Challenge 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
antemortem

antemortem

rest after tomorrow
    • 7,476
    Posts
    13
    Years
    Gumball Watterson was eliminated.

    Team Ludicolo-
    Spoiler:


    Team Spheal-
    Spoiler:


    Good job on the first challenge.

    Your job is to correctly identify the name of and arm the three gladiators below with the provided armor and weapons. There is a specific formula for what belongs on which gladiator. The name clue will operate as a hint. There are two hints provided for each and a third will be provided at a team's request after the first twenty-four hours.

    Each item can only be used once, and there's no guarantee every item will be used.

    Items
    Sword
    Small Round Shield
    High Leg Greaves
    Dorsal Helmet
    Net
    Sickle
    Padded Shin Guard
    Low Leg Greaves
    Dagger
    Spear
    Talon Helmet
    Trident
    Large Oblong Shield
    Shoulder Guard

    Gladiator 1
    - "_ _ R _ _ _ L O _ E _"
    - This gladiator is known for their focus on defense rather than offense
    - This gladiator is known for their weak shins

    Gladiator 2
    - "_ E T _ _ R _ _"
    - This gladiator is known for their focus on offense rather than defense
    - This gladiator is known for their ease of movement

    Gladiator 3
    - "_ _ P _ O M _ _ H _"
    - This gladiator is known for resembling the hoplite
    - This gladiator is known for making up where they fall short


    The first team to private message me a list of correct answers wins; additionally, the team representative may choose half of their poisoned members to save. The losing team loses all of their poisoned members. If both teams answer the same amount of questions correct, both lose all of their poisoned members.

    You have until July 8th 6PM EST to send in answers. Good luck.
     
    Last edited:
    The answers are as follows:

    Murmillones
    Large Oblong Shield
    Sword
    Low Leg Greaves
    Dorsal Helmet

    Retiarii
    Shoulder Guard
    Trident
    Net
    Dagger

    Hoplomachi
    Small Round Shield
    Spear
    High Leg Greaves
    Talon Helmet
    Padded Shin Guard

    Team Ludicolo's answers-
    Spoiler:


    Team Spheal's answers-
    Spoiler:


    Note: "Talon" was simply a hint as to the personality of the helmet's design.

    Team Spheal wins the challenge. Their team representative my private message me one person out of their three poisoned members to cure and keep from being eliminated. On the other hand, Team Ludicolo's poisoned members have this last chance to sing their regrets before they viciously succumb to the poison. :)

    If it's any consolation, Team Ludicolo would have lost even without the inclusion of the Talon Helmet.
     
    Last edited:
    Actually, the score should be 15 a piece by each competitor because a dagger was used by the Hoplomachii, as indicated by many sources

    Hoplomachus: "The hoplomachus was outfitted in virtually the same way as the Thraex, except that the crest of his helmet lacked the griffin protome (the head of an animal or human used as a decorative element). The principal weapons of the hoplomachus were a lance (hasta) and a short sword or dagger that was held in the left hand, together with a small round shield. "

    "Weapon: spear (hasta), dagger (pugio)"

    "A dagger called a pugio or a semispathae or half-swords might also be one of this gladiator's weapons. The Hoplomachi also carried a lance (hasta). The hasta was not thrown, it was used for thrusting and approximately six feet in length."

    "A hoplomachus was equipped with a helmet, a small round shield, a pari of high greaves and a manica on his right arm. He was armed with a spear and a dagger or short sword."

    Link 1, Link 2, Link 3, Link 4

    You should absolutely make sure that your information for the challenges are absolutely correct, as we had dagger under Retiarii and we knew he used it in combat, but we switched it over to the Hoplomachii because we knew each item could only be used once. In retrospect, this challenge should be a tie - 15 a piece for each team after both missing the Talon Helmet - and it should come down to who submitted their list first.
     
    Last edited:
    A dagger was completely optional for the Hoplomachii (in regards to a "short sword"), while it was manditory for the Retariarii, maybe that's why it counted. You couldn't repeat so its natural the dagger went to retariarii
     
    Sean said:
    A dagger was completely optional for the Hoplomachii (in regards to a "short sword"), while it was manditory for the Retariarii, maybe that's why it counted. You couldn't repeat so its natural the dagger went to retariarii
    Click to expand...

    If a gladiator used it, then a gladiator used it. That's a really crappy technicality if that's the case.

    If you honestly think I'm going to allow 8 members of my team get eliminated because of a technicality, then you are sadly mistaken.
     
    The options given were the options given. You would think it natural for one to assume that the only dagger in play would go to the gladiator that must carry one, as it is their last resort lifeline in battle, while the other one is strictly optional or that can vary between such and a short sword.

    Your adamancy is justified; however, even if things are changed to suit your contention, the challenge states that if both teams score the same points then both lose their poisoned players. I'm sorry if this displeases you.
     
    Antemortem said:
    The options given were the options given. You would think it natural for one to assume that the only dagger in play would go to the gladiator that must carry one, as it is their last resort lifeline in battle, while the other one is strictly optional or that can vary between such and a short sword.

