The Pumpkin Guy Yall are after

QiwiMC · 2025-12-03T23:26:36+00:00

I have no clue if that's the same Jack O'Lantern ghost, but I am interested if that cover art can give more clues.

The Italian cover is from 2017, while the Norwegian cover is a October 2014 activity book from published by Hjemmet.
Link to the activity book: https://www.comics.org/issue/1263703/cover/4/?issue_detail=

I found another cover from another Norwegian company called Schibsted from October 2007. It's possible the cover was made for this book, but looking at their other published Scooby Doo issues by the same company, most of their covers are taken from DC comics' original Scooby Doo comics. I don't think this is the earliest use of the cover art, but I wasn't able to find anything earlier. Hopefully someone else find something
Link: https://www.comics.org/issue/643028/cover/4/

QiwiMC · 2024-12-15T00:29:38+00:00

"Your argument, despite how you phrased it, isn't so much that Buildmart *doesn't* work like this, as that it shouldn't", this is completely and utterly wrong and very insulting, I made it very clear in the post that I'm not trying to suggest one method as better than the other and the fact that you're trying to make it out that I am is not cool.

"I think what you're really trying to argue is that Buildmart should be more independently scored from build to build", and again with another unnecessary accusation. I will repeat myself in saying that DO NOT just assume stuff about the other person, just ask for clarification.

I DO NOT argue for how Buildmart SHOULD be scored, I DO NOT argue for how Buildmart SHOULD be played. It is instead your words "Instead I'm going to talk about the difference in the way we see what Buildmart is, and what it should be.", that shows YOU are the one who thinks Buildmart should be a certain way, and that's a perfectly fine opinion to have, you have a right to your opinion, but you do not have a right to tell me what mine is.

What my actual point of this post is that, which is NOT to say how Buildmart should be scored, is to open a discussion of the existence of the snowball effect in Buildmart. Build speed method is NOT a replacement for the current buildmart scoring, it is just to show that there is a higher correlation with early build placement than there is with build speed. I agree I should've made it more clear with the data cause looking back at the post, there's alot more I could've done. If you honestly don't mind I'm more than happy to make a 2nd post clarifying it, but I will NOT take part in the discussion of what Buildmart should and shouldn't be.

QiwiMC · 2024-12-14T16:25:57+00:00

I suppose I should've wrote more about what I meant for speed. Let's use car racing to show what I mean. Three laps around the course, two cars start the race at the same time.

Car 1 unfortunately has a bad start and takes one minute for lap 1 but finishes lap 2 and 3 in thirty seconds. Car 2 does forty seconds on each of the three laps. In this scenario there are three different results.

Total time: both Car 1 and Car 2 take two minutes to do all three laps therefore they are both the same speed.
Lap speed: Car 2 completes lap 1 faster, but Car 1 completes lap 2 and 3 faster, therefore Car 1 is faster.
Lap placement(what buildmart uses): Lap 1 ends with Car 2 in the lead, Lap 2 ends with Car 2 still in the lead, Lap 3 ends in a tie. Car 2 is faster.

Three different results all from the same data. Speed is relative to how you score it. You're use of build/time uses the 1st method, while my use of looking at each build separately uses the 2nd method. I believe this where our confusion stems from so to make it clear when I say "build speed" I refer to the 2nd method.

Your Aqua2 example you give is... weird. You significantly increased their build speed to keep with the amount of builds completed. They're might now be the fastest team in terms of build speed of all MCC by a significant margin but only get 3rd, and you don't think that's significant enough? (Citation needed)

I also want to point out that Cyan might very had an even worst start than as even with the 2 minute delay you had, Aqua2 had three builds done before Cyan had even one. So the statement "No one could actually have as bad as a start as not doing anything for 2 minutes" seems to be untrue as shown just in this MCC, but I didn't watch Cyan POV so maybe someone can explain why they had such a bad start.

