[RawToast]

I'll be doing badly as usual. This always seems to occur on the same month as the iTalki challenge

I read a bunch of manga today while procrastinating and figure that seeing I have such a nice start with no extra effort, might as well join.

Yeah procrastination is the way to get things done. I look at the people in the bottom ranks and wonder what drives them to work so hard.

And I can see you must have something very important to do.

[RawToast]

Splatted Wrote:Yeah procrastination is the way to get things done. I look at the people in the bottom ranks and wonder what drives them to work so hard.

That always worked when I was making D2 mods. I got the most 'work' done when I had an essay to hand in that week xD

Another few news articles for me. I find NHK Easy is actually 'Easy' now, I just need a few lookups per article -- typically names and places. I find I can LR pretty well first read -- which I could never manage before Sadly I typically (as always) find the articles rather dull, which is stopping me from reading it daily. I need to try and move on to stories and manga, but I've found them to be at another level

Really? I haven't tried reading NHK Easy for a long time (because it's boring) - but back when I did make the occasional effort I thought it was harder than the books/manga I was reading at the time.

I just had a go at an NHK news easy article and didn't find it easy at all. It seems to me an issue of vastly different content and writing style (not to mention the formatting) rather than either manga or NHK being more advanced than the other.

It is time again in case anyone is interested.

I'm in. I have quite a few books I'd like to read this time. I think the contest is really good for stimulating massive input (I never had the reading habit in English, but I actually like reading in Japanese).

We have a Tadoku thread over at the KawaJapa Forums in case anyone is weird enough to want to discuss the contest in - you know - the J-language.

Feel free to post your thoughts and Tadoku adventures.

Don't forget that manga and Japanese-subtitled anime count too, so you can still participate if you aren't a big book reader.

I got a head start the second it started, for once! (I've already been overtaken though...) It seems my reading speed has increased quite a bit, which is a big relief this close the the JLPT (I always timed out on previous mock exams, will have to take another one soon).

I'm not really in the "race". My reading speed in general is such that I wouldn't stand a chance against these people who have goals in the thousands even if I was reading English.

I'll chug along at my own pace and go for input that is massive to a small doll!

My goal (achieved) was 500 pages last time. I will up the ante a little this time.

I just aim for the top 15 or so in order to keep myself motivated. I can't believe how much some people manage to read in day! I haven't read as much as the regular leaders in this competition since I was in high-school (when that was all I did)!

My goal is a modest 300, since I have studies I need to put first.

Nice article! It's interesting to see how your methods and ideas differ from my own, and they give me ideas and confidence to try different things.

CureDolly Wrote:I'm not really in the "race". My reading speed in general is such that I wouldn't stand a chance against these people who have goals in the thousands even if I was reading English.

I'll chug along at my own pace and go for input that is massive to a small doll!

My goal (achieved) was 500 pages last time. I will up the ante a little this time.

I have to ask, and I genuinely do not mean to be disrespectful in any way. How do you reconcile being only an intermediate learner and having a website with a mountain of prescriptions on how best to learn the language?

It is a pefectly reasonable question and not disrespectful at all. Thank you for having enough interest in our work to ask.

I'd have to start out by saying that the website isn't really mine (though I seem to have become the main contributor and "face" of the site over time). And it didn't start out as prescriptive as it might sometimes come across as being.

We don't really intend to be prescriptive and we do very often say that there is no one way; different things work for different people etc. We are not really proposing a "system" so much as sharing techniques that work for us.

What we are really doing at this stage is documenting our adventure in Japanese. A lot of that adventure is discovering techniques and I think we have discovered some really useful ones. Other people seem to be finding them useful too. That really is the nub of the matter.

Yes, I am still only intermediate. My exact level is hard to gauge as our methods are a little eccentric and I am probably stronger in some areas than others. But I certainly don't claim (and never have claimed) to be highly advanced.

Would being highly advanced put me in a better position to do what I am doing?

