#and i argued that it's damage control and improves my quality of life and i have a progressive disease i never was going to get better | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

theres-no-protocol-for-this · 3 years

Text

Necessary Repairs

Part III. I don’t even know if you have to read any of the other parts. SecUnit should probably have slept through most of its own healing, but that’s not this machine’s luck.

Part I | Part II

At some indeterminate point later, I woke up.

I was receiving minimal sensory data, and none of it was sight-related. A diagnostic subroutine spun up and casually began sending me bursts of error messages I couldn't even begin to translate.

Oh, and the world was pitch black.

It took me more than five seconds to determine that the darkness was self-inflicted and open my eyes. Longer still for the random noise to resolve into sounds I could understand -- the hum of an air circulation system, at least two distinct voices, and an automated warning system. My connection to the feed stabilized, but the walls that normally guarded my mind against its onslaught were conspicuously absent.

Something else was shielding me, something big and surprisingly gentle.

Friend?

I could feel cold metal under my back and head, probably the medical suite platform. My internal temperature refused to rise, so I was shivering and couldn't stop. It felt like I was still leaking, and the pain ebbed and flowed with each passing moment.

“Would you like me to turn up the heat?” Transport asked.

Yes. Where the hell am I?

I felt a mild shock as the governor kicked in. It hadn't liked my tone, apparently, or the phrasing of my answer, and wasn't shy about letting me know. The standard code read, "you're outside of protocol and need to adjust your attitude."

Silently, I cursed the damn thing. I was getting used to life without it.

A moment later, Transport answered, "SecUnit, you're still in medical, and your performance rating, while stable, remains abysmally low."

The ship paused and sent me a couple of data packets that succinctly described all the things still wrong -- which was most of them. I should've probably remained in stasis, but the medical unit was calibrated for humans. So, it hadn't given me nearly enough sedative to knock out the organic parts of a construct for any appreciable amount of time.

I was awake, kind of.

"I'm waiting for your vital signs to improve," Transport added. "Until then, would you like to watch an episode of that one show you liked?"

Yes, please.

The ship's calm tone reassured me, even though everything else looked like shit. My diagnostics were coming back with nonsense, still. The governor couldn't find a SecSystem to connect with. The Traveler didn't have or need one of those; it had a skeleton HubSystem instead managed security, life support, and logistics. My inflexible governor couldn't figure out how to interface with it.

Surprise, surprise...

It fell back on some preprogrammed garbage, complete with a minimal set of actions and responses. "Yes, please" and "No, thank you" was probably the best I could manage at the moment without incurring its wrath. I'd try poking at it later when my performance no longer looked quite so dramatically sad.

Captain Owens pulled up a chair and sat down where she could see me. Transport shared the view from one of its cameras, so now I could see her, too. It also queued up an episode of a long-running serial and waited for the captain before it started playing. I wanted to ask about the hostiles but couldn't -- thanks governor -- and Transport didn't seem inclined to enlighten me.

I suppose it was only fair; it was doing its best to keep me calm.

MedSystem sorted out the sleeping issue in the meantime and had injected more sedatives into my resupply channel, so sleep was happening shortly, whether I liked it or not. I could practically feel my diagnostics slowing down to a crawl since they relied on data from my organic parts, which were affected by the drugs.

"Good afternoon, SecUnit. I'm glad to see you're awake." The captain nodded in my direction and then turned toward someone I couldn't see. "As I mentioned, thanks to SecUnit, we came out of the boarding attempt in one piece. I'm sorry to hear your ship wasn't as lucky."

A stranger in formal wear came into camera view as he approached Owens. I figured he was the owner of that second voice I hadn't been able to identify earlier. The logo on his tunic looked familiar, but I couldn't place it. Parts of my memory felt like tangled network cables.

"Indeed, but this is still better than nothing. I don't suppose you've already contacted your bonding company?"

The captain's face scrunched up in confusion. "We're insured outside of the Corporation Rim," she explained. "I've sent a message, but I'm here pretty much on my own."

Outside of the Rim, everything appeared to work in ways that were incompatible with corporation control. A lot of the propaganda around freehold planets implied they were a complete shitshow. Except, clearly, the Traveler was doing just fine.

I had a sudden burst of "bad feeling" in my organic neural tissue. Something about the newcomer didn't sit right with me. I thought it might be unwise for the captain to tell him anything about herself or her ship.

"No, thank you." It sounded like my voice, but I didn't remember speaking. Hi buffer, I thought I'd never see you again.

The newcomer gave me a puzzled glance. "So, where'd you get your unit then?"

Owens shrugged and schooled her expression. I'd seen that face before when she'd spoken to her daughter before our first jump. "I rented it from a friend, as a security consultant. It's doing a great job."

I was?

I mean, the human was alive, and the Traveler had an intact hull, so I guess things weren't terrible. I could practically hear the Transport laughing on a private channel. If I could roll my eyes, I probably would have, but the governor frowned on that sort of thing, and my eyes had closed minutes ago.

"I see. Well, if you wouldn't mind giving us a hand with repairs, we can both be on our way." The man watched the captain like a hawk. "I would also recommend getting your unit checked out at a licensed repair station when you get a chance. With this level of damage, there's no telling what other problems are hiding under the surface."

As far as statements go, it was polite enough, but I didn't like it. It sounded to me like a threat.

Performance rating dropping. Initiating emergency shutdown.

I really would prefer you didn't.

***

Memory fragment:

The mining installation doesn't inspire confidence. There are eight of us and two combat models. Ten security units should be enough to keep a workforce of 153 miners and a dozen more supervisors in line. Everything looks worn and rundown, including the humans.

Protocol dictates that we take shifts. A human has created a schedule to which we adhere. The two combat units are mixed in with the rest of us.

It's my patrol shift. I walk through one of the mining shafts and stop at the far end. I can hear a supervisor arguing with two of her employees—something about the rocks they've uncovered. I turn around, ready to head back to the primary installation, when one of the combat units walks up to the three humans.

It has been summoned by the supervisor.

The supervisor tells it to fire on the workers. It does, without question. Bodies crumple to the floor. Then, the supervisor notices me.

***

Transport popped into my feed. "Wake up, SecUnit. How're you feeling?"

"Like I got shot."

The words were out before I could consider the consequences, and I braced for an electric shock -- or worse. Nothing happened. Performance reliability was at 87% and rising steadily. My diagnostics routines had run several times, and the results looked promising. I was also no longer leaking, and most of my organic parts had grown back.

I had two arms again. That was nice.

Transport shared a smiling sigil. Reason unknown. "You did get shot, silly. MedSystem patched you up pretty well. If you're up to it, my captain and I could use your help." It paused and added, "Captain suggested that you might want payment in exchange for services rendered. That's how it works in CR, right?"

I had my doubts about anything actually working in the Corporation Rim. Still, arguing with a clearly sentient ship about theoretical economics didn't sound appealing. I'd rather get shocked again.

"OK," I said aloud and sat up. "Priority question: who was here earlier?"

"Dr. Alexander Soren is the current captain of an ArialHydra exploration vessel. They are stranded in this sector after a pirate attack. Captain Owens speculates that it may be the same group of pirates. We were lucky to have you on board."

Lucky. Right.

I shoved off the platform and crumpled to the floor in a pile of arms and legs. Hi there, limbs. A few minutes later, I managed to get up and stumble around under my own power. I admit to sitting on the floor and trying out my new arm. It didn't have a cannon -- MedSystem didn't have the required parts -- but it was fully functional, otherwise.

"I've seen Dr. Soren before." I couldn't remember where. That bothered me.

"Perhaps you were deployed on one of his survey missions?"

"I don't know."

One of the ship's drones floated into the room, carrying spare clothing, which it dropped directly on my head. I grabbed at the falling fabric and started getting dressed. It was the Traveler's standard-issue uniform, beige and blue and generally not hideous. I missed the protective qualities of armor, but it would've been weird to wander through the ship's pristine, carpeted halls with it on.

Captain Owens walked into the medical room and waved at me and the drone. "I see you're both here and scheming."

"We're not scheming, and technically, I'm everywhere," Transport informed us.

"I don't think you should trust Dr. Soren," I blurted out.

Owens narrowed her eyes. "Do you know anything you'd care to share?"

I shook my head. Constructs don't get gut feelings -- we don't even have a gut to have them with -- and my memories of any encounters with the doctor had been removed. Memory wipes aren't typical, but occasionally, a bonding company or a manufacturer/repair company decides they're necessary. I've had at least one that I know about. I also had no idea how to explain that my organic neurons probably remembered things the rest of me didn't.

"Well, in that case, has Trav told you what we need?" At my puzzled expression, the captain said, "We gave the other ship supplies, and they're almost ready to depart. And they're making a fuss about..." She sighed. "Something. I really don't care. They'll be coming back aboard in a few hours to discuss whatever it is. And I would feel much better if you were there. Just in case. And only if you're feeling up to it."

Protecting humans was literally the only thing I liked about my job. "OK."

"Great. Do you want a weapon?"

"Depends on how threatening you want me to look." Any weapon I wielded would be for show unless the human was in danger. And if she was, I had a miniature cannon hidden inside an arm.

The captain pondered this for a moment. Her face went through a range of expressions that Transport interpreted for me as "Captain Owens thinks the other ship's posturing is stupid and would like to be on her way, but it would be impolite to leave, so here we are." I agreed with the captain's assessment.

Finally, she said, "Let's try without any extra threats and see what happens. The quicker we get this over with, the better."

Transport suggested we spend the time between now and the upcoming meeting watching more of its favorite shows. I agreed.

#the murderbot diaries #SecUnit #let me sleep #into the unknown #fanfiction

17 notes · View notes

appliedtheatreblog · 3 years

Text

Geese Theatre

Describe in your own words Geese theatres' key theories.

Geese Theatre focus on the rehabilitation of offenders through the medium of Drama and Theatre. This has been proven to develop social consciousness, self control, self-esteem and responsibility in offenders, deterring them from crime again. Geese have three key theories that they apply when facilitating their participants, all of which encourage them to think deeper into their thinking and feelings and evaluate the person they really are underneath how they portray themselves.

The first theory we learn about in the Geese Theatre handbook is Social Learning Theory-

This is using social interactive intervention to facilitate a new skill for the participants. It uses a process of applying a specific skill, so that once all the steps have been completed, participants should have successfully acquired that new skill.

The steps are as follows:-

Assessment/Self Assessment- Teaching what a specific skill requires to be successful e.g- Teamwork requires trust.

Instruction- Recommended procedure to follow for practising that skill. E.g practising teamwork would involve several team building exercises, showing participants how to operate as a contributor towards a team.

Modelling- Facilitators giving examples of the skill, this would normally include how NOT to approach the skill.\

Multiple Practise- Practising the skill whilst increasing difficulty and realism each attempt.

Testing- Testing the skill and giving appropriate feedback, where positive reinforcement is essential in encouraging participants to stick with the process.

Real world practise- An opportunity for participants to practise this skill in their everyday life.

When Geese talk about why this sequence is so important, the following is quoted-

“The sequence offers an important conceptual framework for helping participants to develop new skills in a conscious and structured way” (Mountford et al. 19)

This shows how offering this process would leave an impact on participants, asking them exactly why each skill is important and would benefit them daily leaves an impact which would hopefully lead them to approaching situations better in the future.

The second theory is called Cognitive- behavioural Theory

When I first stumbled across this I had a reasonably wide understanding of what it entails. This is due to the fact that Cognitive Behavioural Therapy is used very often in modern day as a psycho-social intervention to treat mental health, it challenges any cognitive distortions and helps to develop personal coping strategies, improving people's control over their emotions. Geese Theatre uses drama as a vehicle through this theory to challenge and explore the beliefs and attitudes of offenders that may lead to them displaying anti-social behaviour.

Geese explain that offenders often unknowingly place themselves in habitual cycles, which are self-sabotaging and often lead to offending behaviour. By using drama to facilitate this change, Geese starts a conversation which asks ‘Did your choices affect you positively?’ Most of the time that answer is no. They will then ask “What can we do next time to prevent negative outcomes due to personal actions?’

They use the example of exploring a victim's experience on the receiving end of antisocial behaviour. They would create a scene in which somebody would play the victim of something like Robbery, this would help by showing that other people are becoming hurt by their actions, holding them responsible for their actions.

Geese also explain that offenders often have the fixed vision that they are a victim to the system- and other people should feel the pain they do. This is a belief of self-sabotage as they can end up incarcerated due to the extent of their actions, modifying this belief so that offenders feel empowered by opportunity of personal growth, often leads to less offenses in the future.

The final theory is called Role Theory-

This is the idea that we all play a role in society, and that we have total control over how we play roles in our lives. Role Theory is a way Geese can identify skills and roles that offenders could benefit from developing.

They say -”Role Theory observes how we all play roles in our lives which generate behavioural archetypes associated with that role in any given context.” (Mountford et al., 2002, 19)

This communicates how offenders often stick to a role that does not benefit them, for example, young offenders can present themselves as incapable of work (even when they are) because they feel like nobody would hire them. This is them intentionally placing themselves in an unemployable box, Geese’s role theory would come into play here by using drama to teach different job roles to offenders. Such as, the role of an employee, which would benefit them by teaching the behavioural archetypes of succeeding and retaining a job. The biggest message Geese are portraying here is that personal roles are dynamic and can be consciously chosen to benefit your quality of life.