    Your adamancy is justified; however, even if things are changed to suit your contention, the challenge states that if both teams score the same points then both lose their poisoned players. I'm sorry if this displeases you.
    Click to expand...

    Yeah, it does displease me. If the challenge results are going to stand, so be it. But that's the second challenge in a row that members on both sides have been boned over because of a lack of clarity in the rules. The 1st Challenge being the "gif debacle," the 2nd Challenge with a lack of specificity that the gladiator "must" have the weapon/armor. For a Get-Together event, it's not that fun for anyone when you are eliminated on a lack of explanation or clarity. I understand that this is a competition and people need to be eliminated; but I think I speak for many when I say that a person shouldn't be eliminated because of a loophole in the instructions.
     
    elheroeoscuro said:
    Yeah, it does displease me. If the challenge results are going to stand, so be it. But that's the second challenge in a row that members on both sides have been boned over because of a lack of clarity in the rules. The 1st Challenge being the "gif debacle," the 2nd Challenge with a lack of specificity that the gladiator "must" have the weapon/armor. For a Get-Together event, it's not that fun for anyone when you are eliminated on a lack of explanation or clarity. I understand that this is a competition and people need to be eliminated; but I think I speak for many when I say that a person shouldn't be eliminated because of a loophole in the instructions.
    Click to expand...

    The problem in this case is more making sense of where the weapons should have been distributed. I shouldn't have to clarify "if one gladiator seems to require a weapon, give it to them" because that's common sense if you've done your research, of which you've obviously done plenty. I am willing to meet you halfway, in regards to the fact that my instructions could have (but probably won't in the future because the game requires you to be cunning on your own) been more specific, and allow you to pick half (four) of your poisoned members to be cured.
     
    I actually said if the dorsal helmet counts for the Murmillones then the talon should count for the Hoplomachi but they ignored me.
     
    That's why I'm dropping out.
    They trusted the guy who thought "gladiators with weak shins meant they recruited the crippled as gladiators and so they needed protection" (paraphrasing) with our list/decision making. The same one who couldn't differentiate foot wraps from leg padding and caused you to lose the elimination due to his inability to pay attention. He was also the major advocate of not putting the talon helmet on the list. He's the type who has to share his opinions and treat them as truth without actually researching or thinking about them.
    I'm not as nice as you are.
    This team's a little too frustrating for me to deal with for an intellectual activity like this.

    For those of you who would argue "this is just a game, chill," your inability to think and comprehend simple things is not a game. It's your brain, it's who you are. You may be happy in your ignorance but I'm tired of seeng it everywhere I go.

    As far as the majority rule thing goes, there's someone on this site who has an Isaac Asimov (great man) quote in their signature that speaks to how I feel on the subject.
     
    Marsyas said:
    That's why I'm dropping out.
    They trusted the guy who thought "gladiators with weak shins meant they recruited the crippled as gladiators and so they needed protection" (paraphrasing) with our list/decision making. The same one who couldn't differentiate foot wraps from leg padding and caused you to lose the elimination due to his inability to pay attention. He was also the major advocate of not putting the talon helmet on the list. He's the type who has to share his opinions and treat them as truth without actually researching or thinking about them.
    I'm not as nice as you are.
    This team's a little too frustrating for me to deal with for an intellectual activity like this.

    For those of you who would argue "this is just a game, chill," your inability to think and comprehend simple things is not a game. It's your brain, it's who you are. You may be happy in your ignorance but I'm tired of seeng it everywhere I go.

    As far as the majority rule thing goes, there's someone on this site who has an Isaac Asimov (great man) quote in their signature that speaks to how I feel on the subject.
    Click to expand...

    Rather than arguing, let me just say this: we live in a world of ignorance. You can't escape it by giving up on a simple challenge. That action is its own form of ignorance. Rather than backing away, stay a while and try to explain things how you believe them to be. Treat ignorance as a disease: it can be cured, but only if you work towards finding that cure, rather than avoiding the infection altogether.

    But if you insist on leaving, may I make a request to Antemortem? If he leaves, may we opt to keep Umbreon in the game for a while longer? Treat Marsyas' resignation as the second poison death for this round?
     
    Nakuzami said:
    Rather than arguing, let me just say this: we live in a world of ignorance. You can't escape it by giving up on a simple challenge. That action is its own form of ignorance. Rather than backing away, stay a while and try to explain things how you believe them to be. Treat ignorance as a disease: it can be cured, but only if you work towards finding that cure, rather than avoiding the infection altogether.

    But if you insist on leaving, may I make a request to Antemortem? If he leaves, may we opt to keep Umbreon in the game for a while longer? Treat Marsyas' resignation as the second poison death for this round?
    Click to expand...
    I did try and it didn't work.
    I was, for the most part, ignored.
    I even requested others to read and review the debate then weigh in but still, nothing.
    May I suggest understanding a situation before voicing your uninformed opinion on it?
    Also the reason I'm ready to walk away from this is because it's a simple challenge.
    If it was a serious issue I wouldn't give up so easily.
    I just have more important stuff to do than trying to explain the basic concepts of critical thinking to people on a pokemon web forum.