I don't believe so. An advanced person can say "This is how I became advanced" and (assuming you accept the self-diagnosis which isn't necessarily correct even when it is perfectly honest*) you know that much. You know that one person (at least largely and as far as she knows) has become advanced through using this method.

We don't know that it will work for any other person in particular or that it will be the best method for that person. We don't even know that it was the best method for the person concerned. We only really know that the method played at least a role in their becoming advanced.

What I am doing currently is sharing the techniques I discover and use. Some of them were originated by me or by other people associated with the site. Some are borrowed or adapted from elsewhere. We say from the outset and have always believed in an approach that mixes the things that work best for the given individual. We believe that no two people learn in exactly the same way.

So while I sometimes talk light-heartedly about the "Dolly Method", it really isn't a "system" so much as a few fundamental ideas and a variety of things we have developed around them. No one of us uses exactly the same method though we all work around fundamentally the same ideas ("using" Japanese rather than "practising" it for example) and all have the "Anime Method" as our core technique from which we branch out in all kinds of directions.

So

Should I have waited until I am advanced before I started to talk about my methods?

I don't believe so. I write in the white heat and excitement of discovering new things and new ways forward. I believe I have discovered valuable things, and some of our readers are certainly finding our work valuable. We actively encourage people to cherry-pick the bits they find work best for them rather than see our method as a "system". Though we do give some step-by-step instructions which people are free to take, leave or adapt.

Are we (and I in particular) too prescriptive?

I hope not. It isn't my intention really to be prescriptive at all. I do say things like "Learn words not kanji" but I have repeatedly stated that the Heisig method works for many people and one should use that if that is what works for you.

I should probably (and sometimes do) preface prescriptive-sounding statements with "If you want to do it the way we do..." It would get tiresome and awkward to say it every time, but I think we have said it often enough that or readers can take it as - uh - read.

I think if I waited for the excitement to die down and tried to write all this when I am a seasoned Japanese speaker who has moved on to other things (still in Japanese I would think but no longer on this particular mountain path) it would all be much drier and less fun for everyone, and I would probably have half-forgotten the point of what I did back then, because I am absolutely not a systematizer.

And that, I think, is part of the point of the site. It really is for non-systematizers like me. Cure Yasashiku has a much more systematic mind than I have, but even so, she is using the same free-wheeling, "live Japanese rather than study it", immersion approach, albeit in a more systematic manner than I do.

Some people are going to stick to academic approaches. Some are going to stick to Heisig/AJATT or whatever. And good for them. I think those systems and various others work well for lots of people. I also think they don't work well for lots of people. I don't think any one system is right for everyone.

The site comes with no guarantees, and so should AJATT and everything else. No approach can be guaranteed to work for any given reader. We share what we have learned for what it is worth. I am very happy that a lot of people seem to think it is worth quite a lot. We do too or we wouldn't be doing it.

Sorry to be so lengthy. I hope this answers your question. Please feel free to ask more if it didn't.
___
* I don't mean the diagnosis of being advanced, but the diagnosis of how one became so. In reality so many things feed into our language acquisition.

CureDolly, I've seen your diary about your adventure in Japan, I liked the pictures so much! (sorry for the off-topic)

Thank you so much for your kind appreciation. My dream is to make something truly lovely that will make people happy and give back to Japan a little of the charm and goodness I have received. These pictures and the little photographic doll manga are my first stumbling steps toward this. I am so happy that you enjoy them.

@CureDolly

Thanks. I initially thought your site was about the approach that had made you fluent ("here's how I did it"), but now I see it's more of a normal language-learning blog ("here's what I'm doing," "X is important but it's only my speculative opinion," etc.) Of course, there's absolutely nothing wrong with blogs, but especially in the Japanese learning community, where the signal-to-noise ratio is so low, it would've been quite something to see a truly advanced learner describe his methods in the depth that you do.

