World's Greatest Draft (1 Viewer)

[FUBAR]

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.

nor should you. In the end, the voters will determine whether John Paul was a great person when they vote. I know when I'm voting for the GAD, I don't even consider their category except that it might remind me what the person did.

 

[Abrantes]

While I generally agree that judging a person on their whole body of work rather than a category's limitations makes sense, my celebrity pick would've certainly been different if I knew that's what the judges were looking at.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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.

 

[thatguy]

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.

I feel content with this. Asoka's empire prospered during his reign. He treated his subjects with the utmost respect and they adored him. #1 baby!

 

[larry_boy_44]

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.

there is a massive difference between Da Vinci who was truly one of the world's greatest at multiple things and someone like Pope John Paul II who only qualifies for a category on a technicality...

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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.

It shouldn't have to be directed. But I'm ok with it the way he wants to do it. The juding won't be a very entertaining part of this draft. It's ok. It's a different draft.

 

[FUBAR]

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.

exactly. Nobody (well, few) would even consider people like Marilyn Monroe and possibly not even Pele, Dante or some others as elite people in our history but they are clearly elite in their field. Would you even bother drafting a villain like Judas, Milosevic, or Himmler if we're simply drafting Great People?

 

[Mister CIA]

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.

I feel content with this. Asoka's empire prospered during his reign. He treated his subjects with the utmost respect and they adored him. #1 baby!

Who?

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

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.

nor should you. In the end, the voters will determine whether John Paul was a great person when they vote. I know when I'm voting for the GAD, I don't even consider their category except that it might remind me what the person did.

But will they?They are voting for a list of 22 people, most of whom they won't examine closely.

If there were votes for each category, then that might be a different story

eg if people could vote 1st 2nd & 3rd with polls for each category, rather than individual lists.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

there is a massive difference between Da Vinci who was truly one of the world's greatest at multiple things and someone like Pope John Paul II who only qualifies for a category on a technicality...

Not to the judge that is leading the definition though. Everyone in his category and that's it.

 

[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?

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?

In that highly improbable happening among historical figures? You're asking me how I would judge something that has a .01% chance of happening after I look back and forth at a wide body of historical information? You're trying to poke holes at my criteria using the old "outlier" gambit?Come on, thatguy. I'll humor you: I willing to go forward assuming that it won't happen. If it does, I'll have a nervous breakdown and you can order me some quality meds.

 

[larry_boy_44]

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.

I think flysack's issue with John Paul II being a leader (and what is definately mine) is that he is only fitting there due to a technicality...he is not great for leading a nation on any level... and that's what the category is supposed to be for...

 

[FUBAR]

there is a massive difference between Da Vinci who was truly one of the world's greatest at multiple things and someone like Pope John Paul II who only qualifies for a category on a technicality...

The category is LEADER, I know what Tim posted as the qualifications, but those should be what gets you in the door, not the only reason to judge someone. Or do you think the only criteria for Philosopher is how well they "pondered the meaning of existence throughout the centuries"?

 

[thatguy]

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.

I feel content with this. Asoka's empire prospered during his reign. He treated his subjects with the utmost respect and they adored him. #1 baby!

Who?

Wouldn't you like to know.

 

[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?

In that highly improbable happening among historical figures? You're asking me how I would judge something that has a .01% chance of happening after I look back and forth at a wide body of historical information? You're trying to poke holes at my criteria using the old "outlier" gambit?Come on, thatguy. I'll humor you: I willing to go forward assuming that it won't happen. If it does, I'll have a nervous breakdown and you can order me some quality meds.

I'm not trying to poke holes at your criteria... Just asking a question. But hey, I can order you some good meds anyway if you like. I got the hookup.

 

[timschochet]

Let's get back to the picks. Vivaldi annoys me.

 

[FUBAR]

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.

nor should you. In the end, the voters will determine whether John Paul was a great person when they vote. I know when I'm voting for the GAD, I don't even consider their category except that it might remind me what the person did.

But will they?They are voting for a list of 22 people, most of whom they won't examine closely.

If there were votes for each category, then that might be a different story

eg if people could vote 1st 2nd & 3rd with polls for each category, rather than individual lists.

Your point is strong, which is a reason Pope John Paul II is a fantastic Leader. There's zero doubt that he's a great leader in our recent history, as anyone looking at the plain meaning of the word would realize. Just not someone who uses "head of state" to mean ONLY look at what they did as head of state for their individual country. Using this logic, Sun Tzu probably isn't going to do well either.

