Mhmm.

Albert Einstein.

Rejected, as this is a limited record ie you can only go down to 1HP, after that the record cannot be beaten, only matched.

Yes, I came up with an argument and then defeated it myself, offering a conclusion drawn from this part of the discussion, so we could continue to further discuss the original subject of justice... I came up with an argument. You produced counter-arguments, which I rebuffed. I defeated my own argument, and stated that we can now agree on the fact that we cannot prove whether we are flawed or not, though we both think we are. Someday, you will realise the logic in defeating an argument you yourself have produced as an example rather than letting it be destroyed by your opponent, so you can draw from this example to strengthen an overall argument (ie I conceded that we cannot prove whether we are flawed or not, and shall use this fact to argue that our justice cannot be proven to be perfect, if you wish to continue this debate). Basically, I have disowned my own argument before you could defeat it, which will have been a symbolic victory for you in this debate, had I let it occur. Now, to those reading this debate, it would appear that you're simply repeating me, and that I'm one step ahead of you. Sneaky, eh? In other words, sometimes it is good to lose a battle if it will help you to win a war, by saving your best troops (or in this case, best arguments) for use elsewhere, rather than throwing them randomly at the enemy where their potential will not be maximised. Let your enemy exhaust himself in trying to win the short-term glory of a battle, and then you can strike to win the war. See, look at how successfully I have frustrated you by dodging a good argument of yours, rather than suffering the blow it will inevitably have dealt on my side of the debate? Now I have explained the strategical reasoning behind why I have suddenly backed down and let you gain ground at this point, shall we move on?

That was shut down? It was fairly popular when I played it 5 years ago O.o

Fair enough. Maybe this could have beem explained in bdeck's case, for example, for his article seems a little out of place? Otherwise, I hope all articles are properly proofread next time, as should be common practice, whether they are from an application or not. Fjelstad stands out this issue as a strong writer. Archangel, aojsd, bdeck, and Vikingsrall all put in solid performances, and I will eagerly be awaiting a story or a guide from both Archangel and bdeck, as more accurate indicators of their potential. Looking past the errors, hithere's showed some promise. All in all, it wasn't a bad decision to post their applications, but a couple needed explanation/proper proofreading.

Very well translated, a commendable first article.

^As loktinho said. Maybe I'll put it into the 'Your Creativity' section sometime ^_^

Short, but sweet. Not bad!

You're welcome; it was a strong entry, and it's a good solid first article :P

Rank does not determine reporting skill. Anyway, I agree; I would not expect a first article to be outstanding, but at least good, to show a solid performance. I'm just annoyed that his first article was not properly analysed or proofread by his colleagues, and so it wasn't up to scratch for that reason. Therefore, I'm not discouraging hithere, but trying to constructively criticise the current system for the newspaper team. It would be wrong of me not to be a critical reader simply because it's his first article. I am being critical to try and help the newspaper improve. Feel free to find my first article here: http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=173255, and criticise it openly - I would love to hear your own suggestions and criticisms, as I feel they help me to improve. Otherwise, deal with it.

Of course ^_^ 1. Rushed through = Written/proofread hurriedly, just before the deadline, not being self-critical enough as to what could be improved. Instances include the grammar errors, of which there are numerous examples. If you would like me to list every single one, I would be more than happy to do so. 2. When I was a reporter, @hogree came up with a series of changes the newspaper standards should undergo. One of these, and one of the most fundamental, was the fact that sub-standard articles (ie ones with way too many basic errors, like this one) should not be published. Only once this is implemented can the newspaper look to seriously improve. 3. Look in the 'Newspaper Archive'. Pick any article, one of mine if you like. You will be able to see a noticeable difference in quality between that article and this one, with hardly any errors in most articles compared with the many errors with this one. 4. I am not putting the blame onto hithere1, I am blaming the newspaper team in general for not getting this proofread properly. An excellent article will have virtually no grammatical errors, will be professionally, written, and will engage the reader and stand out from other articles - these are rare. A bad article will have noticeable grammatical/syntax errors which get in the way of the reader, which are luckily also very rare. Most articles fall into the 'good' category, which have few errors, and are generally interesting to read. 5. I hope you are satisfied with my responses - if not, ask me to elaborate and I will do so willingly. Please note that I am not saying these things to unfairly criticise and undermine - as an ex-reporter, I want the newspaper and its writers to improve, and so have a strong opinion on the subject. In terms of hithere learning from what I have said, I would advise him to make sure he gets someone to thoroughly proofread his work before it is published - it seems that English is not his first language, and whilst the content of this article is interesting and good, he could make sure that his colleagues help him to settle in with the task of writing articles. In this way, I am more disappointed with the more experienced members of the newspaper team, as it is not hithere's fault that they were not willing to help without being prompted. Had I been a fellow reporter, and had read this article before it was published, I would have volunteered to correct its errors, and to give tips and advice to hithere, in order to make it a great article (which it had the potential of being).

Yes, but my point is that the application articles shouldn't have been published if they were irrelevant or not proofread.

Good guide, sums up the topic well. Nice one ^_^

Very good article.

You mean the best article of the issue? If so, I agree ^_^

A good issue overall, but I have a number of grievances to list before I compliment the good bits. Hithere's guide... is acceptable. The errors with it... aren't. Two fundamental mistakes here. 1. Articles should not be published before proper proofreading. 2. Articles shouldn't have been randomly lifted from applications. For example, bdeck's article is excellent, but I suspect it has been taken from his application, as it seemed... out of place, irrelevant to the Tanki newspaper. I think someone thought that the new reporters should each have an article done for this issue. Which is fundamentally wrong, since articles should only be published if they are ready, and if they are relevant. I didn't expect this to happen at all, it's appalling to a few articles have been rushed/not checked properly for relevance or grammar, just so they could be published on time.

Check the Main Topic for my response.

Excellent as a newspaper article, really excellent, but we really need some background as to what you're talking about, some kind of introduction... because this article seems very random, almost out of place in the newspaper of an online game... It almost seems as though this was an article you wrote some time ago, and so has been lifted from your application to the newspaper team, as an example article. Which shouldn't have happened if that is the case.

Congrats, and a very strong first article, with some great use of language techniques. Well done ^_^

Congrats, and nice ending; though this isn't the way I'd have finished the series, what with my subtle refernces to Factory and Future and the felling of escalating tension in the third part, it's well-written. Nice work ;)

Some good points in there, but a number of factors make this quite poor overall, including syntax errors, grammatical errors, slang ('you', not 'u'!), and worst of all, a cliche: Basically, though this article shows some potential, it looks rushed to me, and should not have been published. Evidently, newspaper standards still need to change, and I am disappointed that the suggestion to not publish sub-standard articles hasn't been implemented here. I don't blame hithere for the errors here, as it seems this was rushed through - I am sure he is capable of better. However, this is the worst article I have read for the newspaper to date in my opinion. Apologies for being so frank, and feel free to downvote my post... though I am sure I am not the only reader who has received this impression. I welcome any response or explanation from the newspaper team ^_^

+1...

Congratulations to the new reporters, and great interview!

Great job, got some really funny bits in there! Only thing is, I'd avoid overusing the troll quotes (since I'd already used them frequently myself), otherwise that particular humour would get a little repetitive. But that's nothing much, really - nice work ^_^