Hmm. If that advanced learner had written the blog along the way, while she was actually involved in the process, would that make any difference? After all if the learner is advanced it doesn't "prove" anything: only that she became advanced, used the techniques she describes, and attributes one to the other.

When I become advanced, will you say "Ah! Now the site is validated"? Because I don't think it works that way. It won't be especially validated then, and it isn't invalidated now.

If the question were "has anyone using these techniques gone from near-absolute beginner to solid intermediate" then the answer is already yes, and not only me.

All approaches, including the most professional are ultimately speculative, at least in the only area that matters to the learner: "Will it work for me?" People have very different learning paths.

So in the end the only judge of the "will it work for me?" question is the learner herself. And this is frustrating, I know. I have looked for the "magic solution" in the early days and slowly have come to techniques that work for me. I know they won't be the best techniques for everyone else. But I think they are likely to be the best techniques for some people. Or at least good techniques. Both we and they will continue to refine them.

Now some people will say that if you just slog through AJATT's RTK + 10,000 sentences, you'll definitely get there. It is impossible to say since probably almost no one who doesn't get there completes the process. But a lot of people don't get there and I don't believe it is because they are all lazy.

One of the things that distinguishes our approach from most others is that we do what AJATT sometimes talked about, which was to start using and enjoying Japanese from a very early stage. While AJATT spoke, sometimes quite strongly, in those terms in fact they advocated countless hours of abstract learning (RTK and 10,000 sentences) that likely add up to more than an academic course.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with this. It has worked for a lot of people. But this (and related ideas) has also left a lot of people burnt out before they get to the starting line of really using Japanese. "How many thousand core vocabulary words do I need before I start reading manga?" is a typical question.

Here is our approach to core vocabulary. It won't be the right one for everyone. It is the right one for some people. It does work. It is working right now.

Some people will find it too much of a slog in the early stages and want to learn abstract vocabulary. Some people find abstract vocabulary deadening and really need to move to using Japanese before they are "ready" in terms of most other approaches.

Whether a person can learn vocabulary effectively in this way isn't in question. People have and are. The question for any given learner is "Is it the right way for me?" And that is a question only she can answer.

In any case, no one starts using Japanese with no vocabulary. One does need at least a small base. I would tentatively suggest around 500 words but others would think in terms of other figures. So what we have is a sliding scale. Each individual is going to work out what feels comfortable for her.

What is important, I think, is that it frees people from the idea that they have to spend vast lengths of time in preparation before they start.

I have seen so many threads where people are going through grueling preparation that they clearly don't enjoy in the hope that one day Japanese will start being fun. I believe that one can transition into using and enjoying Japanese before the novelty of early learning has worn off.

Some people will say that using Japanese so slowly and painstakingly in the early stages is worse than just biting the bullet and "studying properly". I am not arguing against those people. It is a matter of temperament. For them it is worse. People are not all the same.

Our approach to learning Japanese came out of our feelings for Japanese and our philosophy. Essentially we were, and are, in love with Japanese. We wanted to make it our language and become immersed as far as possible as early as possible. And we were prepared to ganbaru hard for that purpose.

And it does take ganbari. We have never said our approach takes the work out of learning Japanese. Anyone who says that is deceiving herself. Learning Japanese will always take a lot of work one way or another. Our fundamental aim was, as far as possible, to do that work in Japanese rather than around Japanese.

Of course this isn't 100% possible. We are pragmatic about learning grammar. I have always said that learning grammar is a quick and dirty shortcut. It is not learning Japanese but learning about Japanese, but it is also a very useful shortcut and one of the few advantages we have over infant learners.

I believe that learning Japanese is a journey. It should not be (that is, if you feel the way I do it should not be) a journey that you prepare for for ages and one day take. It is a journey you start as soon as you've found a hat and a pair of boots. I have seen people at a very solid intermediate stage still talking in terms of "when I get to this stage" (perhaps in listening comprehension) they can start enjoying Japanese.

My view is that if you don't enjoy the journey as you go along you very likely won't much enjoy the "goal" when you reach it.