 

[Doug B]

They are voting for a list of 22 people, most of whom they won't examine closely.If there were votes for each category, then that might be a different storyeg if people could vote 1st 2nd & 3rd with polls for each category, rather than individual lists.

You know ... with 11 polls per post (IIRC, 15 is the max), this could be done in two threads per matchup.

 

[larry_boy_44]

is doing something first the same as inventing it?

I mean... the Wright Brothers (or brother) is in inventor because they were the first to fly even though they didn't invent most of the plane they used, right?

I'm asking 'cuz this definitely affects my pick...

 

[FUBAR]

Let's get back to the picks. Vivaldi annoys me.

I told you my pick would be controversial.

 

[timschochet]

is doing something first the same as inventing it?I mean... the Wright Brothers (or brother) is in inventor because they were the first to fly even though they didn't invent most of the plane they used, right?I'm asking 'cuz this definitely affects my pick...

There needs to be an invention.

 

[Ozymandias]

I will be judging Alexander the Great based on his paperwork.

 

[FUBAR]

Can we get a ruling from each judge (preferably inserted into post #3) on how they're judging?

 

[Ozymandias]

Vivaldi is a great composer; but I cannot believe he would make the Top Twenty list.

 

[Usual21]

8.07 - Frederick Douglas - Intellectual

Frederick Douglass was an American abolitionist, women's suffragist, editor, orator, author, statesman and reformer. Called "The Sage of Anacostia" and "The Lion of Anacostia", Douglass is one of the most prominent figures in African-American and United States history. In 1872, Douglass became the first African American nominated as a Vice Presidential candidate in the U.S., running on the Equal Rights Party ticket with Victoria Woodhull, the first woman to run for President of the United States.

He was a firm believer in the equality of all people, whether black, female, Native American, or recent immigrant. He was fond of saying, "I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong." Frederick Douglass was one of the foremost leaders of the abolitionist movement, which fought to end slavery within the United States in the decades prior to the Civil War.

A brilliant speaker, Douglass was asked by the American Anti-Slavery Society to engage in a tour of lectures, and so became recognized as one of America's first great black speakers. He won world fame when his autobiography was publicized in 1845. Two years later he bagan publishing an antislavery paper called the North Star.

Douglass served as an adviser to President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and fought for the adoption of constitutional amendments that guaranteed voting rights and other civil liberties for blacks. Douglass provided a powerful voice for human rights during this period of American history and is still revered today for his contributions against racial injustice.

 

[thatguy]

8.07 - Frederick Douglas - Intellectual

Frederick Douglass was an American abolitionist, women's suffragist, editor, orator, author, statesman and reformer. Called "The Sage of Anacostia" and "The Lion of Anacostia", Douglass is one of the most prominent figures in African-American and United States history. In 1872, Douglass became the first African American nominated as a Vice Presidential candidate in the U.S., running on the Equal Rights Party ticket with Victoria Woodhull, the first woman to run for President of the United States.

He was a firm believer in the equality of all people, whether black, female, Native American, or recent immigrant. He was fond of saying, "I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong." Frederick Douglass was one of the foremost leaders of the abolitionist movement, which fought to end slavery within the United States in the decades prior to the Civil War.

A brilliant speaker, Douglass was asked by the American Anti-Slavery Society to engage in a tour of lectures, and so became recognized as one of America's first great black speakers. He won world fame when his autobiography was publicized in 1845. Two years later he bagan publishing an antislavery paper called the North Star.

Douglass served as an adviser to President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and fought for the adoption of constitutional amendments that guaranteed voting rights and other civil liberties for blacks. Douglass provided a powerful voice for human rights during this period of American history and is still revered today for his contributions against racial injustice.

I think it would behoove you to move him to Rebel.

 

[timschochet]

So, when I decide where to rank Vincent Van Gogh, which weight should I give to each of the following factors?

1. His paintings- their magnificence, and their influence.

2. The fact that he was a crazy mother####er who sliced off his own ear.

3. An extremely annoying and putrid 1970's song by Don McClean.

33% each?

 

[Ozymandias]

BTW, I did mention in post #17, what criteria I would be using.

Perhaps some did not pay attention.