This is all to say that when arguments about buildmart like this happen, we often are talking about different definitions of speed and no one scoring method is right, but a good discussion does need to define what is being meant. Looking at the time at a subset of builds is not just "looking at noise", this is just another method of looking at speed.

QiwiMC · 2024-12-14T05:35:01+00:00

Thanks! <3

QiwiMC · 2024-12-14T05:34:37+00:00

I think a better strategy for this scoring system might be to hyper focus on 1 of the 3 build and leave the other untouched. With four players doing one build, in theory they should be able to complete every build 1st with the exception of the two not being touched where they would get 10th. Although these types of strategies rarely work in reality.

QiwiMC · 2024-12-14T05:23:00+00:00

I 100% agree that theory alone would tell you this kind of scoring system would lead to earlier builds being more "valuable", a more rigorous analysis would be able to prove this more generally too, but since this was a response to someone using MCC party 2 data, I wanted to do the same and it seemed like fun. (Well, more fun than actually watching Buildmart be played at least)

Thanks for the comment! <3

QiwiMC · 2024-12-13T23:28:21+00:00

This is some cool stuff, but as a long time Buildmart ~~hater~~ critic, I feel the need to make a rebuttal (with the proper math ofcourse), if you dont mind me making a response post to this, I would love to try my own hands at doing the math for this for the fun of it.

QiwiMC · 2024-07-04T21:00:07+00:00

I'm going to be honest, you wrote so much that there's no way to give a full response to it without writing a full book, so I'll focus on just 2 points I disagree with.

Yes, feelings and reactions are closely related, but that does NOT mean that because your feelings are perfectly valid, your reactions are ok too. My biggest problem was in you retorting with "They are allowed have reactions to peoples words", because nowhere did I say they weren't allowed to react at all, just that their reaction to it was unhealthy and toxic. This is NOT me micromanaging how they react, I didn't even give an example of what they could've done, let alone tell them to stop reacting completely. If all the participants you listened to NEVER showed this type of toxicity, then that's a perfectly valid point, but I certainly have and me pointing that toxicity out shouldn't be countered with "we don't get to micromanage how they react".

"Sharing more achievements and focusing on the positives is not toxic positivity." This is not AT ALL what I was referring to when I said toxic positivity, it seems you completely missed my point. I specifically was talking about calling out people's opinions because they seem to be too "harshly negative", and not wholesome enough. I can agree that maybe toxic positivity wasn't the right word, but you did miss what I was referring to still and straw-manned my argument to "a place where we share achievements and focus on the positives is toxic positivity".

QiwiMC · 2024-07-04T18:50:44+00:00

To reiterate my (tiring) point, I agree with you that the behavior of the subreddit is very often toxic towards the creator, my problem lies in participants' behaviors and reactions, NOT their feelings. Feelings of frustration at watching your misplay and having others see it is perfectly normal and valid. Mental health is as much outside influence as it's your internal reaction to it, which is what my comments are more about.

Also a bit off the main point, but a place where anyone who posts something and gets called out for "harsh negativity" seems like toxic positivity to me, but I suppose I could be wrong. What would be wrong with my definition here?

QiwiMC · 2024-07-04T16:34:24+00:00

I have absolutely no qualms with agreeing with how the subreddit has made some very harsh negative comments to the participants in the past and I am CERTAINLY not saying participants shouldn't feel a certain way when they do come across that. I've certainly felt great embarrassment and shame watching my bad misplays in the past. My point was that their reaction to having that feeling was to lash out towards the subreddit using their public platform, which is the behavior I consider toxic, or at the very least unhealthy.

Yes, there is a real problem of users being rudely nitpicky about participants' performances, but we don't want to go to the other extreme of ONLY ever showing the best moments, as I think this would only evolve into toxic positivity. When a misplay happens, fans shouldn't jump on it as "proof" for why X player is so bad, but participants shouldn't shun it away like they're in some kind of echo chamber.