There is a tendency to push "success" into the future. I am very happy with my Japanese right now. Not because I think it is magnificently good, but because I am able to enjoy all kinds of things in Japanese. Because I am able to live Japanese now. I was living Japanese before now too. As I progress it just gets better.

But I also have to say there are no landmarks. I can't say "I know this many words" because I just don't work that way. I have no idea how many words I know. But I don't really need landmarks because I believe the Way is more important than the "goal".

As we say on our about page, following our "method" (insofar as it is a method) does imply a high degree of commitment to, and even love for, Japanese. The "Dolly Method" isn't for the casual learner because as a whole method it is based on immersion in the sense of giving your heart (or at least a part of your heart, but I only have experience of giving my whole heart) to Japanese.

I do not disparage casual or non-super-committed, learners at all. I have been a casual learner of several languages. I wouldn't use our Japanese "method" with those languages because I know my heart is not sufficiently committed to make it work with them.

Having said that, I think there is a lot that we have written about that has proved useful to all kinds of learners. We absolutely encourage people to cherry-pick the site for ideas and techniques that suit them and that fit into their personal mix.

CureDolly Wrote:Hmm. If that advanced learner had written the blog along the way, while she was actually involved in the process, would that make any difference? After all if the learner is advanced it doesn't "prove" anything: only that she became advanced, used the techniques she describes, and attributes one to the other.

When I become advanced, will you say "Ah! Now the site is validated"? Because I don't think it works that way. It won't be especially validated then, and it isn't invalidated now.

If the question were "has anyone using these techniques gone from near-absolute beginner to solid intermediate" then the answer is already yes, and not only me.

All approaches, including the most professional are ultimately speculative, at least in the only area that matters to the learner: "Will it work for me?" People have very different learning paths.

So in the end the only judge of the "will it work for me?" question is the learner herself. And this is frustrating, I know. I have looked for the "magic solution" in the early days and slowly have come to techniques that work for me. I know they won't be the best techniques for everyone else. But I think they are likely to be the best techniques for some people. Or at least good techniques. Both we and they will continue to refine them.

There's a contradiction here you're not seeing. You concede that different learners will have different methods, but you're unhappy with them having their own standards for judging and choosing those methods. As a learner, I value authoritative sources, which I vaguely define as people who know their stuff very well—be it the writers of Genki or the dude who runs Imabi, including the advanced learners in this forum and elsewhere. Please don't be offended (if you were) that this doesn't include you. My standards, my "validation" as you say, should be of no concern to you, unless you're concerned others will come to have these standards as well!

As for why I think these are standards worth having, I'll briefly say that, in my case, I need some way of sifting through the endless information online, and having a competence-based requirement certainly helps. (I find this useful also outside language learning, e.g. I always bypass Wikipedia when I can find what I'm looking for in free but more authoritative sources, such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.) You say that being advanced doesn't prove anything, but then the implication is that we should try everything! Ideally, sure; realistically, it'd take an inordinate amount of time and effort to do so much research. Something written by an advanced learner proves, at the very least, that it's material worth a look.

As for all the rest ("Now some people will say that...), I think you're going off on a tangent of our discussion, which is itself a tangent of this thread. Honestly, I resent that you've taken this as a soapbox for explaining to people what distinguishes your approach, how it compares to AJATT, etc. I think I'm coming to regret asking the question in the first place!

No, I wasn't and am not offended. As always, I thank you for your kind interest. If you have withdrawn that interest, I still thank you for having had it in the first place.

You say: "You concede that different learners will have different methods, but you're unhappy with them having their own standards for judging and choosing those methods"

No I am not unhappy with them and I fully accept their right to use whatever criteria feel best to them. I just put forward my view that in this area the criterion of being advanced doesn't necessarily make much difference. Like other views I put forward, anyone is free to accept or reject it, just as I am free to express it. I don't tend to get emotionally involved in peoples' views and accept their right to them.