 

[Abrantes]

Ugh. This whole judging debacle really saps the fun out of the draft.

 

[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.

I feel content with this. Asoka's empire prospered during his reign. He treated his subjects with the utmost respect and they adored him. #1 baby!

I actually had him in the top 5 because of this, yes.But it looks like I'm in the minority here. While I find most of the arguments against me rather laughable, they seem based on a past experience I have no context with. I did not participate in the GAD. I've never opened the draft thread. Yet the majority here are basing their assumptions on the battles fought in that draft. I'm arguing in an isolated context. Most of you are not. This is the root of the problem.So I'll change my criteria to accept any technical head of state for the category, then judge their life's work. Though I have to say, this makes categories like Celebrity and Villain interesting. After all, anyone in this draft can be argued to be a celebrity or a villain. Yet people were arguing that Princess Di was the greater celebrity than Elvis because Elvis was only American in scope. Yet his body of work as a person is clearly greater than Princess Di's. It no longer matters if Muhammad Ali is slotted as a celebrity or an athlete, another long discussion we've had. He'll be judged as a person, so that argument is also irrelevant. So I hope all that arguing is now put to rest. Nobody is judged by their category - they'll be judged as people. All this talk of who was the more diabolical villain can be put to rest as well. It doesn't matter. The category is only a useful device to pick people with. Whether someone's overall body count is worth more than someone's cruelty and evilness isn't totally irrelevant. It's what they did overall as people. I'm glad that's settled. Categories are arbitrary devices for vague guidance. Draft on.

 

[timschochet]

Can we get a ruling from each judge (preferably inserted into post #3) on how they're judging?

If they want to post it, I'll paste in post #3. I think Krista and one or two others did this already, but I'm not going to go back and look.

 

[flysack]

8.07 - Frederick Douglas - Intellectual

Frederick Douglass was an American abolitionist, women's suffragist, editor, orator, author, statesman and reformer. Called "The Sage of Anacostia" and "The Lion of Anacostia", Douglass is one of the most prominent figures in African-American and United States history. In 1872, Douglass became the first African American nominated as a Vice Presidential candidate in the U.S., running on the Equal Rights Party ticket with Victoria Woodhull, the first woman to run for President of the United States.

He was a firm believer in the equality of all people, whether black, female, Native American, or recent immigrant. He was fond of saying, "I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong." Frederick Douglass was one of the foremost leaders of the abolitionist movement, which fought to end slavery within the United States in the decades prior to the Civil War.

A brilliant speaker, Douglass was asked by the American Anti-Slavery Society to engage in a tour of lectures, and so became recognized as one of America's first great black speakers. He won world fame when his autobiography was publicized in 1845. Two years later he bagan publishing an antislavery paper called the North Star.

Douglass served as an adviser to President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and fought for the adoption of constitutional amendments that guaranteed voting rights and other civil liberties for blacks. Douglass provided a powerful voice for human rights during this period of American history and is still revered today for his contributions against racial injustice.

I think it would behoove you to move him to Rebel.

WHY? It doesn't matter according to your own argument. It's his body of work that matters.

 

[FUBAR]

Tim - not to be a PITA, but can you edit your "Muscian/ Performer" to "Musician/ Performer?"?

nevermind, I see a lot of us copied and pasted the Muscian.

 

[thatguy]

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.

I feel content with this. Asoka's empire prospered during his reign. He treated his subjects with the utmost respect and they adored him. #1 baby!

I actually had him in the top 5 because of this, yes.But it looks like I'm in the minority here. While I find most of the arguments against me rather laughable, they seem based on a past experience I have no context with. I did not participate in the GAD. I've never opened the draft thread. Yet the majority here are basing their assumptions on the battles fought in that draft.

I'm arguing in an isolated context. Most of you are not. This is the root of the problem.

So I'll change my criteria to accept any technical head of state for the category, then judge their life's work.

Though I have to say, this makes categories like Celebrity and Villain interesting. After all, anyone in this draft can be argued to be a celebrity or a villain. Yet people were arguing that Princess Di was the greater celebrity than Elvis because Elvis was only American in scope. Yet his body of work as a person is clearly greater than Princess Di's. It no longer matters if Muhammad Ali is slotted as a celebrity or an athlete, another long discussion we've had. He'll be judged as a person, so that argument is also irrelevant.

So I hope all that arguing is now put to rest.