What specifically stood out for you in the Geese theatre reading? (Give 2 examples. Be specific. Did it make you think about something - if so, what? Did it raise questions for you - if so, what are they?)

The first element of Geese Theatres practise that stood out to me, was the concept of ‘The Mask’ this is a metaphor for analysing the inner processes that support the roles we play. It is essentially the ‘front’ we portray to the outside world. Geese attempt to ‘lift the mask’ and go inside the heads of offenders to uncover hidden thoughts and attitudes. This eventually leads to behavioural change as it proves that their inner process leads them to offensive behaviour, challenging the conflict right at its core. What particularly stood out to me, was when it stated that participants would often practice this concept on a fictional character. I think this is such an interesting practise as it shows participants that this can be practised on everyone, meaning people probably perceive them in a way where they believe they are not conducting themselves authentically. I had a think about the character of ‘Javert’ from the musical ‘Les Mis’ and attempted to analyze the hidden thoughts there. This was very interesting to me as it allowed me to see that charter through a deeper lesne, and understand the behaviour that occurred as a result of the inner thoughts. Javert-

Presents himself as a powerful and lawful man, hungry for social justice. Blinded by this and unable to see the good that ex-villain Valjean does for the community. Inner thoughts- disappointed in previous failings to catch Valjean, frustrated he failed his life missions. Feels as though he has nothing else to live for. The result of this inner process was his ultimate demise. However the chance to analyse those inner feelings, may have led to an emotional breakthrough that could have eventually prevented the dark end to his life.

Although this may be considered a far fetched evaluation, I can confidently say that I understand why completing an exercise like this would make an offender feel more able and comfortable to analyze themselves with intention to change their damaging inner processes.

Another concept that I was particularly interested by, is the section that focused on working with resistance, particularly ‘Responding to Resistance’

Geese explain how oftentimes offenders are very resistant to participate in drama because of a fixed idea they have that drama is ‘Silly’ and ‘Just childrens games”. Although this resistance is a difficult bridge for a facilitator, Geese explains how it is important to ask yourself ‘What is causing my person or group to feel resistant or afraid?’ and then ‘How can I modify my approach to accommodate this?’ Offenders often don't want to be tricked into becoming vulnerable, a great facilitator would respond to this fear by ensuring the practise would be entirely based around their boundaries. What particularly intrigues me was that facilitators can utilise resistance to their advantage, participants who are particularly resistant and are seeking out to sabotage the group are often seeking an outcome that works for them in that situation. In this instance, facilitators could respond to the participant in a conversational manner, giving them a response they were not expecting. This encourages new energy and tension into the group, which can be interesting for the participants as it demonstrates how conflict and interpersonal tension can actually lead to creative solutions, not just a power struggle which is more than likely what they are used to.

How does the work of Geese theatre company join up with the wider world of Applied theatre and the idea of dominant narratives?

Geese Theatre company are a perfect example of an Applied Theatre company, they work with marginalised groups in modern society and instigate a conversation that leads to social change. They utilize many techniques that other forms of Applied Theatre do, all of which centre around the voices and capabilities of those in spaces where mainstream theatre doesn't normally exist. The idea of ‘dominant narratives’ is a pattern I would argue is present in many forms of applied theatre. A dominant narrative is the dominant social argument applicable to certain social groups or events. An example of this in relation to Geese Theatre is that offenders don't have the capability to change and are the poison that must be controlled in our society. Another example of this looks back at my first blog post where I explored the Theatre and Health company, Target Theatre. This is the company that explores the views on the elderly in our society and the hidden fears they face. The dominant narrative this company takle is the idea that Elderly people have less to contribute to our society as they are not as physically and emotionally available as the younger generation. Both of the dominant narratives I have outlined above are particularly ruthless, but the function of Applied Theatre in relation to these narratives is to inspire that social change that is so desperately needed, yet this form facilitates that change in a marking and inspiring manner.

Bibliography

Mountford, A., Brookes, S., & Baim, C. (2002). The Geese Theatre handbook. Waterside Press.

1 note · View note

meritre24601 · 4 years

Text

Black, grey and white

Sounds really deep doesn’t it? It simply means good, bad and somewhat fitting into both categories. And actually it is even simpler I just need a rant. I spent too much time in the English Cheese in the trap comment sections and it really bugs me that especially starting with the Goodbye chapter Inho is seen as better than ever, practically a perfect little angel and Jung as worse than ever, the devil in person (if Inho’s the angel). So I decided to look at the good and bad qualities of both boys. I guess most if not all of their qualities fit in the grey category but I’ll try to consider what I think the most accepted opinions are among readers. Feel free to argue, to add to my lists or just simply comment, I love talking about CitT. Oh and I’ll edit, expand this post as my opinion changes and I think of new things to add to the lists. It’s not really continuous, and since it’s long I doubt people will read it, the sole purpose is to get this out of my system (and maybe start a nice discussion). I’ll also pepper it with some of my drawings I uploaded earlier to make it more fun. I try to be objective but it’s easy to guess my preferences, right? Let’s get started!

Inho’s biggest problem in my opinion is his selfishness and that he simply doesn’t understand that everything he does, including speaking (it’s closely connected to his rudeness) has its consequences. (insulting people in high school, putting down Inha’s art) It’s understandable that he is selfish as he had to look out for himself the better part of his life and I see it as a survival method (same with his sister Inha) but it can ruin his relationships with other people (all kinds of relationships). As a result, he doesn’t really value human relationships, especially friendship or at least he says so on more occasions (for example after the dinner at Seol’s, right before the fistfight of the boys). His treatment of his old co-worker and somewhat friend also demonstrates that. Leeching off people is also part of his selfishness, not caring if the other doesn’t have more money than him. But that’s something he showed in the first half of the story. His short temper and tendency to violence gets him in trouble especially because he rarely stops to think before he acts. He gets better with controlling his temper and does give up his pride to play piano again, although due to a push from outside. He refuses to look at things from other peoples point of view, what he sees and believes is the truth and changing his mind is really hard if not impossible (example: his belief that Jung broke his hand) He improved a lot, he’s better now at controlling his temper and sometimes sees the wrongs he did and tries to correct them (Inha). But himself, his pride is most important, always, even if he hurts others.

(Picture is webtoon Inhos opinion about his drama self. No question who wins if there is a fight. Text is by English Webtoon CitT commenter Celery)

Now Jung’s biggest problem is his manipulative behaviour, and it’s greatly disliked and frowned upon so it landed in the black zone. It’s very useful at times but it can also bring great harm. (stalking, homeless lady, unnamed kid nicknamed Chopin) Like Inho he also improved, his punishments are not as severe as earlier (Sangchul S4) But just like Inho looking out for himself, Jung uses manipulation mainly to protect himself and those he cares about. Since it’s effective I don’t think he will stop, ever, it’s a core part of him that can’t be completely changed, like Inho also stayed selfish and aggressive and rude, although better than at the beginning.

Being calculative is connected to Jung being manipulative it’s a trait that helps him with his plans and life. Likely also helps with work and helping Seol.

Another trait readers dislike is his mask of smile, he just wants to be left alone and probably has the least trouble this way. And why should he care for all the people around him, there are just too many and they don’t care either. But being rude to them doesn’t bring anything, either, so there you have it. It’s the opposite when he turns cold - that’s basically him being angry. He closes himself off so one can only guess what’s the problem. I consider that a bigger problem since it also affects his loved ones. It’s okay to cool off but if he stays a sad little clam, who can guess what caused trouble and how to correct things? I think Seol is slowly getting him to be more expressive but that also results in him being more vulnerable (S4 Ch66) and that his “bottle“ can’t hold that much - he keeps things to himself, bottling everything up but he can’t bear that as well as earlier. (S4 Ch 66 and 71) Bottling things up isn’t good, either, as he himself tells Seol, trying to get her to share her problems with him so he could help.

He’s quick to judge people and it’s hard to change his opinion (but not impossible) Yep, the number one example is Seol’s case.

Both boys have victim mentality, thinking what is theirs is taken or them receiving undeserved damage.

Done with the blacklists, moving to the grey questionable traits (actually most traits can be both harmful and helpful)

To tell people right away what he thinks is very typical for Inho (like when he told Seol she’s way out of Jungs league, bragging that he won the fistfight) so he appears genuine and honest to readers - but his truth is often distorted, just like Jung’s and while people see it with Jung, they often overlook it with Inho, believing his truth to be the ultimae truth. It has two sides and the real truth lies somewhere in between. Honesty is a great trait but it can cause just as much confusion and a biased view on the story. (And that drama didn’t help with that) Loud. Why did I put that there? Because some people aren’t bothered one bit by him starting to yell out of the blue while others can’t stand those kind of people. Inho is also not the smartest out there and he is aware of that. it’s not that bad but not good either. But it’s an important reason in my opinion for him not being a good match for Seol romantically even if they were in love. She is so much more intelligent and capable, I have no idea what those two would talk about if Seol doesn’t develop an interest in classic music and piano. I don’t think that would end well. Right now I don’t think he could be someone for Seol to lean on, he would get a lot from the relationship but - forgive me - he would be an additional burden for Seol. When he has built up his new life (S4 Ch76), I’m sure he’ll be a supportive, good partner to a suitable girl.

Now let’s look through Jung’s grey list. He is secretive and mistrusting, those two traits walk hand in hand, also his sensitivity. It’s good if you don’t burden others with every little thing and keep things safe but going extreme causes not only harm for others but for himself, too. I think one important cause of the misunderstanding between him and Seol was him being mistrusting and sensitive (actually Seol as well) It got worse with Seol again and again unintentionally making him appear to be weird in public. (staring at him as she observed him, snickering incident, when she talked to others right before dropping the papers that Jung kicked) That freaked him out more than anything since he doesn’t want to be the weird one his father stampled him to be ever since he was little. Sensitivity helped them to determine what kind of people they encounter but it also makes both of them judgemental.

Now let’s get to the good part. Inho is good at heart and if he cares, he really cares and tries his best to help. My favourite example is the pepper spray but he also tried to stop Younggon with his fists, although that didn’t discourage Younggon one bit but it still shows Inho cares. He is really passionate about playing the piano and is also talented. I put him being impulsive in the list trying to capture the good half of his brutal honesty and thinking before acting. In situations where quick acting is vital it’s very useful. Maybe I should have left it as honesty as I initially did but he caused too much harm with that (starting with Inha’s art and the unwanted nickname Dogfur) He’s a good boy but has lots of baggage.

Jung doesn’t have less baggage, just different, but that doesn’t make either him or Inho bad people. They are like most people out there with their own troubles and good qualities.

(That’s just an unfinished sketch because I wanted to draw them happy together.)

Now back to Jungs good points. He’s intelligent, he cares for Seol and tries his very best to please her (once it got through to him that she’s a good girl, not like he initially thought). I guess he could be more open, but if you leave him alone he’ll leave you alone, too. But he does care and he is obedient and listens to what others tell him and tries to act on that. He’s still trying to be like his father wants him, he listens to Seols wishes and even if he doesn’t show it, he even considers what people he dislikes tell him. Inho is a good example, when he told Jung that Inha is potential danger to Seol or when during their fistfight he told Jung that he’s bad for Seol, in the chapter where Jung actually ran to Seol for comfort it was shown that he did think about what Inho said and it made him uncomfortable. In S4 Ch76 we hear that Seol didn’t make it into Jung’s father’s company - I take it as Jung listening to Seols request to not use his influence to get her in there. (She must have had a bad day, otherwise she would have been accepted for sure, she is such a good worker) How odd now that I have the chance I can’t think of anything more to write so that’s it and here is one last picture, simply because it’s one of my favourite moments.

#yoo jung #baek #bek #inho #cheese in the trap #rant #opinion #comparison #jung #jung yu #webtoon

52 notes · View notes

commandertheory · 5 years

Text

Quantifying Color Power Rankings

This post came about because I was trying to figure out how to quantify the power levels of the different colors in Commander.

Before I get into my methods, be aware that, by necessity, I’m condensing a lot of nuanced information down into numbers. Some caveats about this discussion:

I plan on focusing mainly on cards and effects that are generally useful in Commander. Although there are a ton of cards that are very powerful if you build your deck around them, they tend to push the power level of niche archetypes, rather than improving the position of all decks of that color. For example, while Puresteel Paladin and Sram helped White equipment decks with card flow issues, they didn’t do much to help White decks in general.

Also, we are going to be looking at the more efficient end of the Commander card pool. While Fissure is instant-speed creature removal in monored, it’s way too expensive to see play in Commander (EDHREC backs this assertion up; it’s in ~0% of the decks that can run it). When we talk about how many cards in a given category in a given color, I’ll be talking about cards that are cheap enough (in terms of mana) to see a reasonable amount of play, not expensive outliers.

Speaking of cheap cards, I’m not super interested in limiting the discussion based on budget concerns. I am gonna bring up ridiculously valuable cards like Imperial Seal because I think we need to talk about what’s possible in the format in order to get a good sense of where the imbalance lies.