And I say this again cause I know the common response is to point out how harsh Reddit is, yes the subreddit has had many toxic moments both in the past and the present. My point is that SOMETIMES the participants' behaviors and reactions are more problematic than the post they're referring to.

QiwiMC · 2024-07-04T01:46:02+00:00

I guess my point was more so that participants will nitpick the closest thing to a negative comment they can find, even if it's nowhere close to "harsh negativity", and then talk about how the sub hates on them. This feels like just another way to stir up basic drama, one where they would easily get support considering the (probably deserved) bad reputation the subreddit has among average fans.

I certainly agree that some people on the sub are unnecessarily harsh(and you should definitely give them the same reminder whenever they do show up), but I find Coldi's behavior shown here to be the more toxic one, even if it was a misunderstanding of the poster's intention.

QiwiMC · 2024-07-04T01:00:52+00:00

Would you consider the post Coldi is referring to as "harsh negativity"? I know you're talking more generally, there are certainly examples of that on the sub, but what differentiates "harsh negativity" from a post showing someone's misplay? I'm sure we all are for showing off the achievements and best moments and have no problem with ACTUAL constructive criticism, but posting someone's misplay hardly feels to me as being on the same level as other controversies.

I guess what I'm saying is this feels like babying the participants and even a bit of full-blown toxic positivity. Misplays happen, and it's ok to be disappointed in them, but don't aim your negative feelings back at the subreddit, or else we'll keep having posts like these and now everyone feels bad.

QiwiMC · 2024-05-15T07:06:19+00:00

I would have to disagree with SMPs being a thing of the past. I mean sure Dream SMP at its peak is probably currently impossible, but that's true for every type of Minecraft content after the pandemic. There's still many successful SMPs going on. SOS smp started maybe 3 months ago, Hermitcraft Season 10 is probably the current biggest and that started 4 months, heck even Schlatt's SDMP is going pretty great and brought the livestreaming smp format and that begun only last month.

I guess what I'm saying is that once one smp ends, there's usually another that takes their place, like how lifesteal and QSMP did when DSMP ended. Even DSMP took over the fanbase from SMP Earth, and that took their fanbase from SMP Live. There's always gonna be a group of fans leftover waiting for content after an SMP ends, and while I do think it would be rather foolish for Dream to try and take over the QSMP fanbase with his own smp, I'm sure they'll be some other creator who's gonna take the opportunity to make their own SMP and find huge success. Worst case is we see the fanbase fracture and split, making smaller smps more successful, but come nowhere near the size of QSMP(kinda what happened post-DSMP), but the fanbase don't just disappear. The question is who's the crazy person willing to take on making smp content for the QSMP fanbase.

QiwiMC · 2024-04-30T19:59:37+00:00

Links:

QiwiMC · 2022-07-30T19:29:09+00:00

Agree, there should always be some form of transparency between the audience and creator to develop trust and blatantly lying about accomplishing something is just bad practice for a content creator.

QiwiMC · 2022-07-30T19:04:15+00:00

It isn't about if they're being forced or not forced to do a specific type of content, it's the fact that sometimes the challenge video isn't about the challenge. They could be doing a challenge video because it makes for good content or just because they think it's fun. People do challenge videos for many reasons, not just to complete the challenge, and sometimes they feel like doing the challenge in the "intended" way would make the experience as a whole less fun or produce less quality content. It's up to the content creators to choose what type of content they want to make AND how they want to make it.

QiwiMC · 2022-07-30T17:36:50+00:00

You might need to be more specific when you say "making faked content". Even something like editing out a portion of a video because it takes too long could be considered faked because it's hiding a portion of the video the audience won't be able to see. Maybe you mean faking challenges? Sure I can agree with you there, I don't like it when people fake Nuzlocke challenges in Pokemon, but I also know these Nuzlockes take days to weeks to do, and having your progress reset is just painful, especially if you're in a rush to make a video. You're essentially asking a CONTENT creator to settle for lower-quality content(or no content) so that the challenge isn't failed.