Nobody is judged by their category - they'll be judged as people.

All this talk of who was the more diabolical villain can be put to rest as well. It doesn't matter. The category is only a useful device to pick people with. Whether someone's overall body count is worth more than someone's cruelty and evilness isn't totally irrelevant. It's what they did overall as people.

I'm glad that's settled. Categories are arbitrary devices for vague guidance.

Draft on.

Duuuude! Had? Have, man, have. You have him top 5.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

How long until Larryboy times out?

 

[thatguy]

8.07 - Frederick Douglas - Intellectual

Frederick Douglass was an American abolitionist, women's suffragist, editor, orator, author, statesman and reformer. Called "The Sage of Anacostia" and "The Lion of Anacostia", Douglass is one of the most prominent figures in African-American and United States history. In 1872, Douglass became the first African American nominated as a Vice Presidential candidate in the U.S., running on the Equal Rights Party ticket with Victoria Woodhull, the first woman to run for President of the United States.

He was a firm believer in the equality of all people, whether black, female, Native American, or recent immigrant. He was fond of saying, "I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong." Frederick Douglass was one of the foremost leaders of the abolitionist movement, which fought to end slavery within the United States in the decades prior to the Civil War.

A brilliant speaker, Douglass was asked by the American Anti-Slavery Society to engage in a tour of lectures, and so became recognized as one of America's first great black speakers. He won world fame when his autobiography was publicized in 1845. Two years later he bagan publishing an antislavery paper called the North Star.

Douglass served as an adviser to President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and fought for the adoption of constitutional amendments that guaranteed voting rights and other civil liberties for blacks. Douglass provided a powerful voice for human rights during this period of American history and is still revered today for his contributions against racial injustice.

I think it would behoove you to move him to Rebel.

WHY? It doesn't matter according to your own argument. It's his body of work that matters.

Come on man, I merely said that this caused problems in the other draft. I think you're taking this way too far to the other extreme, and singling me out here even though I've hardly even argued against your criteria. I simply said it makes a nice tiebreaker.

 

[higgins]

I'm still judging based on boobs.

That's what I'm banking on, gb. 1

2

3

4

 

[Abrantes]

Ugh. This whole judging debacle really saps the fun out of the draft.

 

[flysack]

8.07 - Frederick Douglas - Intellectual

Frederick Douglass was an American abolitionist, women's suffragist, editor, orator, author, statesman and reformer. Called "The Sage of Anacostia" and "The Lion of Anacostia", Douglass is one of the most prominent figures in African-American and United States history. In 1872, Douglass became the first African American nominated as a Vice Presidential candidate in the U.S., running on the Equal Rights Party ticket with Victoria Woodhull, the first woman to run for President of the United States.

He was a firm believer in the equality of all people, whether black, female, Native American, or recent immigrant. He was fond of saying, "I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong." Frederick Douglass was one of the foremost leaders of the abolitionist movement, which fought to end slavery within the United States in the decades prior to the Civil War.

A brilliant speaker, Douglass was asked by the American Anti-Slavery Society to engage in a tour of lectures, and so became recognized as one of America's first great black speakers. He won world fame when his autobiography was publicized in 1845. Two years later he bagan publishing an antislavery paper called the North Star.

Douglass served as an adviser to President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and fought for the adoption of constitutional amendments that guaranteed voting rights and other civil liberties for blacks. Douglass provided a powerful voice for human rights during this period of American history and is still revered today for his contributions against racial injustice.

I think it would behoove you to move him to Rebel.

WHY? It doesn't matter according to your own argument. It's his body of work that matters.

Come on man, I merely said that this caused problems in the other draft. I think you're taking this way too far to the other extreme, and singling me out here even though I've hardly even argued against your criteria. I simply said it makes a nice tiebreaker.

I'm not singling you out at all. This isn't personal. I merely pointed out how you contradicted yourself. As have several people. This is actually amusing to me, believe it or not.EDIT: look at all the arguments I pointed out. Do any of them make ANY SENSE if the judging WEREN'T done based on category? No. But the mob here is screaming that this is how it's been, and I'm ill-informed. Tim backs them up. I'm not here to fight mobs. EFF it, I say. You want category-free judging, fine, you got it.