Alright, let’s jump in.

I would argue that there are only a handful of types of powerful cards in Commander. I think that powerful cards either:

Increase your resources

Improve the quality of your resources (e.g., tutors)

Answer your opponents’ threats

Kill people

I think that we can divide up those categories where it’s appropriate:

Increase your resources

Cards

Mana

Life

Improve the quality of your resources

Answer your opponents’ threats

Spot

Instants and sorceries (counterspells)

Creature

Artifact

Enchantment

Planeswalker

Land

Mass

Creature

Artifact

Enchantment

Planeswalker

Land

Kill people

We can also remove the categories of cards that aren’t that important in Commander or which don’t really contribute to any particular color’s power in this format.

For example, straight lifegain is generally not good in Commander; most of the lifegain we see is paired with some other category on this list (like Aetherflux Reservoir or Gray Merchant and killing people). Mass planeswalker removal and mass enchantment removal isn’t as important as mass creature removal and mass artifact removal because enchantments and PWs generally aren’t as common in Commander. Planeswalkers also have a built-in answer, so spot removal for them isn’t very important, either. The best examples of spot land destruction (Strip Mine, Wasteland, Tectonic Edge, Ghost Quarter, Dust Bowl) are all colorless so there’s not much point including this category when we’re trying to determine the relative power of colors in Commander.

That leaves us with:

Increase your resources

Cards

Mana

Improve the quality of your resources

Answer your opponents’ threats

Spot

Instants and sorceries (counterspells)

Creature

Artifact

Enchantment

Mass

Creature

Artifact

Land

Kill people

I want to clarify “cards that kill people” a little bit. When I think of cards that kill people, I don’t think of large beatsticks or token armies. If a threat is easily answered with spot removal or a board wipe, when it kills somebody, it’s more a reflection on your opponent’s failure to find an answer, not your threat’s potency. To me, cards that kill people are the ones that:

kill your opponents the turn you cast them and

aren’t easily disrupted by removal.

You can Doom Blade a Craterhoof, but it did its damage as soon as its ETB trigger was put on the stack. Likewise, you can kill a creature in response to an Insurrection, but there’ll still likely be more than enough power on the board to kill you. Other good examples of cards that kill people are Expropriate and Exsanguinate, since they’re powerful enough to win the game almost out of nowhere and they can only be easily answered via counterspell. In contrast, I don’t think Storm Herd is a good win condition because it gives your opponents a round of turns to answer it and can probably only kill one person at a time without assistance.

I also want to clarify spot removal a little bit. I think of spot removal as something that can stop what your opponent is doing at any time. If it can’t stop the Zealous Conscripts that your opponent’s Kiki-Jiki is targeting, it’s not a great example of spot removal. If it can’t stop the Rings of Brighthearth from copying a Basalt Monolith’s untap ability, it’s not great spot removal.

So we have some categories of powerful effects, and we can consult Mark Rosewater’s Mechanical Color Pie article to see what colors have access to what effects. How are we going to turn these into numerical scores for power level for each color?

In a 100-card singleton format like Commander, what a color can do is not as important as what it can do consistently and efficiently. Monored can answer enchantments efficiently because it has Chaos Warp, but that’s one card in 99, and you’re not likely to draw it in most games.

I think the best measure of whether a color can do something is whether there are enough efficient versions of that effect that you can expect to consistently find them by the time you need them. Figuring out when you “need” a way to kill your opponents or a way to increase your cards in hand is tricky, but figuring out when you “need” an answer is a little easier.

In some playgroups, you need to be able to answer a threat by turn 5 or you’ll die. Most Commander metagames are a bit slower than that, but it’s not super difficult to figure out when the haymakers usually come down in your playgroup; I think in most, it would be turn 8-10ish. Let’s say that a 90% chance to draw the effect you need by turn 8 is proof that a color is “good enough” for the purposes of ensuring you have an answer to a threat reasonably consistently.

If we plug a 99 card deck, a sample size of 15 (7 card opener + 8 draw steps), and a desired success percentage of 90% into a hypergeometric calculator, you’re told that you need to run 13 redundant effects of whatever you’re trying to do. This may seem like a lot, but note that some effects can substitute for others. A Beast Within counts toward Green’s spot removal for artifacts, creatures, enchantments, and planeswalkers (and lands, I guess). Efficient card draw spells increase the number of cards you see, so you don’t have to run as many of the desired effect if you’re running a bunch of card draw.

Most importantly, efficient tutors are wild cards that count towards every other effect you could possibly want in a game of Commander.

So if your color has enough efficient tutors that you can expect to draw one or more by the critical point in every game, then you only need to have access to a single copy of any given effect to ensure that you’ll be able to find that one effect every game.

For example, there is one spell in Black that kills artifacts (not really counting Gate to Phyrexia):

It’s incredibly inefficient, but it exists. If monoblack was in the same boat as monored, then there’s no way this could help you answer artifacts in most games. But monoblack has access to a million tutors; just counting the ones that cost four or less, we have:

Demonic Tutor

Vampiric Tutor

Cruel Tutor

Beseech the Queen

Imperial Seal

Grim Tutor

Diabolic Intent

Doomsday

Diabolic Tutor

Insidious Dreams

Mastermind’s Acquisition

Adding those 11 cards to Phyrexian Tribute, we get an 88% chance to find artifact destruction in monoblack by turn 8. Sounds good enough to me!

There only needs to be one color pie mistake in Black for the effect to show up in every game, and I’d argue that it’s the same for Green.

Green is not supposed to be the color of creature control, and by the numbers, that appears to be the case. In terms of unconditional instant-speed Green spot removal that hits creatures, it’s basically just Beast Within. In terms of mass removal, you’re limited to Ezuri’s Predation and the newly printed Apex Altisaur.

Green may only have one Apex Altisaur, but it has a hell of a lot of ways to find it:

Green Sun’s Zenith

Worldly Tutor

Sylvan Tutor

Chord of Calling

Fierce Empath

Fauna Shaman

Tooth and Nail

Survival of the Fittest

Natural Order

Finale of Devastation

Summoner’s Pact

None of the above are bad cards in Commander; most of them are format staples and you’re not hurting your deck by running any of them. They also make it so that you are practically guaranteed to find any one-of effect that makes it to print, provided that card is a creature.

Also, while other colors have to run 13 ways to kill artifacts, 13 ways to kill enchantments, 13 ways to kill creatures, and 13 win conditions if they want to have access to those effects by turn 8, Green can get most of the way there by running 11 efficient tutors, 1 Bane of Progress, 1 Apex Altisaur, and 1 Craterhoof Behemoth.

Not only does Green get to stretch its few extremely efficient answers very far because it has so many tutors, but it also gets to make much more efficient use of its limited deck slots. Those 14 cards that cover you perfectly across 4 categories of useful effects would take up 52 card slots if there were no overlap among the cards and no wildcard tutors in your color identity.

With all that in mind, let’s take a look at how many efficient effects we have in each color:

Ways to Increase Your Resources

Cards

White: Mentor of the Meek (if running tokens/weenies)

Blue: Too many to count

Black: Too many to count

Red: Wheel of Fortune, Reforge the Soul

Green: Shamanic Revelation, Collective Unconscious, Regal Force (if going wide), Hunter’s Insight, Hunter’s Prowess, Soul’s Majesty, Rishkar’s Expertise, Garruk, Primal Hunter, Return of the Wildspeaker (if going tall)

Mana (permanent)

White: Knight of the White Orchid, Smothering Tithe

Blue: Trinket Mage, Fabricate, Whir of Invention (for Sol Ring/Mana Crypt)

Black: Cabal Coffers, Crypt Ghast

Red: Neheb, the Eternal

Green: Too many to count

Tutors

White: Enlightened Tutor, Idyllic Tutor, Recruiter of the Guard

Blue: Mystical Tutor, Merchant Scroll, Personal Tutor

Black: Too many to count

Red: Gamble, Imperial Recruiter

Green: Too many (creature-based tutors) to count

Answers to Opponents’ Threats

Spot Removal

Instants and sorceries (counterspells)

White: None

Blue: Too many to count

Black: None

Red: None

Green: None

Creature

White: Swords to Plowshares, Path to Exile, Generous Gift

Blue: Pongify, Rapid Hybridization, Reality Shift

Black: Too many to count

Red: Chaos Warp, Redcap Melee

Green: Beast Within

Artifact

White: Disenchant, Generous Gift, Aura of Silence, Seal of Cleansing

Blue: None

Black: None

Red: Abrade, Chaos Warp, Goblin Cratermaker

Green: Too many to count

Enchantment

White: Disenchant, Generous Gift, Aura of Silence, Seal of Cleansing

Blue: None

Black: None

Red: Chaos Warp

Green: Too many to count

Mass Removal

Creature

White: Too many to count

Blue: Cyclonic Rift, Evacuation

Black: Damnation, Toxic Deluge, Crux of Fate, Hellfire, Nightmare Unmaking, Extinguish All Hope, Life’s Finale, Black Sun’s Zenith

Red: Blasphemous Act, Rolling Earthquake, Chain Reaction, Earthquake, Subterranean Tremors, Fault Line, Starstorm

Green: Apex Altisaur, Ezuri’s Predation

Artifact

White: Austere Command, Cleansing Nova, Purify, Consulate Crackdown, Hour of Revelation (kinda), Planar Cleansing (kinda), Akroma’s Vengeance (kinda)

Blue: Cyclonic Rift

Black: None

Red: Shattering Spree, By Force, Meltdown, Fiery Confluence, Subterranean Tremors, Shatterstorm, Vandalblast

Green: Bane of Progress, Wave of Vitriol, Creeping Corrosion, Seeds of Innocence

Land

White: Armageddon, Ravages of War, Cataclysm, Hokori, Catastrophe

Blue: Sunder, Rising Waters, Back to Basics

Black: Infernal Darkness, Death Cloud, Contamination

Red: Ruination, Blood Moon, Magus of the Moon, Bust, Thoughts of Ruin, Epicenter, Keldon Firebombers (kinda)

Green: None

Win Conditions/Cards that Kill People

White: None

Blue: Expropriate

Black: Exsanguinate

Red: Insurrection

Green: Craterhoof Behemoth

Here’s what that count looks like without the tutor wild card effect. Some things to note:

I’ve capped each category at 10 unique effects because of diminishing returns; 20 board wipes are not twice as good as 10 and for most effects there is a maximum beyond which drawing more is not particularly useful.

I’m including counterspells as spot removal for creatures, artifacts, and enchantments, although obviously there’s a temporal component to their ability to answer threats.

Green card draw is variable depending on whether your deck is going wide, going tall, both, or neither.

What does this tell us about the power level of the various colors?

If you discount the effect of tutors, Blue seems to be in the lead, since its large suite of counterspells give it efficient answers to every spell type. Green comes in second, Black third, and White and Red are 4th and 5th, respectively.

If you include each color’s tutors as wildcards for effects for which they have at least one good card, the numbers look like this (highlight on big swings):

Once you count tutors as additional copies of the effects they can search out, the landscape shifts. Green and Black get a huge boost from their tutors, to the point where the gap between them and Blue almost completely closes. In fact, Green may surpass Blue in a deck that can run all of Green’s somewhat-conditional card draw effects. Meanwhile, White and Red, the colors least able to tutor, barely shift at all from their standing when tutors are factored out.

Discussion

What does this tell us about how the disparities between the colors could be evened out?

It tells us that tutors are the real problem. To get white on a comparable level to green, Wizards would need to print 10 win conditions, 4 spot removal spells that hit artifacts or enchantments, and 5 mass removal spells that hit artifacts or enchantments; that’s 19 cards that all have to be efficient enough to see play in Commander. Alternatively, Wizards could print a bunch of enchantment tutors and then the few high-powered enchantments in those categories can provide all that the color needs, in the same way that Green’s creature tutors cover for relatively few mass artifact/enchantment removal effects and win conditions.

However, I want to note that Wizards is pretty down on printing new tutors at the moment. We talked to Gavin Verhey at MagicFest Vegas and he said that Wizards doesn’t think that tutors make games of Commander more fun, so it looks like Green and Black’s duopoly on tutors is unlikely to be challenged anytime soon.

How much does the raw power of individual, high-profile commanders skew this argument?

In both measures of color power level (with tutor wild card effect and without), Red was dead last. However, in recent years, the community’s narrative has been that Red has surpassed White in power level. I’d argue that these facts are not inconsistent, because the power rankings above do not take into account the power level of commanders. If you look at the monored commanders on EDHREC, 8 of the top 10 were printed in the last 7 years. In contrast, that’s true of only 6 of the top 10 monowhite commanders. I think this is an indicator that Wizards has printed better (or at the very least, more interesting) monored commanders than monowhite commanders in the last 7 years.

Another interesting point that supports the idea that monored has gotten more good commanders than white lately is that people don’t like running red cards, yet monored commanders are more popular than monowhite commanders. If you tally up the numbers of copies of the top 100 white cards being run in Commander, you get 859,692 cards-- over 250,000 more than Red’s top 100, which total to 610,187 cards. However, if you total the number of decks for all monowhite commanders, you get 7,850, thousands less than the monored commanders, which total to 11,716.