I am not saying that people should try everything. That would be quite difficult. I think people tend to gravitate to the methods that work for them. I think some people see our methods and think "Yes, that sounds like me. I'd like to try it that way".

As for the "soapbox" comment, that does seem a little uncalled-for. I was simply trying to answer the questions you put to me and the extra information seemed relevant to me. If you now "resent" my answer and regret asking the question, well I am sorry. I am not entirely sure why you have become emotionally involved but I apologize for any distress I have caused you and assure you that it was not intentional.

CureDolly Wrote:No I am not unhappy with them and I fully accept their right to use whatever criteria feel best to them. I just put forward my view that in this area the criterion of being advanced doesn't necessarily make much difference. Like other views I put forward, anyone is free to accept or reject it, just as I am free to express it. I don't tend to get emotionally involved in peoples' views and accept their right to them.

No backtracking. You are unhappy with them having their own standards, precisely because you think their standards should be closer to yours. It's an opinion. You wrote: "When I become advanced, will you say "Ah! Now the site is validated"? Because I don't think it works that way. It won't be especially validated then, and it isn't invalidated now." It's an opinion and I certainly respect it. In fact, the very point of my question was learning more about this opinion, about why we shouldn't care about the competence of the person who's telling us what we should do, an opinion I find hard to accept. I was looking for someone to help me see the reasons behind that opinion. That's the central point of all this!

CureDolly Wrote:I am not saying that people should try everything. That would be quite difficult. I think people tend to gravitate to the methods that work for them. I think some people see our methods and think "Yes, that sounds like me. I'd like to try it that way".

It's a shame you only address this in passing because, again, this is exactly what I asked about. If people shouldn't try everything, which we agree on, then why shouldn't learners care about the expertise of who's speaking as a way of dealing with the barrage of information that the language-learning community is throwing at us? Whether learners have a tendency to gravitate towards this or that, I hope you'll agree, is beside the point. I care about competence, I've explained why, and I've argued why I think what you say is untenable. If you're unwilling to engage me in this, which is what I asked about, then it's a shame, but I'll understand.

CureDolly Wrote:As for the "soapbox" comment, that does seem a little uncalled-for. I was simply trying to answer the questions you put to me and the extra information seemed relevant to me. If you now "resent" my answer and regret asking the question, well I am sorry. I am not entirely sure why you have become emotionally involved but I apologize for any distress I have caused you and assure you that it was not intentional.

I resent that we can jump from the little word "resent" to me being emotionally distressed. Is that called for? I complained about soapboxing because, instead of addressing why learners who value authoritative sources should care about the opinions of intermediate learners, you've written walls of text to describe your method, to explain your working philosophy, to compare it to other methods, embedded links and all, all while ignoring that this is entirely irrelevant. Learners who ask the question that I asked want to know, not what you're saying, but why we're wrong in not listening to voices like yours in the first place, the voices of not (yet!) advanced learners. You disagree with this, and it was certainly an invitation to take up this specific question and convince people like me otherwise, but it was certainly not an invitation to give us a master class on the website you're representing. I resent this in the same way I'd resent a politician for twisting a specific question I asked into a much easier one, one that allows for an answer that promotes their own agenda before an audience.

I am not sure why you are so convinced that I am "unhappy" about people's views. I am not. You seemed to be emotionally affected to me since terms like "resent" and "regret" normally imply that, but if you aren't I am glad.

I think I have addressed the problem adequately already, and I think a lot of what you are writing off as "soapoxing" and irrelevant is an important part of the answer.

I am putting myself in the position of someone who wants to know whether our work has value for her. I am not primarily writing in general about whether the advice of intermediate people on the internet has value. I don't have an opinion on that one way or another.

So I do give details of what we are doing and why we think it has value. If you resent that, I am sorry. But that is fundamental to my honest answer to your questions. To answer why I think our work has value regardless of the fact that we are still in the intermediate process of learning (which is what you asked and what I am answering) without trying to demonstrate what I think we do have to offer would be a bit meaningless, wouldn't it?