 

[timschochet]

Whether Frederick Douglass is taken as a rebel or an intellectual (or a WC), it's one of the weakest picks in this draft. Douglass is very important to American history, but his importance to world history is tiny. He doesn't belong, sorry.

 

[timschochet]

How long until Larryboy times out?

Tommorow morning.

 

[thatguy]

8.07 - Frederick Douglas - Intellectual

Frederick Douglass was an American abolitionist, women's suffragist, editor, orator, author, statesman and reformer. Called "The Sage of Anacostia" and "The Lion of Anacostia", Douglass is one of the most prominent figures in African-American and United States history. In 1872, Douglass became the first African American nominated as a Vice Presidential candidate in the U.S., running on the Equal Rights Party ticket with Victoria Woodhull, the first woman to run for President of the United States.

He was a firm believer in the equality of all people, whether black, female, Native American, or recent immigrant. He was fond of saying, "I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong." Frederick Douglass was one of the foremost leaders of the abolitionist movement, which fought to end slavery within the United States in the decades prior to the Civil War.

A brilliant speaker, Douglass was asked by the American Anti-Slavery Society to engage in a tour of lectures, and so became recognized as one of America's first great black speakers. He won world fame when his autobiography was publicized in 1845. Two years later he bagan publishing an antislavery paper called the North Star.

Douglass served as an adviser to President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and fought for the adoption of constitutional amendments that guaranteed voting rights and other civil liberties for blacks. Douglass provided a powerful voice for human rights during this period of American history and is still revered today for his contributions against racial injustice.

I think it would behoove you to move him to Rebel.

WHY? It doesn't matter according to your own argument. It's his body of work that matters.

Come on man, I merely said that this caused problems in the other draft. I think you're taking this way too far to the other extreme, and singling me out here even though I've hardly even argued against your criteria. I simply said it makes a nice tiebreaker.

I'm singling you out at all. This isn't personal. I merely pointed out how you contradicted yourself. As has several people. This is actually amusing to me, believe it or not.

When did I contradict myself? I merely said body of work makes a nice tie breaker and should be taken into account accordingly. I never said that the primary factor in the rankings shouldn't be ones contribution to his designated category. You're putting words in my mouth. Lastly, I said that this issue caused problems in the last draft. It did. There is no contradiction there. It's a statement of fact.

 

[Uncle Humuna]

Tim - not to be a PITA, but can you edit your "Muscian/ Performer" to "Musician/ Performer?"?

nevermind, I see a lot of us copied and pasted the Muscian.

Oh ####, I've been using the wrong criteria.1) Artistic expertice - the ability to emote with an instrument.

2) Technical mastery of one's instrument.

3) Innovativeness/importance in musical history

4) Popularity (which is almost an intrinsic requirement, since an artist needs to be known, to be selected).

1) Can they #### like an ox.

 

[Abrantes]

I'm still judging based on boobs.

I hope the celebrity judge shares your cleavage-centric criteria.

 

[larry_boy_44]

9.02 Isambard Kingdom Brunel, inventor

Isambard Kingdom Brunel, FRS (9 April 1806 – 15 September 1859) (pronounced /ˈɪzəmbɑrd ˈkɪŋdəm brʊˈnɛl/), was a British engineer. He is best known for the creation of the Great Western Railway, a series of famous steamships, including the first with a propeller, and numerous important bridges and tunnels. His designs revolutionised public transport and modern day engineering.Though Brunel's projects were not always successful, they often contained innovative solutions to long-standing engineering problems. During his short career, Brunel achieved many engineering "firsts", including assisting in the building of the first tunnel under a navigable river and development of SS Great Britain, the first propeller-driven ocean-going iron ship, which was at the time also the largest ship ever built.[1] His steamship the SS Great Eastern laid the first lasting telegraph cable across the Atlantic Ocean.Brunel suffered several years of ill health, with kidney problems, before succumbing to a stroke at the age of 53 years. Brunel was said to smoke up to 40 cigars a day and to sleep as little as four hours each night.In 2006, the bicentenary of his birth, a major programme of events celebrated his life and work under the name Brunel 200.