So the actual numbers of cards being run in the maindeck favors the idea that white is better than red, but people’s perceptions are skewed by some real sick legends in monored.

Counts of Monocolor Decks

White: 7,850

Blue: 11,061

Black: 11,241

Red: 11,716

Green: 11,235

Counts of Top 100 Cards

White: 859,692 cards

Blue: 1,175,579 cards

Black: 991,569 cards

Red: 610,187 cards

Green: 1,327,266 cards

Does this argument implicitly over-emphasize control with a combo finish?

I think the constraints of the format makes it so that control decks with a combo finish are more likely to win, and this argument just builds off of that premise. If the starting life total was lowered, the definition of what constitutes a good card would change and maybe more aggressive cards would become more generally useful.

How does the cost of cards impact color balance?

The fewer redundant effects there are, the more high prices handicap colors. There are a lot of replacements for cards like Imperial Seal and Grim Tutor, so Black doesn’t feel the pain of their outrageous price too much. In contrast, there is only one Craterhoof and only one Expropriate and the number of copies printed of those mythic rare cards has not kept pace with demand. This is a significant handicap on Green, since it can’t effectively make use of its tutor suite if you can’t afford the one copy of Hoof to tutor for.

Assuming the assumptions we’ve made about color balance are correct, how can White and Red shore up their apparent weakness, especially if Wizards is not keen on printing more tutors?

Well, Wizards can put a band-aid over White’s weaknesses by printing good commanders, in the same way that they’ve hidden Red’s fundamental flaws by giving it some busted commanders.

Printing redundant copies of effects White can already do will definitely help the color out; Generous Gift is a good start on this path.

However, these ideas won’t fundamentally solve the color’s problems. Not being able to increase its cards, increase its mana, increase the quality of its resources, or end the game are massive drawbacks, and without addressing at least some of these problems, White is always going to be fighting a losing battle.

When we did our episode on 8-mana game enders, we suggested that maybe White could get effects that draw the game, a la Divine Intervention, as a way to end the game that felt flavorful for White. The problem with that sort of effect is that it might feel a bit anticlimactic; at least with Craterhoof and Insurrection, there’s a visceral, Timmy-pleasing moment of attacking for a billion, and even Exsanguinate lets you cackle to yourself while you calculate exactly how much life you just gained. An 8-mana sorcery that says the game is a draw is not exactly an epic conclusion to an hour-long game.

A more appealing alternative might be to give White more overrun effects. As the color that gets the most creatures, it’s a little strange that White’s mass pump appears to cap out at +2/+2, while Green’s skyrockets off the graph.

From Maro’s Mechanical color pie article:

+N/+N to your team

Primary: white

Secondary: green

White is the color most likely to pump its team, most often with +1/+1, but it will occasionally go up to +2/+2. Green's team pump starts at +3/+3 and often also adds trample.

This seems like a pretty arbitrary rule and making this change would be pretty easy. Getting access to Craterhoof levels of mass pump will give White a way to turn all its value weenies, hate bears, and 1/1 tokens into a lethal fighting force.

As for Red, I would like to see more rituals (Dockside Extortionist was a great start!) to better enable its combo potential and help it sneak in wins before it runs out of resources. I think Red can get away with not having great answers or great ways to win a war of attrition if Wizards helps it become more explosive.

Wrapping Up

I know there’s a lot that’s debatable about what cards qualify as “good enough” to count towards a critical mass of effects but I’d love your input to strengthen the ideas here. Thanks for reading!

#commander #mtg #edh #magic the gathering

35 notes · View notes

nerdygaymormon · 5 years

Text

Dad’s dream & my response

From DAD:

I have not put my arms around for way too long and tell you how much I love you and how much you mean to me.

Many years ago God who was showing to me how he would feel if I did not make it back to live with Him. This is how he did it. I had a dream and it was you and me. We were arguing about church doctrine. Not sure what except we drove up to the temple and we got out and you wanted me to deny what I knew to be true. We both had all our possession in backpacks. I dropped mine trying to reach you. You would not listen and you turned and urinated on the pillar of the temple. Then you turned and gave me one last chance to deny that which I knew was true and I could not. You started to walk off. The temple we had driven right up to the door and it was on the edge of a parking lot of a big spacious mall with the parking lot filled with thousands of people. I went to grab my pack back because it had all my earthly possession and it was covered in ants. I looked at it and you leaving and called after you and dropped my backpack because it did not matter. I turned to go after you and I was on an elevated sidewalk and you were walking into the crowds. I kept calling and trying to see you and you did not seem to know I was even there. And I knew with assurity that if I lost sight of you I would never see you again. Then you were lost from sight and the emptiness, sorry and despair was so great, there are no works that can adequately express those felling. There was a despair that had no end. Then I woke up. Thought boy that was a weird dream.

After a while I went back to sleep and the interpretation was given to me. That God has given me the truth and I was rejecting it and he could not, would not revoke my free agency. He wanted me to realize that all my worldly possession mean nothing eternally and for me to experience how He would feel if I did not return to live with Him. That was the interpretation.

That was dramatic and left me with a vision but without words to explain. That feeling was given to me when I thought I was never going to see you again. I realized how precious you were to me. You David was that son on mine. You never feel you are not important or a burden or a embarrassment. No you are a son of God. Humble and serving Him who will judge us all. In reality you are probably in equal or better standing than I who has had so much given to me. I love you and sent you an email a couple of weeks ago because I had dreams about you two night in a row that you were being placed in jeopardy by the world and I saw it but did not know what to do or say. That’s why I sent you an email. Today when Elder Anderson was describing you (actually a different person who is like like you ) and how he served, honored and kept the commitment to His temple covenants. So I ask you what can I do to help you know of your value ? Is there anything you want to talk about ? Love You as do all your family, especially your nieces and nephews Your Dad

————————————————————- ME (this also addresses some things from the previous emails):

Well, Dad, I've been on a very long journey. There's a whole side of my life you know almost nothing about.

I've tried hard to make being in the church work, and that has meant suppressing an important part of what makes a whole person. That comes at a very heavy cost. Part of making it work is some spiritual independence, I have serious differences with the church on LGBT topics, yet I'm here. Being in a church with a heavily homophobic theology comes with a lot of consequences.

A bit over 2 years ago I started a descent into darkness. I actually wrote out a eulogy. After a 2nd suicidal episode, I knew I had to get help and I began therapy. I was diagnosed at high risk of suicide. I had to go weekly to therapy and have a safety plan I kept on me at all times. Over the months, the psychologist helped me with several things to help improve my mental health. I was in therapy for 10 months, felt so much better and learned a lot.

The past 6 months, though, I've been taking steps backwards, and that shows in my weight and my demeanor. Also work is rough because we're very shorthanded as some people have left and not been replaced and we're having yet another reorg (the 3rd one in 5 years since I started my current position). I'm not able to keep up and my work is suffering, it's stressful.

Just before your last email, I decided it's time to get control again of my life. I'm trying to lose weight, I need to apply for a different position, I need to start doing some exercising, I need to enforce some of the boundaries I drew regarding church, and I need to engage in more social activities.

The stake president knows most of what I just shared, and more. We've had a number of deep talks, in fact, he was part of my safety plan. He tells me it's okay to have disagreements with the brethren and still be a good member, to have some doubts and have a testimony.

I'm putting a link to a video that I hope will help you feel better about having a gay child. It shares a lot of research that's been done in an easy to understand way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Khn_z9FPmU&t=26s My path forward is unclear, and I've worried a lot about how you & mom would react to different paths I could take. And it probably doesn't make sense to you that the church is something that is so valuable to you but is something which can be so negative for me.

For gay people, being active in the church increases rates of suicide ideation, increases rates of depression, increases internalized homophobia. It also results in lower self esteem and lower quality of life. A study last year found 70% of LDS gay people have the symptoms of PTSD (trauma). There's a lot of good things about our church and much that I cherish, but for LGBT people, it also causes damage and is a key reason most step away. The gospel should be good news, not harmful.

I believe that a God who is the author of diversity would have accounted for it in his plan. I believe I am included in God's plan, just not in the church's version of God's plan. I told that to Elder Costa last year as we had lunch together (right after he told me that he has the same birthday as you). He said that it's true gays are not in the church's understanding of the plan, "yet here you are." I believe there is more to be revealed. In some ways, my salvation is between me and God without the church getting in the middle.

I'm sure you and I interpret your dream differently. You're probably thinking all of this proves I'm ready to urinate on the temple and destroy everything you hold of value. Meanwhile I'm not asking you to betray the church, I'm just asking to not sacrifice me. Wouldn't a dead son would be worse than one who is completely orthodox in his beliefs? We see things differently, but I love you. Thanks for your concern, David

#David gets personal #this blog is where I record my experience of being mormon + gay #may delete later #please don't reblog

26 notes · View notes

rwbyconversations · 5 years

Text

A retrospective on the first half of Volume 6

I’ve made no secret of the fact that I hated RWBY’s fifth volume. I felt it was a slog that started on the right foot but as time went on more and more cracks started to appear until the Battle of Haven episodes which were... unpleasant. I made my thoughts on them very clear over the summer. I will also note that I was very cynical regarding Volume 6 during the period between the V5 finale launching and RTX Austin, where we got Adam’s character short. Even with the short being good I remained only tentatively interested in Volume 6, since Volume 5 had good shorts too and look where that got the season proper. Volume 5 was a failure on many levels for RWBY, and while I’ve found things to enjoy about it, it’s ultimately my least favorite volume in the show. Coming off Volume 5, I felt concern that RWBY had peaked in Volume 3, and everything from there on in would just be a painful slide downwards in quality.

Thankfully, I’ve never been happier to be wrong.

ALL HAIL THE BRINGER OF END TIMES AS SHE BESTOWS THE FLAMING MERCY OF DEATH WITH A SMILE ON HER FACE

RWBY Volume 6 Chapter 7 is now out for First members, and as such, we’re now at the halfway mark of the volume. I have to say, going in with lowered expectations even in light of the Adam short, I have utterly adored this entire volume thus far, in fact it’s probably my favorite set of episodes in the entire show to date, and I’ve had very little to criticize in each episode beyond just “Give me more Mercury and Emerald.”

As such, this week at the perfect halfway mark of the volume, and to celebrate my third hundred post, I’m doing a retrospective of each episode of Volume 6 and see how the chapters do their best to avoid the slights that dragged down Volume 5. As well, I’ll be consulting comments made by Miles and Kerry pre-release of Volume 6, specifically concerning what they wanted to focus on this year. In particular, I’ll be cross-referencing Miles’ three points that the crew wanted to improve on for Volume 6. I’ll also look at most of the episodes and see how they handle elements that were previously condemned in Volume 5 (which also means some potshots at Volume 5 if that’s a thing you need to know). This gets long, forward warning, hope you enjoy.

0.5) Adam’s short

Adam’s short might have been thinly veiled damage control made with the intent of re-building Adam’s fear factor after the disaster that was his outing at Haven, but the short proved to be good damage control nonetheless. From an acting perspective, Garrett continues to grow his vocal talents and for fans of the gone-too-soon Sienna Khan, the short gave her some posthumous feats and showed her in the field. Really, none of my criticisms about the short were significant enough to lower my enjoyment- barring CRWBY’s continued love of the weapon spinning circle, both Adam’s solo fight and the fight that makes up the back half of the short were both enjoyable bouts. Adam’s short was the only short we got this year, but it proved to be an entertaining short that provided some fun battles and a killer song by Jeff- Lionized is already one of my favorite vocal songs in the show, I must have watched the first battle in the short like fifty times now just so I can hear the first verse.

You’ll see, I’m their hero, I’ll be Lionized!

All in all, a very solid short and a great way to win back some fans after Haven before the season started off.

1) Argus Limited, the beginning of the redemption arc.

Despite Adam’s short, my expectations were low for Volume 6, almost deliberately so. Volume 5 had burned me hard, and I wanted to avoid getting burned by my own hype. But you know what? Argus Limited might be the best premiere in the entire show. It’s damn near flawless in everything it sets out to do.

In the AMA, Miles set out three things that the CRWBY needed to improve on for Volume 6- more fights that better utilize abilities and weapons, giving Ruby more agency in the plot, and fixing the “tell don’t show” problem that plagued Volumes 4 and 5, especially whenever RNJR were stuck listening to exposition monologues. And for the most part, Argus Limited does take steps towards all three of these problems. RWBY get a great fight which sees Ruby and Weiss especially using a lot of their skill-set that had been left to the curb in Volume 5, which is my nice way of pointing out that Ruby never used her Semblance in Volume 5 and Weiss over-relied on her Summons, which was a huge point of contention among Weiss’s fans in the now-infamous “Weiss vs Vernal” debacle. Ruby’s also given a stronger sense of being a leader than she’s conveyed for much of the past few years, being quick to take command of the situation when Qrow and Dudley start getting into an argument and forcing the team to focus on the Grimm instead of Oz’s newest round of omitting the truth. While there is a fair bit of exposition in regards to the timeskip, we do get a lot of information shown to us- particularly the sendoffs of Sun and Ilia.