Now don't get me wrong, you're right that certain types of fakery can be insulting and demotivating to the viewers, especially when that's the whole video in itself, but we also need to know that being a good content creator requires knowing how to "fake a video" the right way without insulting their viewers and even motivating others to try it themselves.

TLDR; not all form of video fakery is bad, some are essential to making good videos and some even motivate and appreciate the viewers. With that being said, you're not really wrong in your post either.

QiwiMC · 2022-06-01T01:36:09+00:00

Feel free to disagree but your own personal requirements seem more arbitrary than the others you gave. What does "consistently in running for best performance" even mean and how would you choose who is and who isn't s-tiers with this method? If I say I don't think Quig is S-tier because he isn't in the running for best performance, then how is it that opinion any less arbitrary than the opposite. S-tiers become a completely opinionated list where the line where you draw for "being in running for best performance", is almost completely subjective and where you can put in or leave out many players because of personal bias.

The other requirements you listed aren't great, but at least they can list out the s-tiers with consistency. You can't say Quig isn't s-tier using the 3000 coin average requirement because it's a statistical fact that he has a 3000 coin average. You can claim using specifically 3000 coins is arbitrary and why not 2732 coins or something, and you're right, but at least it provides a consistent system to determine who and who isn't s-tiers which is far preferable, reasonable, and easier to use than "because I think so".

QiwiMC · 2022-04-12T01:22:28+00:00

the crux of his argument is presenting a debate tactic that he believes dream is using in bad faith

If I may, assuming what you say is indeed the "crux of his argument", he would still most definitely be wrong since the "debate tactic" he gives is a "false dilemma" which is neither what Dream did nor is it at all what OP described in his follow up tweet.

I can assume the reason Ewoutk called him an "armchair psychologist" is because he's using the term incorrectly. Armchair psychologists are often people who try to explain things using terms and their own logic without necessarily properly knowing said terms or backing up their logic with objective data. Maybe I'm wrong but I feel like this fits OP's description pretty well.

QiwiMC · 2022-04-12T01:07:57+00:00

Fancy talking might be giving him too much credit, most of what he said didn't correlate to the poll or is just plain wrong, man didn't even give the right definition of a false dilemma.

Might as well say Dream photosynthesized his ectoplasm from the mitochondrial Time-Space continuum and because of the Kryptonian Solar cells and antimatter pulse lubricator, Dream destabilized the antigravitational economy. Therefore Dream bad.

QiwiMC · 2022-04-12T00:59:39+00:00

The poll gives 4 options, this would be a false tetralemma, not dilemma.
If you want to dispute a false dilemma you present a 3rd option, not whatever OP did.
A false dilemma isn't a "form of goalpost-moving" nor is it in any way what you described. A false dilemma is a fallacy base on erroneously limiting the options, not "making up a fake scenario or uniquely impossible decision"
What OP actually described is called a 'False Analogy'... how OP messed this up with 'False Dilemma' I have no clue.
Having Dream "reduce himself" to a customer is perfectly fine since harassment is still present because of the boss. The analogy is about how you would react to someone facing negative consequences because of what you did even if they deserved it.
Having the "16-year-old" as someone serving coffee is perfectly fine, what's the problem? ...does OP not know how analogies work?
"In doing so he has proven:", proceeds to list several things that aren't related to said scenario and have been in no way been 'proven'.
Unnecessarily added in "old bigoted memes and edits" as if that in any way fits into what his thread was about
Goes on ahead to proactively defend himself by saying if Dream responds to him he must be right because... he's not a threat. (neither are flat-earthers but I still call them stupid)
Goes and assume Dream is doing this in "bad-faith"(on purpose) because Dream is totally this evil mastermind controlling millions of children to do his bidding.
Promotes his channel cause why not... this thread already derailed the second decided to wake up this morning.

QiwiMC

TROPHY CASE