As a celebrated engineer in his own time, Brunel is much revered to this day, emphasised by the numerous monuments to him. There are statues in London at Temple (pictured) and Brunel University, Bristol, Saltash, Swindon, Milford Haven, Neyland and Paddington station. The flagpole of the Great Eastern is at the entrance to Liverpool FC, and a section of the ship's funnel is at Sutton Poyntz, near Weymouth. Brunel was placed second in the heavily publicised "100 Greatest Britons" TV poll conducted by the BBC and voted for by the public. In the second round of voting, which concluded on 24 November 2002, Brunel was placed second, behind Winston Churchill. The building of the Great Eastern was dramatised in an episode of the BBC TV series Seven Wonders of the Industrial World (2003).Brunel is also often claimed to be the inventor of the Bar (counter) as an item of furniture for quickly serving large numbers of customers in cafes, refreshment rooms, hotels and public houses. Both the Great Western Hotel at Paddington Station and the Swindon railway station refreshment rooms claim to have had the world's first bar. This device continues to remain popular all over the world.[citation needed]Contemporary locations bear Brunel's name, such as Brunel University in London, and a collection of streets in Exeter: Isambard Terrace, Kingdom Mews, and Brunel Close. A road, car park and school in his home town of Portsmouth are also named in his honour, along with the town's largest pub. Although not of any real architectural merit, the Brunel shopping centre in Bletchley, Milton Keynes is named after him.Many of Brunel's bridges are still in use; these designs have stood the test of time. Brunel's first engineering project the Thames Tunnel is to become part of the East London Overground Railway System and the Brunel Engine House at Rotherhithe that once housed the steam engines that powered the tunnel pumps still stands as a museum dedicated to the work and lives of Marc and Isambard Kingdom Brunel. Many of Brunel's original papers and designs are now held in the Brunel collection at the University of Bristol.[32]Brunel is credited with turning the town of Swindon into one of the largest growing towns in Europe during the 1800s.[33] The siting of the Great Western Railway locomotive sheds there and the need for housing for the workers, gave Brunel the impetus to build hospitals, churches and housing estates in what was termed 'New Swindon' (subsequently swallowed by the rest of the expanding, mainly agricultural, town). This area is known today as the 'Railway Village'. Brunel's addition of a Mechanics Institute for recreation and hospitals and clinics for his workers gave Aneurin Bevan the basis for the creation of the National Health Service according to some sources.[34] The current hospital in Swindon was named the Great Western Hospital in commemoration, which also contains the 'Brunel Treatment Centre'.In 2006, the Royal Mint struck a £2 coin to "celebrate the 200th anniversary of Isambard Kingdom Brunel and his achievements".[35] The coin depicts a section of the Royal Albert Bridge at Saltash, along with a portrait of Brunel. The Post Office issued a set of commemorative stamps.

accomplishments:- designed/constructed the first tunnel build underneath a navigable river- designed/constructed the first propeller-drive ocean-faring iron ship- designed/created/invented numerous innovative solutions to major engineering problems (don't ask me to explain this stuff, it all went over my head)- his ship laid down the first trans-Atlantic telegraph cable- designed the Great Western Railway- revolutionized public transportation and engineering- also designed the "bar". You know, that thing that the bartender stands behind and you order drinks at. Yes, he invented that.He was also voted the #2 greatest Briton ever in a recent poll done by the BBC. Quite impressive for an early 19th century engineer...

 

[timschochet]

I'm still judging based on boobs.

That's what I'm banking on, gb. 1

2

3

4

Have I mentioned that higgins will win this draft?

 

[Funcooker]

Whether Frederick Douglass is taken as a rebel or an intellectual (or a WC), it's one of the weakest picks in this draft. Douglass is very important to American history, but his importance to world history is tiny. He doesn't belong, sorry.

steaming pile of specious, anyone?

 

[flysack]

When did I contradict myself? I merely said body of work makes a nice tie breaker and should be taken into account accordingly. I never said that the primary factor in the rankings shouldn't be ones contribution to his designated category. You're putting words in my mouth. Lastly, I said that this issue caused problems in the last draft. It did. There is no contradiction there. It's a statement of fact.

Fair enough. I apologize. I got your comments mixed up in the mess. Understand, I've been replying to a number of different people for over an hour now. Draft on.

 

[timschochet]

Brunel is a tremendous choice.

 

[timschochet]

Whether Frederick Douglass is taken as a rebel or an intellectual (or a WC), it's one of the weakest picks in this draft. Douglass is very important to American history, but his importance to world history is tiny. He doesn't belong, sorry.

steaming pile of specious, anyone?

If you disagree with me, you're certainly quite welcome to state your reasons.