While I’m still bummed that Ilia didn’t join the team going to to Atlas since I feel her character would have greatly benefited that arc, alongside her interactions with Weiss, she still gets a touching sendoff. And my Sunny boi shines as he usually does when in the spotlight. Absence makes the heart go fonder and Christ I miss Sun already.

Argus Limited is unique in that barring Adam’s short scene at the beginning, it’s the only premiere entirely focused on the heroes. The even numbered volumes beforehand had started with Emerald and Mercury, with Volume 4 also formally introducing the rest of Team WTCH. Argus Limited focusing only on RWBY and JNR allows for each member of the team to contribute during the episode, and also allows for more time to be spent on JNR’s departure for the rest of the first half. Jaune and Ruby’s quick scene near the middle has a great dynamic to it.

And of course it goes without saying that the music is to die for. Be it the soft acoustic of Like Morning Follows Night as Sun bids Blake farewell, or the two new songs in Miracle and Rising, Jeff, Alex and Casey came out of the gate running musically. Argus Limited to conclude was a fantastic opening episode, so good that even notorious RWBY critic FatManFalling was impressed. And if that’s not a sign that even the most diehard of RWBY critics was impressed... I dunno what is.

2) Uncovered- the truth comes out

Uncovered is a setup episode for a lot of the remaining first half, but one that executes its set up well. We immediately open with confirmation that Cinder survived the Battle of Haven, which is as much the crew going “Look you know we didn’t kill her, she’s on the damn poster,” as it is an acceptance that everyone capable of narrative comprehension understood that she wasn’t dead. Cinder gets a new outfit, meets a board game villain, and displays shreds of character development that I hope are carried up on. Meanwhile with RWBY we get one last scene in the Dreaded House where Ozpin flat out lies and Nora undoes the bad will of “They really ARE magic!” with some fantastically funny lines.

“Can we ask for more wishes? CAN WE ASK FOR MORE WISHES?!”

I also love the camera shot of Ruby promising they’ll protect the Relic before cutting to her digging it out of the snow. I’m easily impressed with camera trickery like that.

Uncovered addresses a significant criticism of V5, specifically how RNJR’s plot devolved into them just sitting around and receiving exposition from Ozcar and Qrow. While we get another such scene in the House where Ozcar explains the Relic and its powers, it’s much more lively- the kids weigh in more and are much more dynamic, particularly Nora. They’re not just sitting in chairs in a circle, they actively move around or are on the floor packing. It’s the same vector of information delivery, but it’s much less passively received.

Ozpin’s debate with RWBY is also similarly well-executed. The kids were soundly mocked last year for just blindly accepting Ozpin at face value barring the one instance of Yang bringing up the birds. Here, Yang and Weiss are openly confrontational of Ozpin, and while his argument of not telling the team about the Relic attracting Grimm has a logical reason behind it, the girls are tired of being spoon-fed information, especially after Oz bluntly promised no more lies or half-truths (Yang really should have included “omissions” in that list too in hindsight). It’s an argument where both sides have their reasons and both have good points that are presented, with everyone getting to weigh in (barring Maria, who is super chill during all these shenanigans).

What’s that again? Oh. Good writing. Sorry, wasn’t used to it being there after “OZPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN,” “Because you’re afraid of Salem!” and “This is bad.”

Regardless, Uncovered is a stellar setup episode that flows smoothly into...

3) The Lost Fable- OZPIN FUCKED

The longest episode barring the Volume 3 and 4 finales, Lost Fable is an episode I was cold on when I first watched it- after Volume 5, numerous times, spelled out that Ozpin was shady and not to be trusted, I was expected some deep skeletons in his closet- that he created the Grimm, that he caused Salem to become evil, something so horrifying that the Gods saw fit to curse him with eternal life.

I didn’t expect the secrets to be “Ozpin’s first life looked like an isekai protagonist, he died of herpes, got Thanos’d like six times, fucked Salem at least four times and fathered the spiritual predecessors to the Maidens, had a life where he looked like my Starbucks server and... isn’t actually the bad guy.”

That Ozpin wasn’t too evil- more his secrets are because of lifetimes of dying over and over, he just has severe trust issues to work through- was something that caught me off guard. That everything is the Gods of Light and Darkness’s fault rubbed me the wrong way at first, since it felt like revisionism, the show going “We can’t have Oz be too evil so let’s just put most of the blame on the Gods and Salem.” That said I do like how the God of Darkness is actually surprised and pleased when Salem came to him for help. It was a nice bit of character to the God that no one ever came to him for help, just punishment, so he basically gave Salem what she wanted on the spot just because of that. As he says to Light, “you may bask in the powers of creation but you do not own them.”

Granted, there is still one massive story flaw in the episode- the handling of the Faunus just showing up during Ozma’s vacation in purgatory and slavery having already been implemented. It just feels like an awkward last-minute addition and one I do not very much like. It’s pretty much the one thing I outright hate about the episode, the rest execution wise is spot on. Hats off to CRWBY for the technical side of this tale, and to Salem, Ozma and Jinn’s actors for carrying this as well as they did.

I’m still not sure where I sit exactly on Lost Fable- it’s no doubt a well executed episode and answers/raises a lot of questions about Remnant and its mythologies (like how the moon is shattered because Satan yeeted out too hard), and the animation is some of the best in the show, barring some slight irritation at the understandable reasons for not seeing Ozma vs Salem onscreen. It’s technically very proficient, my problems are just a few small preconceptions of my own holding me back.

This planet empty. YEEEET.

... also that plushy dog was the cutest fucking thing and if we learn Salem kept that toy after digging it out of the rubble I may actually cry.

I will buy this dog plush if you just make it RT, you are passing up my money for God’s sake!

Also just so we’re all clear, that holy war Ozma accidentally helped start was totally Remnant’s version of the Crusades, right?

Also also, no, the kids weren’t the first Maidens, they’re the spiritual successors. Let’s just get that clear while I’m on a soapbox.

4) So That’s How It Is- Best Kids Finally Show Up

Merc and Em were in this episode so I’m contractually obliged to love it. Good thing I really do love their scene. It was good to finally see what the villains at large were up to while RWBY processed the knowledge Jinn had bestowed... while Qrow bestowed his fist unto Oscar’s jaw. In all seriousness, it’s good to see that RWBY retain the dynamic nature in the short final argument with Ozcar. Volume 5′s nightmarish scenes of just sitting around and passively listening are a thing of the past.

Mercury as usual is relegated to short but sweet moments, namely “Back off, freak!” and his being the first to realize that Salem’s about to snap. Please RT, give him things to do, don’t waste Spider Man while you have him in the booth. Pacing wise I suppose this was really the earliest we could have gotten Em, Merc and WTH unless the first episode got a lot of additional padding, but it still hurts to see my favorite characters all of once in the entire first half of the season. Like I said, absence makes the heart go fonder, and I miss the kids.

Also props for making me give a shit about Hazel again. Turns out he’s not a bad dad when you ignore the whole... “OZPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN” thing.

Ruby also gets a few short but sweet moments- she’s initially calm at the beginning, allowing Ozpin to explain his plan. She only gets more visibly angry after Ozpin admits that he has no plan, but doesn’t lose her cool like Yang does. She’s also the only member of the team to separate Ozpin from Oscar at this stage, taking the time to reassure him before they leave the train wreckage. It shows again that the crew are striving to make Ruby feel like a leader, by having her take charge and be there for everyone under her wing.

Meanwhile Yang’s only interaction with Oscar is to demand he bring Ozpin back. ... When you think about it Oscar must have so many issues that he refuses to talk about Jesus Christ someone give this kid a therapist.

I wrote about how much I loved how Salem conducted herself in the short clip released for RWBY Rewind, and while ultimately her temper did snap rather explosively, I love that she visibly tries to contain her rage, something the animators put a lot of painstaking work into.

On the hero’s side, this is largely a cooldown episode and a conclusion to the “arc” surrounding Jinn in the first half while getting the team in place for the Brunswick episodes. For the villains it’s a chance to check in, and also see what they’ll be up for the year. The villain scene alone makes this a delight, with Watts being snarky and Tyrian continuing to be a walking :D in every scene he’s in.

... also who flew the airship that MEH took to Evernight? We never see the pilot.

5) The Coming Storm-

Let’s get the obvious praise out of the way, Neo vs Cinder? One of the best fights in the entire damn show, like damn they knocked it out of the park!

Fun fact, I got an ask the day before this dropped asking if I thought Neo would be in this episode and I said no. This is where you all laugh at me.

Neo vs Cinder is a sterling example of the fights becoming more creative and better utilizing abilities. Neo’s Semblance shattering looks great in Maya (shame it came at the cost of her hair) and the fight flows smoothly. I was worried that if Neo came back, her fighting style wouldn’t be well-represented without Monty able to bring his magic, but the crew have managed to create a fight on par with Neo vs Yang in sheer spectacle. I especially loved the segment on the bar top where Neo used bowls as weapons. And if it wasn’t great enough, One Thing grants an additional look under the mirrors into Neo’s inner turmoil over Roman’s death- Casey finally got her wish of voicing Neo, at least.

Also between this and Lionized, why do the villains get the best songs?

The Brunswick segment may not be as dynamic, and I’m sure some people groaned when they saw RWBY would be in another house, but at least this time they use more than one room. Weiss and Ruby get a nice scene near the end and there’s a great unspoken moment of Weiss getting why Ruby doesn’t want Qrow to find the beer stash- since remember, her mother’s been a drunk for at least seven years.

I appreciate the continuity touch in the garage scene that Yang saw Adam in his Beacon outfit when she hallucinated him, as she hasn’t seen his newer outfit. Regarding the garage scene, I can’t help but feel like it was misread by... a lot of people who were looking more for romantic validation than they were actual character reasoning. I’m not a fan of how Blake has acted around Yang this year, she’s been almost... condescending to her. Rushing for her bag in chapter 1 when Yang already had, the whole “I’ll protect you” line. Blake doesn’t see Yang as the strong person who stared a Maiden down and won, she sees... damaged goods. And that’s the last thing Yang wants or needs to hear. Yang didn’t crawl her way into recovery and ride off to another continent just so the girl who ditched her the first time without even waiting for Yang to regain consciousness could provide empty platitudes about not leaving and then assume that Yang needs protection in a manner that felt very patronizing to me. I particularly disliked how Blake reached over Yang’s real hand to grasp the cybernetic one, and how that got spun hard. Yes, the gesture was well meaning from Blake but all it takes is one look at Yang's reaction and that moment is just... not great at all for them. Yang is still hurting and shut off when she made that good intentioned but horribly misunderstanding gesture. Blake is trying to be there for Yang like Sun had been for her, but she can't help her because Yang isn't communicating what's wrong. That's not romantic. It's so awfully, bitterly sad. Yang is hurting and Blake can't undo the damage that she did when she left during the Fall of Beacon. It's not development, it's insight into the poor state of their relationship (regardless of how you view it, I just mean friendship here myself) after the events and the distance they suffered. Barbara herself has said that Volume 6 would see Blake and Yang’s relationship would never return to the way it was pre-Beacon after Volume 6, and this may have been what she was referring to.

The Coming Storm has a great fight, so it’s already a great episode in my book, but it adds a cherry on top in some quietly good character moments as well.

And of course, Burrito Weiss is Best Girl.

6) Alone In The Woods- Ruby’s Redemption Arc

Right before Volume 6 started, I wrote a whole post about why the fandom had grown cold on Ruby in Volume 5. At the time I noted that part of me wanted to wait until Volume 6 just in case things either improved or Ruby’s character failed to develop for another season, giving me more citations regarding her developmental stump since Volume 3.

But thankfully, Volume 6 has been very good for Ruby so far, and this episode is the peak of that. Ruby takes initiative, drives the team forward, and actually gets angry at a few points. Lindsay sells this so well and I’m so glad she finally toned down Ruby’s squeak in the more serious moments, because this episode would have otherwise died on its feet if Ruby still had the Squeak. In fact, if this positive trend of Ruby development continues into the back half of Volume 6, I’m planning on a post talking in more detail about Ruby and her development.

The Apathy were terrifying, and are easily my new favorite Grimm. Funnily enough, in another case of me writing a post before Volume 6 that was partly addressed, I asked why the Grimm failed to scare the audience, and one of my ideas was just that with the protagonists being so strong, no Grimm can really pose a threat. Well the Apathy prove that such a thing is possible. Fans have been suggesting that the Grimm employ more psychological or emotional based attacks over sheer physicality for some time now, and it seems that all this time, the answer has just been waiting for the right moment. Miles revealed on Reddit that the Apathy was his “favorite Grimm” that he’s been working on getting into the show for a few years, and later added on Twitter that he’s been sitting on the idea of the Apathy since the start of the show’s creation, well over six years ago. It’s proof to me that Miles can have some stunning ideas when his heart and soul is dedicated into a project, and regardless of what some people on Tumblr, Twitter and/or Youtube may think, Miles cares about this. Add in the unsettling atmosphere and the amazing work that went into everyone’s eyes and making them dull and disturbing, and you have a stellar attempt at horror by relative newcomers to the genre. The Apathy worked at being terrifying for a large portion of the vocal audience, creating a villain that solved a problem that the Grimm have had since Volume 2, while also letting Ruby finally step up and gain the agency she’s needed for several years.

