by Antonio Vivaldi. Composed in 1723, The Four Seasons is Vivaldi's best-known work, and is among the most popular pieces of Baroque music. The texture of each concerto is varied, each resembling its respective season. For example, "Winter" is peppered with silvery staccato notes from the high strings, calling to mind icy rain, whereas "Summer" evokes a thunderstorm in its final movement. The first recording of it is a matter of some dispute. There is a CD of one recording made by Alfredo Campoli (Pearl GEMM CD 9151) which is taken from acetates of a French radio broadcast. These acetates are thought to date from early in 1939. The first proper electronic recording was made in 1942 by Bernardino Molinari, and though his adaptation is somewhat different from what we have come to expect from modern performances it is clearly recognizable. This Molinari recording was first issued on six double-sided 78s, then on LP in 1950 and now re-issued on CD (two versions are available, one with more extensive sleeve notes giving the political background). The first commercially succesful recording was I Musici's 1955 recording (it was that ensemble's first recording of any music). This recording renewed such interest in the work that there are now more than 300 recordings of it.

The concertos were first published in 1725 as part of a set of twelve concerti, Vivaldi's Op. 8, entitled Il cimento dell'armonia e dell'inventione (The Contest between Harmony and Invention). The first four concertos were designated Le quattro stagioni, each being named after a season. Each one is in three movements, with a slow movement between two faster ones. At the time of writing The Four Seasons, the modern solo form of the concerto had not yet been defined (typically a solo instrument and accompanying orchestra). Vivaldi's original arrangement for solo violin with string quartet and basso continuo helped to define the form.

Mario Kart

Leaders -

Military - Sun Tzu (post #45) (1.01)

Scientist -

Inventor -

Discoverer/Explorer - Giovanni da Pian del Carpine (post #1281) (2.20)

Humanitarian/Saint/Martyr -

Novelist/Short stories - J. R. R. Tolkien (post #3003)(6.20)

Playwrights/Poets - Geoffrey Chaucer (post #1295) (3.01)

Villain -

Athlete -

Composer - Antonio Vivaldi (post #3403) (9.01)

Musicians/Performers -

Painter - Claude Monet (post #2236) (4.20)

Artist/Non-Painter - Auguste Rodin (post #2248) (5.01)

Philosopher -

Religious Figure - Pope Gregory XIII (post #3371) (8.20)

Celebrity -

Intellectual - John Maynard Keynes (post #3003) (7.01)

Rebel -

Wildcards -

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

I can be skipped if it gets to pick 9:13

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Is this a World's Greatest *category* Draft or a World's Greatest People Draft? OTOH, the judge is only for slotting in the vote anyway, so the voters will probably use their opinion of the whole person, so maybe this isn't that big an issue?

Probably not. But then again the judging in the other thread was a fun part of the draft. If the judging here is going to be category specific only it won't be. Further, had I known this was going to be the thought of any of the judges, which is different then the other draft, I wouldn't have bothered drafting because to me it defeats the purpose of the draft.Again, it's not like this is important in life. But the fun is less now.

 

[thatguy]

Is this a World's Greatest *category* Draft or a World's Greatest People Draft? OTOH, the judge is only for slotting in the vote anyway, so the voters will probably use their opinion of the whole person, so maybe this isn't that big an issue?

Are you kidding me? The categories are clearly a structure used to determine the greatest people. One is a means to the other's ends. According to your logic, there shouldn't be any categories. Why have them at all? If this is PURELY a "World's Greatest People Draft," why aren't the teams merely drafting 20 people? Wouldn't that make more sense?

Alright, here is a question Flysack: Let's say you have two people who you consider more or less equal based on their work as a leader. Would you, in this case, take into account their full body of work as a tiebreaker?

 

[timschochet]

Again, let me say that in the argument between Yankee and Flysack, I side with Yankee- I think a leader like John Paul should be looked at for his whole career, not for his management of Vatican City. But where I differ with Yankee is that I will not direct Flysack how to judge.

 

[flysack]

And it's silly to forget about crucial moments in our history simply because the person you are looking at was both a general and a leader but you can only look at one aspect.It's ok though. Now I know that the leader category is fairly worthless in terms of the rankings because there isn't a single person that can be slotted there that isn't great in some other venue, but none of that will matter, which makes those people, again, fairly worthless. If other judges feel the same way so be it.I will be interested to see how you can judge someone like Pharoah on only an administrative basis though, or for that matter my guy and many of the others.

I will judge them as a head of state, which is the definition of a leader in this draft, clearly stated in post 3. How did the state do under their leadership? How did their subjects/people fair? Et cetera. Is this really that confusing?If you want to run with it like a slobbering idiot and cry that the category is worthless, that's your assumptive leap of logic. Have fun with it. I highly doubt others will see that way.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Is this a World's Greatest *category* Draft or a World's Greatest People Draft? OTOH, the judge is only for slotting in the vote anyway, so the voters will probably use their opinion of the whole person, so maybe this isn't that big an issue?

Are you kidding me? The categories are clearly a structure used to determine the greatest people. One is a means to the other's ends. According to your logic, there shouldn't be any categories. Why have them at all? If this is PURELY a "World's Greatest People Draft," why aren't the teams merely drafting 20 people? Wouldn't that make more sense?

Because, like the other draft, we wanted to make sure that it wasn't so military and politician heavy that the discussion became rather boring.