Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 8178995" data-attributes="member: 57112">A lot to catch up on. Re: AcrimonyI agree that the judge panel resolves most of this. Amusingly enough, the one time I really felt salty after a loss was also the one time I lost in the first round. Looking back I'm sure I would agree with the judgment. I certainly earned my other losses. Otherwise I haven't seen too much salt directed at the judges since I've been a part of these. Now, the word limits on the other hand... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f608.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":devilish:" title="Devil    :devilish:"  data-smilie="29"data-shortname=":devilish:" />Re: Ingredient DescriptionsI am definitely on team "Not Necessary". I know they've been a staple for a while, and they even featured in my first ever tournament. That said, I think the entries are better without them. I prefer it when the ingredients speak for themselves, and the ingredient descriptions at the end detracts from that. Re: Multiple UsesI also agree that using the ingredient in multiple ways isn't, by itself, good or bad on its own. That said, it does raise a red flag that maybe the author didn't feel like their use was that strong in the first place. Sometimes it works out anyway. Sometimes it plays that role of enhancing the theme, and it's great. And sometimes it is just cover for an otherwise weak usage.</blockquote>

Verification