I was essentially addressing the question in two parts, both of which are vital:

1. Why being intermediate is not, in my view, a problem in this instance.

2. Why anyone would want to read what we have anyway.

2 is what you are calling "soapboxing", but it matters because 1 is really only clearing away an objection. Or at least telling you why I don't consider it an important objection. You are free to continue to, of course.

But 1 in itself doesn't answer the question. If what we were doing was pretty much the same as what anyone else was doing there would still be no good reason to look at our work. Why not go with older and more established sources such as Genki? You mentioned Genki as a competent, accredited source.

Well the reason here is that we aren't doing what Genki is doing. And if we were I think your objection would be valid. Actually less because we are not advanced than because we are not qualified teachers. An intermediate learner can teach basic grammar if she is a competent teacher.

But that isn't what we are doing at all. If explaining what we are doing is "soapboxing" then I give notice that I will be doing what you call "soapboxing" as and when I see it as relevant to the discussion. I do not propose to play games like "discuss thermodymamics without mentioning heat".

So to summarize:

Answer to 1 (why is "intermediate" not necessarily a disqualification):

Genki and "advance learners" are two separate cases. Genki is teaching an academic subject systematically (Japanese grammar). We do not do that and we specifically refer people to Genki, Tae Kim or other proven sources in our how to learn grammar section. We do give suggestions on how to go about it using those sources but we don't try to substitute for them.

And (part of 2) I think our approach here is in miniature what some people find useful about us. We talk about using the book but not doing it "by the book". Not necessarily using the rather artficial book exercises (if you don't want to). Finding ways of drilling that are simpler and more to the point. As soon as possible using real input to consolidate your grammar.

Now this is of no interest to a lot of people. A lot of people are perfectly happy with book exercises. It is for people whose inclinations are the way ours are and who work and think more the way we do.

(Back to 1) But does it work? You are only intermediate so you could be talking out of the back of your hat.

Yes, it does work. No question about that. Quite a few people have done it and now know Japanese grammar. Our core vocabulary approach also works. All my vocabulary beyond the first few hundred words came from that. So did most of Cure Yasashiku's. So did various people who have used this method since then. In any case it is probably a bit excessive to call it "our method". I am sure people have used this natural approach to vocabulary long before us. We just write about it more extensively.

So, in vocabulary, grammar and various other areas, the 1 answer to the question (the competence question: is it proven?) is yes. It is proven. It does work. It has worked. We haven't proved that we can build a skyscraper but we have proved that we can build the particular wall we are describing.

But the 1 question alone doesn't leave us anywhere much. The more important 2 question is "Why should I? Why on earth take any notice of you anyway?".

This is what I think a Japanese learner is asking. It is certainly what I would be asking. If you don't like my answering it, close your eyes in 3, 2 ...

The answer is that there is no "should" about it. If our approach doesn't "ping!" with you feel free to move on. There is a ton of stuff on the internet.

Some people (maybe a small minority. I don't know. In the first place we were mostly writing just for ourselves anyway) will (and do) say:

"Yes! This is how I want to do it! I don't get on well with book exercises. I don't gel with 10,000 sentences. I do want to be in Japanese from as early as possible. Not learning "about" Japanese for ages. This is the way I play games. I don't read the huge fat manual before I touch the controller. I skim the first chapter and start playing and then read the manual as I play. I can't even understand the manual in the abstract. And yes I do realize it isn't easy and I am ready to ganbaru like a trainee ninja."

This was me in the early days, only I didn't have anyone to share her experience on how to go about it.

The 1 question again (you see how the two are inextricably intertwined): But can it work? Will I just be wasting my time?

Answer: Yes. It can take someone from beginner to intermediate. It has done so in several cases. That is your immediate concern and we can report "all clear".

Can it take you to advanced? Currently unproven, though logically it would seem likely. Care to come on the journey with us?

1 question: Why come on a journey with you when there are more proven ways?