While Maria being a SEW was something most everyone guessed, it was good to finally see Maria gain plot prominence, since some people had been complaining about Maria joining RWBY feeling somewhat arbitrary. Regardless, she’ll serve as an important vector into getting SEW lore, which is one of the only major significant mysteries left now that we know about Salem, the Gods and the Moon.

I haven’t mentioned it in the prior segments, but I’ll stop here to give the writers praise for finally giving Qrow an arc. While it is a bit odd to go from Volumes 3 through 5, where Qrow’s alcoholism is played for comedy (in fact it’s the punchline of the first episode) to Volume 6 playing it very seriously, I will still take any development for Qrow. He was the hardest hit by Ozpin’s secrecy, learning Raven was at least partly right in leaving Ozpin and as a consequence, learning that Summer likely died for nothing. He fell into depression, becoming an invalid wreck of a man. The Apathy had little to do to make Qrow a desolate waste, had he been left in that bar he’d probably have drunk himself to death while his nieces died just feet away from him. It takes seeing the Apathy to finally break him out of the stupor that hung around his neck like a noose, and I wouldn’t be shocked if we see Qrow hanging up the flask for good by the end of the volume.

Alone In The Woods is probably the best episode of the season so far. Somewhat sloppy running animations aside it’s a stupendous attempt at horror in an action show, and signals our protagonist finally becoming our lead.

7) The Grimm Reaper- Tick tock, tick tock

I’ll be honest, when I saw the Haven vault in the Rewind for this episode, I expected Cinder to open the episode by kicking Vernal’s corpse into the water out of jealousy. I’m not sure if I’m impressed or not at how brazen Cinder’s loophole abuse is, but I am impressed at how both Cinder and Neo are visibly hesitant at different points in the scene to trust the other- the show is clearly setting up Neo backstabbing Cinder.

Maria’s flashback was amazing. I didn’t expect a new fight scene so soon after Neo vs Cinder but Maria hasn’t got time to waste on my opinions. She was such a badass in her youth. I loved her weapons (I still think they’re a reference to Darksiders 2, fight me) and as someone who’s wanted to see Gravity Dust in action for years, my expectations were more than met. Continuing the promise in the AMA of unique fights, we get Maria using Gravity Dust to whirl around the battlefield like a hurricane of sharp death, her weapons combining into a scythe was a cool moment. I loved how ferocious the fight felt, like there was barely any stopping for posing and everyone was moving. They even avoided using the Weapon Spinning Circles for much of the fight, which is always a nice touch. The ending was viscerally brutal too. I think it’s safe to say Maria vs Tock might break my top 10 favorite fights of the entire show, easily top 5 Maya era fights at least.

Tock continues the show’s trend of one-off villains having really cool first outings and making me wish they’d stop dying so quickly. Regardless, Tock was a great one-off villain. She got a fantastic fight, had cool weapons, a unique design, and she wasn’t a reference to Tracer you idiots go read Peter Pan. Anyway, Maria’s flashback was really cool and I loved every second of it.

Ruby got another great moment when after Maria destroyed herself and Qrow in the most vicious self-burn in recorded history, she tried to lift Maria’s spirits by asking her to teach Ruby to use the eyes. Ruby was said in 4 and 5 to be inspiring without much to back it up, and we see that now. Her bonds have grown closer with everyone on the team over the first half- even with Blake. Let me repeat, Ruby and Blake have interacted onscreen. I never thought this day would come.

I didn’t expect the show to reach Argus by the halfway mark, in all honesty. The city looks breathtaking, I love the San Francisco vibe to it and how the entire trip to Saphron’s house is in 3D environments, unlike the Mistral scenes in V5E1. I have to admit, I did miss JNR a little. Nora was in peak comedy this episode, Ren was... back to being the exposition guy, nothing much changed there but Jaune was pretty decent. Miles remains a criminally underrated voice actor, if he doesn’t go pro in the event he leaves RT, the VA community is worse off.

The handling of Saphron and Terra’s marriage was masterful, and I love the two of them already. V6′s new characters have been very consistently good I must say. I love how despite the first half of the episode being very dark and having someone lose their eyes onscreen, the back half is very cutesy. This time last volume we had the dinner scene, and the sandwich scene blows it out of the water. I love how everyone who talks to Oscar is far softer than they were to Ozpin, it’s good to see that the gang know the difference, and it’s good for the team to unwind before the next few storms hit their shores. Ruby and Qrow in particular were peak adorable.

I guess the baby was cute too but... look at them wiggling! :D :D

The Grimm Reaper was a great mid-season checkpoint. Getting another new fight was a surprise to be sure, but it being easy “standout fight of the year” material made it a welcome one. Argus looks like a fantastic location and I would kill for a spinoff here, it seems like such an interesting city.

8) Conclusion

Volume 6 had a lot of problems facing it on the onset- Volumes 4 and 5, 5 especially, had received lukewarm to poor reviews from the fans, and the pressure was on to prove that RWBY was a show worth watching. And judging by the first half of the Volume, Volume 6 is on its way to becoming the best volume in the entire damn show. We haven’t had a string of episodes this consistently good since Volume 3′s back half, and if Chapter 8 retains the quality, it’ll have exceeded that half numerically. Almost every major grievance I had with Volume 5- the protagonists being too passive, the excessive exposition, weak fights, the lackluster threat of the Grimm and Ruby’s placid lack of solid character growth- have all been addressed with gusto, as I hope I’ve explained above. At the very least, it does seem that the crew are meeting the three goals posted in the AMA with gusto. Add in some genuinely hilarious lines, spine-tingling horror and suspenseful action that rivals and at times exceeds what Monty was doing, and Volume 6 part 1 is this show’s redemption arc. While the second half could and likely will take a dip in quality, nothing short of a Battle of Haven level disaster can taint this volume, and I feel comfortable at this halfway mark saying we may be witnessing the new best volume of RWBY... if they gave Emerald and Mercury more screentime. But otherwise! New best volume.

I think it’s telling that while I roughly knew what to expect around this time last year for Volume 5, I have no idea where Volume 6′s back half could take us and that excites me. I’m being led along for the ride and loving every damn minute of it. Keep it up CRWBY, let’s make Volume 5 a distant memory in the rear-view mirror as the show and fans go onwards to greener pastures.

Or to put it in a more comedic way:

Thank you for reading. If you enjoyed the piece, please share it around, Tumblr’s current state means that I can never be sure what works and what doesn’t so outside sharing goes miles.

92 notes · View notes

derekscorner · 5 years

Note

Between KH2 and KH3, which game did you like more, both story and gameplay-wise?

Ah is this that KH2 vs 3 debate I hear is ongoing? Well if you’re in for a sit I can answer that.

Gameplay:

From this angle I quite bluntly find KH2 Final Mix more fun. I’m not going to argue what was arguably better or worse, gameplay preference is a matter of…well preference no matter how many wish to deny this fact.

Not that you do but I”m sure some lover or hater of one will see this and try to retort. o3ob

Anyway; I felt Kh2 final mix was more technical and “harder” if I had to describe the feeling. Like 3 KH2 is normally overly easy but when put on critical mode it’s technicalities shine.I had to learn tactics, I couldn’t spam X or △, and I learned uses for summons. Which I found ironic since the 2 summons are far more useful when you dont initiate their moves.

Like if I let Stitch wander the screen he’ll deflect projectiles and keep my MP full. Chicken Little is a great early Magnet substitute and Peter Pan+Tinker Bell gives you a Phoenix Down.This was an improvement to KH1 in which only Tinker Bell was a spell with decent combat use. 1′s other summons had more supplemental uses imo.

KH3′s summons were nearly win buttons I felt. Simba in particular, while damn spectacle, felt broken. I never bothered to learn them as I didn’t need them. Which I’m sure they have their own uses but I’m not really fond of many control schemes for them so I opt out of it.

In terms of the magic system I felt 2 and 3 were opposites. In KH3 magic is far too powerful, something many have noted. And while you dont ‘have’ to use it that’s not an excuse for a problem. You should choose not to use it not force yourself to ignore it for challenge.

KH2 on the opposite spectrum made magic nearly useless I felt. Many enemies didn’t stun nor have elemental damage. Fire’s AOE animation was good for early Critical game and Blizzard helps that first Hollow Bastion visit but many enemies shrug the base spells off later.In contrast, KH2′s Magnet and Thunder spells can be OP. Reflect in of itself is practically the only spell you’d ever need to use due to it’s nature.

So while many have long rants on either’s magic system I dont really think one trumps the other. each one is equally flawed with issues I dont see ever being addressed.

In terms of keyblade combat I preferred KH2′s because I felt like Sora was automated in 3. I spam X cause I’m a scrub at timing presses (DMC5 is helping me overcome that) and due to this I noticed real quick that Sora’s combos just felt really automated.

Like I’d press X for one hit and get three. In contrast, KH2′s combat is harder. Sora animates combos as fast as my lazy ass can spam X and I’m not floating around like a final fantasy god.

I’m not really sure how to put this feeling into words but I do feel Kh2 keyblades are funner or snappier to combo whereas in KH3 I’m playing a watered down FFXV with it’s hold/press X for combo string.

Both games are so similar outside this issue that I dont see no reason to list likes or dislikes. If anything, from here, KH3 had great quality of life changes. The menu system was easier on the eyes and I’d be a damned soul if I didn’t admit I like switching keyblades mid-combat.

I also really appreciate KH3 finally using Re:Coded’s keyblade ideas. It’s been there since that DS game yet no one every expanded on making keyblades unique since. It was a very foolish step backward to me.

I love that keyblades level up, I love that each one has a preference and the only way that could’ve been better is if they adapted Coded’s system entirely and gave each keyblade (or most) it’s own unique combo.

KH2 quite frankly just falls short in a hindsight perspective since keyblades were “stat sticks” and you only ever chose weaker ones for an ability. Which, back then, was a huge step up from KH1.

So KH3 wins in this area I also dont really hate on Kh2 for it since KH2 is a product of the era. This idea of keyblades growing with you didn’t happen till Re:Coded.

As for Shotlocks…I dont like them. I hated them in BBS and I hate them here. It’s not even a comparison to KH2 type of opinion. I hate Shotlocks, I never use shotlocks so I’m going to skip those.

I mean sure, KH2 had limits but the only limits I use are Knocksmash so I can’t exactly praise KH2′s half of that either.

And when it comes to Forms vs Transformations I think both have pros and cons the other lacks. For example, some Transformations are really cool, I love the hammer weapons or the dual pistols.

I also believe the staff transformation is what KH2′s wisdom form should’ve been in terms of how it does magic or basic attacks.

That said, I also really dislike many second forms keyblades have. I never evolve the pistols into the bazooka, I never turn the hammer into the drill, I have those second forms. It’s to the extent I prefer keyblades that have one form such as the staff.

I’m also not fond of the Kingdom Key’s 2nd form change. It’s a neat throwback and I love the outfit recolor but I dont find it fun to use.

Between the two games my favorite forms are Valor Form, Anti-Form, and the Staff Transformation. Odds are I wont use anything else unless I feel particularly bored.

I might use others more often if KH3 forced me to rely on them for tactics but as of right now it does not. This may change with 3 gets it’s Critical Mode DLC. Similar to how KH2FM forced me to rely on forms I hate like Wisdom or Final.

As a concept I will admit that I dislike transformations. I dont like the idea of keyblades becoming magical swiss army knives. KH3 pulled the idea off better than I expected but I dont like it all the same.

The only, and I mean only, thing I felt KH2 did better was tie forms to a meter. In KH3 the commands appear randomly (and often) and I dont gain consequences for using them.

In KH2 this was tied to your Drive Gauge. You had to plan what you used and this is an issue I felt KH3 had as a whole. Rather than shotlocks, I’d have preferred that Focus Gauge to be reserved for my summons and forms so that I could have better control of what I picked and to reduce how broken they are in-game.

The rest is miscellaneous opinions so I’ll rapid fire:

Gummi Ships: always hated them, BBS did Gummi Ships best. Point goes to KH3 here since I can at least skip most of it.

Minigames: I’ve never found a KH minigame fun. No one wins here

Worlds: KH3 wins this aspect too. World towns have actual people in them and when it uses original plots the worlds are quite good. I also appreciate the power to explore and soft platform again. It gives me a more immersive feeling than later titles ever have. (although I feel KH1 was still better than both here)(entirely because of how many small details/cameos/secrets a KH1 world had compared to sequels)

I dont really have a more technical opinion than that. I do however think Arendelle was a horrendous world and I hate to even be there. For a myriad of reasons….reasons that would be a rant post of it’s own.

Lil Chef: I never use the food. I dont care if it’s a good spot for ingredients. If I want to cook stuff I’ll do some irl or play FFXV.

Enemies: KH3 used nobodies more than KH2 did and I find that a damn crying shame. I also felt Unversed were underutilized. KH2 still takes the point here due to the combat points I mentioned above.

KH3 fodder is prettier and can be more elaborate but KH2 is funner to play and destroy them in so KH2.