    Nice try though.
     
    Marsyas said:
    I did try and it didn't work.
    I was, for the most part, ignored.
    I even requested others to read and review the debate then weigh in but still, nothing.
    May I suggest understanding a situation before voicing your uninformed opinion on it?
    Also the reason I'm ready to walk away from this is because it's a simple challenge.
    If it was a serious issue I wouldn't give up so easily.
    I just have more important stuff to do than trying to explain the basic concepts of critical thinking to people on a pokemon web forum.

    Nice try though.
    Click to expand...

    And how is my opinion quite so uninformed? I'm on your team. I read the discussions. Besides, what I said is not something that need be restricted to one simple situation.

    And I understand it's a simple challenge, but it's a nice philosophy to hold in all aspects of one's life. The only time to stop trying is when the person you're speaking to is far to stubborn or arrogant to be reached. In that case, there's no point in trying to change a lost cause.

    But if you insist on leaving, go ahead. But next time why not try and leave without a fuss, rather than sounding like an indignant child? Not to be rude, but that's what you come across as.

    Goodbye.
     
    Why does this matter ?_? Our team won and we only lost Umbreon who doesn't seen to mind so... It's not really an issue at all?
     
    Forever said:
    Why does this matter ?_? Our team won and we only lost Umbreon who doesn't seen to mind so... It's not really an issue at all?
    Click to expand...

    Yeah pretty much. Even with the signups, we were told that if get sensible easily, then its not in the best decision to sign up. I don't see how its an issue. Team 1 were lucky to save 4 people, after we were supposed to lose 8. Ignorance is natural, if someone pinpoints it, then its no longer an issue.
     
    Nakuzami said:
    And how is my opinion quite so uninformed? I'm on your team. I read the discussions. Besides, what I said is not something that need be restricted to one simple situation.

    And I understand it's a simple challenge, but it's a nice philosophy to hold in all aspects of one's life. The only time to stop trying is when the person you're speaking to is far to stubborn or arrogant to be reached. In that case, there's no point in trying to change a lost cause.

    But if you insist on leaving, go ahead. But next time why not try and leave without a fuss, rather than sounding like an indignant child? Not to be rude, but that's what you come across as.

    Goodbye.
    Click to expand...
    It was uninformed because despite having read the posts, you still incorrectly appraised/assessed the situation.
    "Rather than backing away, stay a while and try to explain things how you believe them to be. Treat ignorance as a disease: it can be cured, but only if you work towards finding that cure, rather than avoiding the infection altogether."
    If you read then you know I stood my ground on multiple occasions. It was only after time and time again (trying to speak to a person too stubborn to be reached) that I finally gave up.
    As the challenges are suppose to get harder, I foresaw this issue only growing and threw in the towel early.

    Funny how you spit philosophy yet can't understand "having better things to do" than debate for hours over something as little as this. Also, philosophy is always built on ones opinions, not fact, whereas me having more urgent issues (engineer in college) is a fact.

    I'm fine with being a child. I just wonder what that implies for the people who aren't as smart (I'm not even that intelligent, I'm just not devoid of thought) as the child.

    Honestly, I'm hoping this grand display of being fed up and childish, as you put it, prompts said person to think more.
     
    Last edited:
    DJTiKi said:
    Yeah pretty much. Even with the signups, we were told that if get sensible easily, then its not in the best decision to sign up. I don't see how its an issue. Team 1 were lucky to save 4 people, after we were supposed to lose 8. Ignorance is natural, if someone pinpoints it, then its no longer an issue.
    Click to expand...
    Ignorance is a big deal.It affects and shapes the world around us. That's why it upsets me.
     
    Last edited:
    Marsyas said:
    Ignorance is a big deal.It affects and shapes the world around us. That's why it upsets me.
    Click to expand...

    No duh man. But someone has to be ignorant about something before actually knowing about it. You can't go to a classroom, in a subject, you don't know and say "Well, guess I'm failing because this is new to me" No. You can't have a process of knowing something, without having the time to actually put together, what in the hell it is. Im 99% sure, NO ONE knew what types of gladiators there were, let alone, what weapons and arms they had. So yes, they were ignorant. But you can't blame someone for being ignorant, in an area, they never knew about.
     
    DJTiKi said:
    No duh man. But someone has to be ignorant about something before actually knowing about it. You can't go to a classroom, in a subject, you don't know and say "Well, guess I'm failing because this is new to me" No. You can't have a process of knowing something, without having the time to actually put together, what in the hell it is. Im 99% sure, NO ONE knew what types of gladiators there were, let alone, what weapons and arms they had. So yes, they were ignorant. But you can't blame someone for being ignorant, in an area, they never knew about.
    Click to expand...
    Thinking doesn't require prior knowledge. It just takes paying attention and a little effort.
    And I told them the answer and they argued/disagreed.
    Btw i don't know crap about the Romans either. We were on equal footing. All they literally had to do was pay attention/think.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Back
    Top