ilovefuzz.com

ziltoid wrote:

rfurtkamp wrote:That's irrelevant, somebody was annoyed at that in the infinity thread because..reasons?

We have to change to conform to nonsense!

If you have issues with what I said we can discuss it.

Or you can be a passive agressive baby back bitch in another thread, that's fine too.

That wasn't passive aggressive, that was merely statement of fact.

Newish person complains about how things have been done for many years now, story at eleven!

Doesn't ask, just starts complaining!

Some snark is more than called for!

rfurtkamp wrote:

ziltoid wrote:

rfurtkamp wrote:That's irrelevant, somebody was annoyed at that in the infinity thread because..reasons?

We have to change to conform to nonsense!

If you have issues with what I said we can discuss it.

Or you can be a passive agressive baby back bitch in another thread, that's fine too.

That wasn't passive aggressive, that was merely statement of fact.

Newish person complains about how things have been done for many years now, story at eleven!

Doesn't ask, just starts complaining!

Some snark is more than called for!

Do you have any self-awareness at all? From what I gather the rules were changed because you complained at some point some time back.

Yet you're now complaining about somebody suggesting rule changes.

Also, you were passive aggressive. Referencing something said earlier (ie. what you call a "factual statement") does not mean it's not done in a passive agressive manner. Those are not mutually exclusive categories.

Here's a statement that is both factual and agressive: you're a lil' bitch with no self-awareness.

ziltoid wrote: Do you have any self-awareness at all? From what I gather the rules were changed because you complained at some point some time back.

Yet you're now complaining about somebody suggesting rule changes.

Also, you were passive aggressive. Referencing something said earlier (ie. what you call a "factual statement") does not mean it's not done in a passive agressive manner. Those are not mutually exclusive categories.

Here's a statement that is both factual and agressive: you're a lil' bitch with no self-awareness.

I suggested a change, yet participated by the rules of the time without complaining. Folks agreed. Yay!

But please, go on. I enjoy random swipes.

PedalDome!

Seriously though... I can see both sides... it's cool that "boards" can enter along with boards and borderline-boards... BUT maybe it wouldn't hurt to reconsider where the lines are.

I do have a horse in this race... for BILF I redo my entire setup to fit it on a BOARD singular, because that's part of the fun for me... but then I was too large for large, so i ended up in infinity... competing with rack gear and stuff spread out on BOARDS plural as well as INSTRUMENTS and NON-BOARD setups... which... eh, whatever, I don't care actually... It's all cool with me, I like appreciating them all.

I do feel like the dividing line between large and infinity could be shifted a little?? Like if you're on a pt pro that's *large*, not so much infinite. If you don't fit on a single board, that's auto-infinite, so this would be the inverse of that?

At the same time worrying too much about minutiae takes all the fun out of it, yeah?

I think it's worth noting that UC's still probably gonna win no matter your argument.

Yeah no worries... I really like that board so it's all good.

It is a board that has called into question the very nature of what it means to be a board, so extra bonus points honestly

ritz wrote:Yeah no worries... I really like that board so it's all good.

It is a board that has called into question the very nature of what it means to be a board, so extra bonus points honestly

So, like an "imaginary" board then?

ziltoid wrote:On the issue at hand:

I think one photo per entry is a good idea.
I like categories.
Perhaps a neat rule could be "no instruments" to even the playing field, it is "boards of ILF" after all.

Maybe no cute doggies either because I'm a giant sucker for cute doggies and THATS JUST UNFAIR MAN

vidret wrote:hmm yeah. hmm.

I appreciate making larger slightly bigger, but not by a lot, if we make the cutoff for large at 20+ there won't be much left for infinity, and the difference between the largest and smallest large boards will be huge.

How's about large at 16-18 pedals? I Kind of liked it this year. Large was.. well, large.


Infinity should be the kind of "anything goes", rack and all, but still kind of.. the "small" gear, not your entire church organ and two 4x12 cabinets.
And max 2 pics.

The size of small/medium/large were all good imo. I would just clarify what counts and what doesn't a bit more just so next year doesn't have 1-2 boards in medium that probably should be in large. Again, I have no horse in this race.

Funny how I only raise issues about two categories that do not concern me. It's as if I participated without complaining about my shit. I must be a motherfucking saint!

(This reference something that was said and is also passive-agressive, IT'S A GODDAM VALENTINES DAY MIRACLE.)

I think the categories were great and vid did an amazing job!

I think enlarging large makes some sense. Same with limiting entries to 1 pic per category for small, medium, large, and imaginary; 2-3 pics per category for infinite. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm not entirely sure why multiple pics would even matter. To be honest, the more pics you submit, the less likely I was to vote for you because it just starts getting a little confusing.

I somewhat agree with the "no instruments" rule, but I think if it's something like a noisemaker, or even a Microbrute, and it's normally on your board then it should still count (that being said, I'm biased since I'm all tabletop).

Also, UC's board is dope, deserves to win, and is definitely still a board. At least it's just as much of a board as #4 in Infinity

What the fuck is all the pissing and moaning about?
You wanted the gear porn, you got the gear porn.
Prizes are just a bonus, who gives a shit?
If you're "in it to win it", youre not here for the right reasons.

As someone who enters in small every year, because i can never break beyond the limits of the category, i do find myself grumbling about the same thing.
But thats just the green eyed monster.

MrNovember wrote:I think the categories were great and vid did an amazing job!

I think enlarging large makes some sense. Same with limiting entries to 1 pic per category for small, medium, large, and imaginary; 2-3 pics per category for infinite. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm not entirely sure why multiple pics would even matter. To be honest, the more pics you submit, the less likely I was to vote for you because it just starts getting a little confusing.

I somewhat agree with the "no instruments" rule, but I think if it's something like a noisemaker, or even a Microbrute, and it's normally on your board then it should still count (that being said, I'm biased since I'm all tabletop).

Also, UC's board is dope, deserves to win, and is definitely still a board. At least it's just as much of a board as #4 in Infinity

#4 is a board 100%. Even the vertically mounted pedals are used as pedals on a board. It's kind of different from pedals mounted vertically as part of a modular synth setup.

Pedals are pedals?

I can censor the the instruments when I enter next year. They're stuck with industrial strength velcro, so taking them off would be a bitch. That being said, I entered the board stating that I didn't know what category it belonged to, so yeah...sucks that some people feel cheated by it. I didn't even consider there being non-pedals on there, I just wanted to enter the board because I'm psyched on it. Didn't expect it to do so well, which is cool but also kind of bitter-sweet now.

Anyways, if people feel like it's cheating, just PM Vidret and if a handful of people do so I'll gladly not accept the win if I end up on top. BILF is ultimately about having fun and I would much rather have that than some pedal.