The Disney Rides: I don’t use them, they break the game. I do like the choo choo though since it’s situational to specific battles. KH2 has nothing akin to these so there’s no comparison, I just wish the rides could be disabled or that they worked more like the train. (set to key fights)

KH2 vs KH3 Commands: Eh both aren’t that good. KH3 spams you commands to shift through and KH2 has so many for spectacles sake that the games get easy. There is no winner here, if anything KH2 should’ve restricted these like KH3 restricts the Train ride summon.

Final Fantasy: I dont like FF games but I consider the ones of Kh1 part of the main cast. Their alternate KH selves are important to me. The lack and fading of FF over the years is quite honestly something I dislike and 3′s total lack of them is inexcusable to me. KH2 takes this point since I got to at least meet Leon and crew again.

Then there’s the story.

Anyone that’s followed the blog or met me knows I strongly dislike the direction of KH’s story. It’s not a matter of things others debate, I do not like it. I hate it and I’m still teetering on quitting.

I wont even go into the points cause I’ve made a whole series of posts about my story gripes. I wont link them since this isn’t a shameless plug, I just want to iterate that my issues with the story has driven me to make 20+ tangents plus the older more angry rants.

Others liking it is fine I think, I get easily annoyed if someone tries to excuse something out of nostalgia or adoration, but generally anyone that likes it while admitting faults or agreeing to disagree is fine. (you do you folks)

If I had to rank them I feel KH2 is where a lot of issues started and I feel a lot of issues got worse after since the sequels tried to “fix” that mess. If left alone KH2 would’ve been a poorly written entry and a good stopping point for any disillusioned fan.

KH3 as a contrast tied up everything after 2 up til 3 itself. I do not consider the story good, the pacing is very jarring because it lacks a mid point, it’s weighed down by all the BS prior to it.

I do not feel attachment for the “trios” of the series, I find the repetition of them annoying. I find it a shame most have more dev time than the originals they’re cloned based on.

And I frankly dislike Xehanort as a villain. He’s not interesting, his motives seem to switch with several report entries and I dont eve get the satisfaction of ending him like I did Xemnas or Ansem.

I was entirely indifferent to the entirety of this game’s narrative as I played it. Something that worried my friend @blackosprey because I was so tired I could not even care enough to hate it.

I did fine the trios reunions well done. I dislike them for a list of reasons but they were coming back anyway, their fates sucked prior, so those were well done. I finally felt hype when the LW appeared (only to vanish, fuck you nomura) and in the final battle.

The ending was confusing to me. So many got a happy ending so I fail to see the logic of Sora vanishing. The Luxu reveal, which I found fucking hilarious, was the only sequel bait needed.To have Sora just up and die felt like a stupid decision and I’m sure many more found it insulting.

And when mentioning Luxu I dont mean it in a sarcastic fashion. I genuinely find him funnier in retrospect due to this retroactive change. Nearly every line or scene he’s said is now funny as hell because he’s this ancient troll. I consider it the first legitimately earned twist Nomura has made in ages.

Still, KH2′s writing and story isn’t great either. I could rant why, I have ranted why, but despite it’s flaws it was an “ending” to me.So if asked 2 or 3 I will pick 2. The writing in Kh2 is bad for lots of reasons but if I ignore the Ansem reports it’s no a story about Xehanort.

Ignoring one KH2 report let’s me live this simpler story of Sora and a scientist gone mad and the journey to stop him. It had a lot of stupid things or one of the worst “twists for twists sake” moments ever in the ‘two ansems’ reveal.

But still, I can play Kh2 and be in a KHverse where Xehanorts, Keyblade Wars, Ceremonies, timelines, sleeping worlds, data world abuse, and clones upon clones dont exist.

It’s not nostalgia so much as everything I came to dislike was post KH2. KH3 was all about these things I dont like. My favorite for key and nostalgic reasons is KH1, my pick of the question is Kh2.

KH3′s best assets that can’t be contested was it’s graphical evolution. I played KH3 three times back to back due to this, I came away from KH3 wishing KH1 or 2 looked like this. No game prior contests the look.

So all in all, as I reread this, it’s largely a mixed bag. Neither game is grand but I prefer KH2 because combat is more fun to me and it’s not tied down by a narrative and mythology I’ve come to hate.

I can play KH1, CoM, and KH2 and never be annoyed about something I loved going in a direction I hated.

#kingdom hearts #kh3

10 notes · View notes

bluewatsons · 5 years

Text

Leigh E. Rich & Michael A. Ashby, From Personal Misfortune to Public Liability: The Ethics, Limits, and Politics of Public Health Saving Ourselves from Ourselves, 10 J Bioethical Inquiry 1 (2013)

The tension between a notion of the “common good” and individual liberty is one that political theory knows well. Indeed much of human political history is written around this central theme. In health matters, for example, we are now quite used to state regulation of products and practices that harm life or limb. The state, having a responsibility for the welfare of its citizens, has an accepted role—a duty, even—to mitigate exposure to harm, a sort of presumption in favor or even a casus belli in wars against public danger. The force majeure that justifies these regulations, including those associated with behavior and consumption, is the preservation of life itself and as such has found increasing support since the late 20th century in both the political process and the court of public opinion. Laws promoting smoking cessation and the use of seat belts or prohibiting drinking and driving and drug and alcohol abuse are all grounded in both common sense and scientific justifications that are hard to argue against. But as public health regulations have come into their own—turning from tobacco and alcohol to what we eat and how much—it is a reasonable necessity to ask where the limits of such state intervention and regulation might lie, lest excessive control infringe upon or even remove personal agency, risking both transgressions against autonomy and a Prohibition type of backlash that could undermine the public health impacts of well-intentioned policy. In other words, at what point should the state stop saving ourselves from ourselves? And what role does personal responsibility play—though we also must ask how much can be expected when structures in a capital-driven society purposefully seek to weaken self-efficacy (individuals’ confidence in their ability to enact and carry out healthful decisions) or obstruct agency (individuals’ actual capacity)? In societies where external loci of control are avidly sought when things go wrong, to what extent is it possible to experience personal misfortune without public liability? When is it “my responsibility” and when is it up to the government to restrict “my choices” as I cannot myself?

Part of the problem—and one that receives scant attention in consideration of public health—is that there is a side of human nature that is dark and destructive. Whilst there may be those who disagree with psychodynamic theory as a basis for understanding human behavior in 2013, Freudians are well used to the idea that human beings are driven by positive life forces (eros) and those of self-destruction (thanatos). Indeed what proportion of a day’s work in an average hospital is the result of human self-destructive behavior in action: smoking, drug and alcohol use, accidents and injuries, suicide, and violence? Given that human beings do not behave in logical straight lines all of the time and that our personal lives are deeply complex, ambiguous, and emotional spaces, how should public health conduct itself and what limits should it set itself or have imposed upon it? For instance, smoking cessation programs long ago recognized the need to work at a very individual and interpersonal level (such as assisting people to identify their own “stage” of behavior change as well as triggers and coping mechanisms within their particular lives, with expert or lay helpers providing in-person, phone, or other support), and good obesity treatment programs do the same. In general, however, there is more stick than carrot—perhaps because the burden of change in societies that make great profits peddling self-destructive pleasures cannot be borne by individuals alone. Thus, public health tends to work toward “engineering,” at a minimum (see Alonzo 1993), or, at the extreme, regulation and prohibition wherever it can, thus promoting a “wowserish” (Australian-ism for “killjoy”) image that can damage the good intentions of the mission while helping to shift emphasis away from individual obligation and engagement in leading a good life to state enforcement through bans and taxes.

A new generation of so-called “sin taxes” has been in the news recently. Like their predecessors that have focused on alcohol and tobacco, these are an attempt to reduce citizens’ consumption of products linked with health risks and disease: sugar, fat, and/or salt. Most regions that have enacted some sort of food-based tax have done so for reasons related to both the public’s health and the health of medical infrastructures. The growing global problems of overweight and obesity, sedentary lifestyles, and poor nutrition are not only reducing the quality and duration of individuals’ lives but also straining countries’ health care resources. Taxes that increase the cost of certain food-related products are meant to sway people’s choices at the supermarket or in a restaurant away from unhealthful items or, when still purchased, fund the health care systems being taxed—in a different way—by what has been called an obesity pandemic.

These taxes, however, have proven unpopular with industry and much of the public. Denmark, for example, announced late last year that it was abandoning its tax on products containing saturated fats, which was barely a year old, as well as its tax on chocolate and a proposed tax on sugar (Khazan 2012). The Danish government cited “increasing prices for consumers, increasing companies’ administrative costs and putting Danish jobs at risk” as reasons for the decisions (Khazan 2012, ¶2). Similarly, across the Atlantic, New York City’s ban that limits the sizes of soda that restaurants can serve has been both criticized and the butt of jokes on news and late-night talk-show programs—even liberal-leaning ones (see, for example, The Daily Show With Jon Stewart)—and is currently being tested in the courts. The New York policy, however, likely will prevail, and other countries, including the United Kingdom, France, Finland, Hungary, Italy, and Romania, have contemplated or adopted food-related taxes comparable to Denmark’s (European Public Health Alliance 2012).

Although it is perhaps too early to determine whether food taxes will flourish or fail, research has shown that taxes must be significant enough—which few currently are—to alter behavior (on the part of the consumer and the seller). Scholars and ethicists also have emphasized that taxation on its own is both unfair and unlikely to succeed in the larger goal of improving nutrition without subsidies on, and thus greater access to, healthier foods such as vegetables and fruits (Mytton, Clarke, and Rayner 2012). On the other hand, and no matter what commentators and comics claim about these latest taxes, public health advocates can point to the social and behavioral changes tobacco taxation and regulation have brought over the past half-century (though there is still much work to be done, especially globally). Increases in the financial costs of smoking have been tied to reductions in smoking rates, and many governments have limited or banned tobacco use in public places. Social norms related to tobacco also have transformed, and—with measures such as taxation and other forms of health promotion—many are hopeful the same fate will befall unhealthful foods.

While unpopular, taxes are perhaps a means of addressing the fundamental ethical concern between the common good and individual liberty (the so-called communitarianism versus liberalism issue; see Holland 2007)—a tension always felt in a discipline like public health. Unlike “traditional” bioethics, which grew out of the clinician–patient relationship and at least initially (and today in some circumstances) was more limited in scope (e.g., focused on an individual patient for a shorter period of time), public health and public health ethics must simultaneously take into consideration the interests of individuals, groups, and communities in both the short- and long-terms. (Of course, with a more holistic understanding of health care systems as well as biotechnologies that frequently benefit some at the expense of others, it has become easier to recognize the overlap between bioethics and public health ethics, which, in truth, are not so different.)

As public health practitioner Peter Geoffrey Sainsbury explains in this issue of the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry:

Public health is an applied, and essentially interventionist, discipline—it seeks to change individuals and change society to promote health. Traditionally, great emphasis has been placed on the public good: a utilitarian concern to maximise utility (health) in society as a whole, accepting that in the process some people may experience short- or even long-term harms. But practitioners also have had a strong liberal ethic to ensure that individual freedom is not unnecessarily constrained as well as a concern for equity, such that the harms and benefits arising from any action are shared fairly across society. Public health ethics is mainly applied ethics (Sainsbury 2013, ¶9 under “Urban Planning as a Social and Ethical Activity”).

Philosopher Stephen Holland, in his introductory text Public Health Ethics (2007), phrases Sainsbury’s concerns in a slightly different way, urging public health professionals and policy-makers to be wary of and avoid naïve utilitarianism as a justifying mechanism for interventions.

From either perspective, it is clear that a strong understanding of ethical theory and application is essential for public health and its practitioners, particularly because much of the work done in public health is prescriptive.

Many public health initiatives, such as “sin taxes,” employ a mix of health promotion and health protection (see Ratcliffe and Wallack 1986; Alonzo 1993; Mechanic 1999). Few public health advocates, ethicists, and policy-makers take issue with health promotion, which sometimes stops short at consciousness-raising and education (though there are some topics, particularly those that are stigmatized, for which certain legislators and advocacy groups find even education objectionable). Health protection, on the other hand, often calls into question social and corporate structures in the built environment that are risk-imposing and, thus, often calls for societal reform (Ratcliffe and Wallack 1986). This is a difficult and delicate dance: how to ensure greater health for all without sliding toward totalitarianism.

This may seem overstated—much like some of the comments of those “talking heads” with regard to “sin taxes” and the sizes of sodas. But no public health proposal, whether focused on important tasks and based on good intentions, should be immune from in-depth and ongoing dialogue. There is much at risk and potential for harms. (The descriptive side of public health—good surveillance and science—warrants attention, too.) Tragically, examples abound of immoral public health laws and programs propped up by discrimination and disreputable “science,” all in the name of the “public good.” The forced sterilization of hundreds of thousands throughout the world in the 20th century under the guise of an already discredited eugenic “science” and fostered by fears of disadvantaged socioeconomic classes costing taxpayers money is but one (see Lombardo 2008).

Decisions about what public health programs will be implemented and how cannot be one-sided, understudied, or opaque.