Answer: If you're happy with one of those ways, go right ahead. We aren't on a recruiting drive. We're happy for you to learn Japanese the way that suits you best. We are also happy that you are learning Japanese at all, by any method.

It is only really if our method "rings" with you that you should consider it. Only if you love Japanese and really want to learn by early (some would say far too early) immersion.

If 1 were the only question then I think the answer to it is this:

"For the reasons stated above, I think our methods are proven to work at least up to intermediate, but there is no reason at all to look at our methods. Plenty of other more extensively proven methods exist. There are still some good tips on this and that on the site, but as a method... why choose a young fledgeling when you can have an eagle?"

I suspect that for you 1 is the only question, and perhaps this is the answer you really wanted me to give. There. I have given it.

But for people who do "click" with our approach, 1 Is not the only question. In fact it isn't even the main question. The main point revolves around 2.

What we are trying to do for people is what I wish someone had been doing for me when I started. Documenting our with experience and the methods we have developed how it is possible (albeit with various pragmatic compromises) to:

Jump into Japanese and swim.

Not spend years in a classroom

Not spend months preparing in RTK

Not spend forever in Core Vocabulary decks or 10,000 sentences

Just enter the language you love.

All right, I am making it sound romantic. But to me it is romantic. It is also tough. Very tough at first. But it is a labor of love.

If this appeals to you, that is what we are here for.

If it doesn't appeal to you, all the answers to the 1 question aren't worth a hill of beans anyway. Because there is absolutely no reason for you to consider our approach. There's a ton of stuff on the internet.

CureDolly Wrote:You seemed to be emotionally affected to me since terms like "resent" and "regret" normally imply that, but if you aren't I am glad.

One thing first. If only for future reference, please don't. It's a civil discussion; hopefully I'm learning as much from you as you are from me. I would never draw any dumb conclusions about you from the fact that you reply with ten sentences for each one I write.

CureDolly Wrote:To answer why I think our work has value regardless of the fact that we are still in the intermediate process of learning (which is what you asked and what I am answering) without trying to demonstrate what I think we do have to offer would be a bit meaningless, wouldn't it?

Not at all. I think the crux is this: I was asking about your level of ability as a concern; you were answering with what you have to offer as a response to that concern—your offerings make up for your level of ability because they target a certain kind of learner. This is a humble claim with which I can agree. But when I explain that what you offer is not for people like me, as I'm rather more competence-minded, you begin to make grandiose claims such as that competence proves nothing, which I cannot help but argue against; on top of this, you kept providing tons of information and links to your website, which made me doubt your sincerity, because we'd already established that what you offer doesn't appeal to learners like me, people who like their sources to be higher on the competence scale. The second question you ascribe to me, "Why would anyone want to read what we have anyway?", is entirely your own invention. I could not have made it any clearer that learners like me cannot be convinced this way. To an extent, I can understand it if you felt compelled to "defend" your website, but an expression of disinterest certainly shouldn't be taken as an attack on your work.

And on that note, I'm bowing out. I like arguing when there's something worth arguing about, but I think we've (or at least I've) reached that limit here.

I entered this earlier but I found the bookkeeping part really boring and stopped counting things after like 2 days.

EDIT: Trying again, maybe I can figure out a better way to keep track of game stuff this time.

cracky Wrote:I entered this earlier but I found the bookkeeping part really boring and stopped counting things after like 2 days.

EDIT: Trying again, maybe I can figure out a better way to keep track of game stuff this time.

I always guessed for console games (the last time I used them in the contest, anyway), because it's really hard to tell how much you've read, but VNs on the PC (and games made on similar engines) can have the text threads hooked by a program like ITH, which makes it much easier to count frames (I dump it to a text file and then use the line counter on a program and divide by two, since this method leaves a blank line between each panel of text).

You could use a simple counting device while playing, but that seems like it'd get really tedious; better to actually do the reading and enjoy it than not do it because recording it is too much of a pain.