Round 1 - Match AF - Promagic vs Paull

[JL]

can't wait for the debate on that matter

im just gonna try to hint at this...

are you:

1. performing a stunt with a combine harvester?
2. involving a combine harvester in your stunt?

[Determined]

That's a good point, the wording really is ambiguous, but I think the proper wording for what you're interpreting would be "performed with the aid of/performed involving", as performed with seems very direct. But as I said, it is rather ambiguous, I think it'd be more clear to say "performed driving a combine harvester", although it isn't stylistically correct, it is way more clear. I hope the judges will agree with your point of view to avoid conflict & someone having wasted their time due to a "misinterpretation" of the objective.

[JL]

That's a good point, the wording really is ambiguous, but I think the proper wording for what you're interpreting would be "performed with the aid of/performed involving", as performed with seems very direct. But as I said, it is rather ambiguous, I think it'd be more clear to say "performed driving a combine harvester", although it isn't stylistically correct, it is way more clear. I hope the judges will agree with your point of view to avoid conflict & someone having wasted their time due to a "misinterpretation" of the objective.

though you're right and i'm honestly thinking about being a little more precise with the formulation of these in the future, i gotta say... dude... he clearly knows what the objective means he just doesn't want this to be the day in history in which he performs something without an MTB

[VeganeBrodwärschd]

I'm sorry. I intended the challenge to be about actually driving the Combine Harvester. The ambiguity was unintentional. As Determined already pointed out, the judges should decide, but I'm sure they won't mind that.

[PM]

That's a good point, the wording really is ambiguous, but I think the proper wording for what you're interpreting would be "performed with the aid of/performed involving", as performed with seems very direct. But as I said, it is rather ambiguous, I think it'd be more clear to say "performed driving a combine harvester", although it isn't stylistically correct, it is way more clear. I hope the judges will agree with your point of view to avoid conflict & someone having wasted their time due to a "misinterpretation" of the objective.

though you're right and i'm honestly thinking about being a little more precise with the formulation of these in the future, i gotta say... dude... he clearly knows what the objective means he just doesn't want this to be the day in history in which he performs something without an MTB

Haha not that. When you look at how it is written, you'll get the fact it has more meanings. If it said 'performed in...' I'd understand that as driving the vehicle, but since it says 'performed with...' I take it as I can use the vehicle in any way. Also, I wouldn't be happy if you say my entry is corrupt just because of someone's imperfect english.

[JL]

Haha not that. When you look at how it is written, you'll get the fact it has more meanings. If it said 'performed in...' I'd understand that as driving the vehicle, but since it says 'performed with...' I take it as I can use the vehicle in any way. Also, I wouldn't be happy if you say my entry is corrupt just because of someone's imperfect english.

you're not thinking this through well enough, trust me.

well, can't blame a guy for trying to help    ... good luck

[VaNilla]

To be fair, he asked me, and I told him that it says "with" a combine harvester. He performed a stunt "with" a combine harvester, just hung on a magnet instead of driven.

[JL]

To be fair, he asked me, and I told him that it says "with" a combine harvester. He performed a stunt "with" a combine harvester, just hung on a magnet instead of driven.

organisation, judges and creator of the objective... all these people could be asked for the precise meaning on this. instead asking a person that natively speaks english doesn't make any sense alot of sense and its just cementing my point that he's trying to avoid stunting with the combine harvester.

it's obviously the core of the objective

[PM]

To be fair, he asked me, and I told him that it says "with" a combine harvester. He performed a stunt "with" a combine harvester, just hung on a magnet instead of driven.

organisation, judges and creator of the objective... all these people could be asked for the precise meaning on this. instead asking a person that natively speaks english doesn't make any sense alot of sense and its just cementing my point that he's trying to avoid stunting with the combine harvester.

it's obviously the core of the objective

Lol, funny thing is that you answered "I can't help" when I asked you.

[JL]

To be fair, he asked me, and I told him that it says "with" a combine harvester. He performed a stunt "with" a combine harvester, just hung on a magnet instead of driven.

organisation, judges and creator of the objective... all these people could be asked for the precise meaning on this. instead asking a person that natively speaks english doesn't make any sense alot of sense and its just cementing my point that he's trying to avoid stunting with the combine harvester.

it's obviously the core of the objective

Lol, funny thing is that you answered "I can't help" when I asked you.

That's a good point and actually, i shouldn't be helping you at all. You should realize that alot of the participants are asking me about the objectives and the question tend to get very specific and i'm trying to prevent that in its roots ofc.

[Paull]

Well, here is my entry:
SASL 6 - [Paull] vs Promagic

Rep: http://www.sendspace.com/file/1fzwth

 

[Diaz]

Cool stunt Promagic but too bad it's invalid. perform =/= involve

[Plani]

''Best stunt performed with a Combine Harvester. '' I will be honest here, i expected a stunt landed WITH a combine harvester. Promagic's stunt was awesome but he just used the vehicle mentioned in the objective as a support to reach something. Paull otherwise, drove the combine harvester and actually did a stunt with it. It's obvious that Paull stunt was way worse but he simply followed the objective. My vote goes to Paull

[PrzemOO]

I didn't like Promagic's stunt mostly because he could have hung almost any vehicle on the crane and still do the same stunt, whereas Combine Harvester was clearly meant to be a highlight. Paull's stunt wasn't impressive, had unnecessary long runup and also could have been done with any vehicle but his effort to actually pull something off driving it was significant in context of the challenge. My vote goes to Paull.

[GDL]

My vote goes to Paull, because I don't think that Promagic completed the objective.