At the same time, particularly when it comes to the current crises of diabetes, stroke, and heart disease, health professionals and government leaders also cannot remain laissez faire. Deeming taxes on unhealthful consumptives or policies such as limiting vending machine sales in public schools as smacking of a “nanny state” may be hyperbolical. There are risks, too, of letting corporations run wild, beholden to shareholders and the accumulation of capital but immune from certain consequences and punishments for their own selfish behavior. With limited understandings and applications of corporate social responsibility—if it even can exist—are we to let corporations make their fortunes on the backs (and bodies) of the current and coming generations?

At a time when economic liberalism has largely won the day in global politics, it is perhaps ironic that old-fashioned statism may be prevailing in health prevention. Taxes are, of course, only one small bite out of a very large elephant. Additional and ongoing efforts—at the structural as well as individual level—are needed to combat the non-communicable public health problems (physical, mental, social, spiritual, and environmental) associated with unhealthful foods (see, e.g., AFP relaxnews 2012; Deckers 2013), unhealthy body weight (see Vartanian and Smyth 2013; Upshur 2013), and inactivity.

On the other hand, if we critique the disadvantages of market-driven individualism in the modern world, it is somewhat contradictory to rely on otherwise passé tools of state intervention with only scant attention to the social consequences of the economic world order and its impact on individuals and societies: anxiety, pressure, insecurity, competition, and consumption. Every person who eats or drinks too much or smokes or takes illegal drugs does so as a result of a desire to calm inner emotions and unhappinesses. How is it that this individual psychodynamic perspective is so poorly developed and that family, education, and society “vandalized” by big business and straightjacketed by logical positive science are not subjected to a deeper and kinder scrutiny? Most of all, if liberalism finds an ally in existentialism, then Sartre’s mauvaise foi would lead us to conclude that we must all take responsibility for ourselves, which is very much the message of modern self-management approaches to chronic illness, such as with persistent pain. True health promotion needs to address our unhappy societies by reducing personal pressure, competition, and insecurity, starting in early childhood, so that people are able to implement healthy lifestyles, reduce risky behaviors, and thereby bankrupt corporations that can then no longer make huge profits by selling cigarettes, big bottles of sweet sodas, hamburgers full of fat and additives, alcoholic drinks aimed at teenagers, and sugar in everything. Medicalization is not the sole answer, where unhappiness, obesity, and addictions have to be turned into illnesses to make them socially acceptable and then treatable. Most of all some understanding of our own natures and darker sides would also be very valuable, a recognition that at best we are only ever logical part of the time. With notable religious exceptions most societies and peoples have some means of chemical escape from the pain and tedium that is part of all lives. Once we understand this, and can be kind to our contradictory natures, we can then surely work on the forces that we unconsciously direct upon ourselves in harmful and risky pursuits that result in thanatos, with much unhappiness in the way. But if we continue to mainly moralize and regulate, and, for instance, to lock up people whose personal pain and public disadvantage lead them to drug dependence, then our collective futures are bleak indeed.

The question, then, is how can and should public health motivate and enable individuals and communities toward healthful—not merely “lifestyles” but—ways of life? This issue of the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry offers a symposium edited by Stacy M. Carter and Lucie Rychetnik examining “Public Health Ethics and Non-Communicable Disease” and the challenges of attending to both health and liberty for all. Sure, some “sin taxes” may be a start, but these likely will not be sufficient to significantly change societal sources of self-destruction. What is needed is reformation of the individualistic, atomistic, and damaging view of humanity that merely pits “person” against “public” and fails to understand and appreciate life’s complex interconnections and intersections. As legal scholar Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld underscored in his Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning (1919), in which he offered a set of four fundamental legal correlatives, liberties cannot exist in a vacuum. Guaranteeing the right of one must always place a duty on others.

References

AFP relaxnews. 2012. France proposes “Nutella tax” on palm oil: In addition to being a health risk, the industrial use of palm oil has led to widespread deforestation in Borneo, Sumatra and Indonesia, displacing and killing endangered populations of orangutans. New York Daily News, November 9. http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/eats/france-proposes-nutella-tax-palm-oil-article-1.1199417#ixzz2JEsSOhMu.

Alonzo, A.A. 1993. Health behavior: Issues, contradictions and dilemmas. Social Science & Medicine 37(8): 1019–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Deckers, J. 2013. Obesity, public health, and the consumption of animal products: Ethical concerns and political solutions. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 10(1). doi: 10.1007/s11673-012-9411-x.

European Public Health Alliance. 2012. Food taxation in Europe: Evolution of the legislation. http://www.epha.org/a/4814.

Hohfeld, W.N. 1919. Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. And other legal essays. Ed. W.W. Cook. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Holland, S. 2007. Public health ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Khazan, O. 2012. What the world can learn from Denmark’s failed fat tax. The Washington Post, November 11. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/11/11/what-the-world-can-learn-from-denmarks-failed-fat-tax/.

Lombardo, P.A. 2008. Three generations, no imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Mechanic, D. 1999. Issues in promoting health. Social Science & Medicine 48(6): 711–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mytton, O.T., D. Clarke, and M. Rayner. 2012. Taxing unhealthy food and drinks to improve health. BMJ 344: e2931. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e2931.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ratcliffe, J., and L. Wallack. 1986. Primary prevention in public health: An analysis of basic assumptions. International Quarterly of Community Health Education 6(3): 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sainsbury, P.G. 2013. Ethical considerations involved in constructing the built environment to promote health. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 10(1). doi: 10.1007/s11673-012-9423-6.

Upshur, R. 2013. What does public health ethics tell (or not tell) us about intervening in non-communicable diseases? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 10(1). doi: 10.1007/s11673-012-9422-7.

Vartanian, L.R., and J.M. Smyth. 2013. Primum non nocere: Obesity stigma and public health. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 10(1). doi: 10.1007/s11673-012-9412-9.

#autonomy #public health #personal choice #ethics #regulation

1 note · View note

nelliievance · 3 years

Text

Saving The Planet With Regenerative Agriculture

I recently discussed the concept of regenerative agriculture in my review of the book Sacred Cow. I have been researching this fascinating topic further and am convinced that regenerative agriculture of both plants and animals (or a combination), is a crucial step environmentally. It can drastically reduce carbon emissions and even remove CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in the soil.

I also found that the evidence for regenerative grazing discussed in the previous review is more controversial than I thought. I’ll touch on that below. What does seem to be more universally accepted is that regenerative farming of plants, with and without animals integrated into the mix, is much more sound environmentally than current conventional farming practices.

Reversing Man-made Soil Degradation.

In modern agricultural practice, high-yield monoculture crops are grown. This means an entire field is planted with one commodity crop like wheat, corn, soybeans, etc. Not enough organic matter is put back into the soil, but instead this approach relies on ever increasing use of chemicals (fertilizer, pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides). This has led to tremendous loss of topsoil, poorly draining soil, and about half the applied chemicals being wasted as they runoff, polluting waterways. There is now a resulting dead zone near the Mississippi delta in the gulf of Mexico, the size of New Jersey. This has been becoming common practice in modern agriculture since about 1950. On the plus side, it has led to high crop yields, and lauded as “the green revolution”. But it’s starting not to work as well, as crop yields are dropping. All of this can be reversed by regenerative practices like no-till agriculture, and use of diverse crop rotations and cover crops. This is described in detail in the book Growing a Revolution: Bringing Our Soil Back to Life [1] by geologist Dr. David Montgomery. This process does not require the use of grazing animals. For example, “green manure” from legumes plays the same role as animal manure, and a roller-crimper can do some of the work the grazing animals do:

A roller-crimper crushes the stems of a cover crop so it decays faster

These regenerative measures improve the soil health dramatically, reducing or even eliminating the use of chemicals, and making runoff almost nonexistent. After a season or two when the soil as recovered, crop yields meet or exceed those of conventional farms with heavy use of chemicals. In addition, comparisons that claim that conventional practices have a higher yield than regenerative often are for ideal growing conditions, such as a perfect amount of rainfall. In less than ideal conditions, including droughts, which are becoming more common, regenerative farming often out-performs conventional. So it is a myth that we need unstainable conventional agriculture to “feed the world”.

There is a second, more low-tech way that farmland is degraded in much of the developing world: slash and burn agriculture. Brush and even forests are destroyed by burning, after which crops can be grown. But these fields do not remain fertile for long, so the farmers have to move on and repeat the process in a new area. These slash-and-burn fields do not have high crop yields. It is typically small-family farmers following these practices, and they grow, for example, about 80% of the food in Africa. But regenerative agricultural can come to the rescue here also, restoring the previous soil to good health in previously burned fields, and improving crop yields up to a factor of four, as shown conclusively on a wonderful demonstration farm in Ghana. These small family farmers are often too poor to afford grazing animals, but the plant-based regenerative measures (diversity of crop rotations, use of cover crops, etc.) are inexpensive.

Dr. Montgomery’s book conclusively shows how regenerative agriculture can help solve climate change, heal our soil, and feed the planet. And it saves farmers money! I don’t want to be cynical, but we do live in a capitalistic society. It gives me hope when the right thing to do environmentally also happens to be the best financially. There is an anecdote in the book where Dr. Montgomery is driving across Kansas with a guide who is showing him where regenerative agriculture is being practiced. He notices that in some areas the John Deere tractor dealerships seem to be dilapidated, while in others the dealerships seem to be thriving. His guide points out that the thriving dealerships are in areas where there is more regenerative agriculture is, so the farmers are more profitable and can afford new equipment.

Now to the role of animals in soil regeneration. Some regenerative farmers follow a hybrid technique that use the regenerative measure described above but also involves grazing animals. After cash crops are harvested, cattle or other animals graze the fields. This is often done with the cover crops as well. A chapter is devoted to how this is practiced by Gabe Brown on his farm in North Dakota, which inspired me to read the first-hand account in Gabe’s enjoyable book Dirt to Soil: One Family’s Journey into Regenerative Agriculture. Gabe shows how the integration of cattle plus diversified crop rotation and cover crops (for about 30 years now) has dramatically improved the soil quality, in. The other interesting practice he follows is letting chickens range free in fields the cows were just in. They do further cleanup, including eating fly larvae. And the chickens can also be fed grain screenings which would otherwise be discarded.

Economics of Farming

The number of American farmers and farmworkers decreased dramatically from 1900 to the present, while the size of the average farm grew much larger. This was an intentional government policy intended to lead to economies of scale and higher yields. Earl Butz, secretary of agriculture under presidents Nixon and Ford,(who we can also thank for bringing high-fructose corn syrup into the mainstream), famously told farmers “go big or get out”.

There are many rural communities that were decimated by this. Agriculture has become more and more “agribusiness”, controlled by large multinational corporations. Farmers are caught in the middle, having to buy increasingly expensive chemicals from a few large corporations, and then selling their crops at commodity prices to large corporations. The farmers are just considered a link in the supply chain, and the objective is minimize the cost of the final product. This makes it appear that growing large fields of single crops is the best solution because it maximizes yield. But this does not consider external costs like the damage caused by runoff of agricultural chemicals, or the medical costs to consumers eating a diet of cheaper but poorer quality food. This is all described in detail in the books below (how it similarly unfolded in the UK is described in [2]). Regenerative agriculture is a way to help reverse this trend, and in addition to Gabe Brown’s operation, other inspiring examples of this are in these books: [1,4,5]. It makes smaller farms more viable and provides more farm jobs. Better for the environment, the economies of local communities, and our health.

The Regenerative Grazing Controversy

There has been some criticism of regenerative grazing because descriptions of it can be oversimplified to “meat can save the planet”, so the concern is that the regenerative grazing argument can be used for marketing that “greenwashes” meat, which vegans and advocates for reduced consumption of animal foods understandably object to. But backlash against it can dismiss the whole idea of regenerative agriculture, which throws the baby out with the bathwater. There is a good balanced discussion here that admits some environmental benefits may have been exaggerated (like the effect of carbon sequestering) but still does not dismiss the major role regenerative agriculture can play, I still believe the bottom line is the best solution for the environment (and our health) is reduced consumption of both junk foods and animal products, combined with better farming techniques. As one author puts it “eat less, but better, meat” [2]. and I think we should generalize that to less but better foods of all types. I’ll cover the ins and outs of this topic in more detail in an upcoming post.

Conclusion: Regenerative Agriculture, With or without Animals, Will Help Feed Humanity And Save The Planet

We can argue over to what extent animals fit in the mix, but regardless of the percentage of animals vs plants in our diets, in my opinion regenerative agriculture is a key step. Current practices of conventional plant and animal farming are not sustainable.

Suggest Reading

David Montgomery, D, Growing a Revolution: Bringing Our Soil Back to Life, W. W. Norton & Company;, 2017.

Brown, G, Dirt to Soil: One Family’s Journey into Regenerative Agriculture, Chelsea Green Publishing, 2019

D’Silva, J, Webster, J, The Meat Crisis: Developing more Sustainable and Ethical Production and Consumption, Routledge, 2017.

Quinn, B, Carlisle, L, Grain by Grain: A Quest to Revive Ancient Wheat, Rural Jobs, and Healthy Food, 2019.

Carlisle, L, Lentil Underground: Renegade Farmers and the Future of Food in America, Avery, 2015.

Saving The Planet With Regenerative Agriculture published first on https://steroidsca.tumblr.com/

0 notes