User blog comment:Goddess of Despair/Clone troopers vs Spartans(halo)/@comment-4484220-20121016233224


 * facepalm*

When there's complication as to whether or not a battle is fair, you don't end it in a tie until a conclusion is made. That's just not what you do. I'm pretty sure that people saying this is unfair are saying it's in favor of Spartans, and that those who say it's fair are also saying the Spartans win.

As for whether or not this battle is fair, the statistics stand thus:

Those who think this is an unfair battle believe so because this is basically special ops vs. standard infantry units. Spartans have better training by such a long shot that it's not even funny. The Spartans also have energy shields that recharge and the Clone troopers don't. Supporters of this:

1) Warl0rd13

2) Leolab

Those who think this is a fair battle believe so because Spartans' weapons mostly fire bullets, and Clone Trooper armor is designed to give protection from bullets for some time, which will keep them in the fight for a little, whereas clone troopers have energy weapons that will be able to drain Spartan's energy shield. Unless I am much mistaken, people who believe this fight is fair do not think the clones will win, but rather that this isn't an insufferably lopsided battle. Supporters of this:

1) Tomahawk23

2) Beastman14

3) Utter noob

Both sides of the argument seem quite valid at first sight. One bit of information to look at is to compare the number of supporters for each. It appears that there are two supporters for this being unfair, while there are three for it being fair. This should mean that this battle is to be declared fair. Since not only is there less than three supporters for it being unfair, but there are also three supporters for this battle being fair, which I believe meets the criteria for a fair fight. Now I did originally think this battle was unfair, then when I saw Hawk's argument I thought it was fair, then when I saw Leo's I was torn. If I threw my hat into the circle of supporters for this being unfair, then I would further complicate things by making this a tie. If, however, I sided with Hawk, Beastman and Utter noob, then I would further reinforce the notion that this battle is fair. Where do I stand? Well, let's compare credibility of the supporters. I generally agree with Warl0rd13 on stuff, and he's a pretty cool guy, and I have a great respect for Leo; he is one of the wisest and most competent people on this wiki. And then there are the supporters for this being fair. Utter noob is well... currently a noob on this wiki, so I don't know him very well. I won't go into huge detail, but I generally don't trust Beastman's judgement very much. And now we have Hawk. If this were prior to May of this year, then I would take his points with a grain of salt, but since then his behavior has become far more competent and mature, as well as his arguments have generally become more credible. Considering that he is very, very knowledgeable about both Star Wars AND Halo, I would be more willing to trust his judgement on this subject. I'm not saying Leo knows nothing about either franchises, but I haven't seen much evidence to suggest that he knows anywhere near as much as Hawk about Star Wars. And I believe Leo said once that he is prejudiced toward Master Chief, which has led me to the conclusion that he isn't a powerhouse of Halo knowledge. And also that I've never seen him voting in any Chief battles, whereas I have seen Hawk do it. With that, I think Hawk would be a more credible judge on whether or not a Halo vs. Star Wars battle is fair. I can't really figure out the extent of Warlord's Halo/Star Wars knowledge seeing as he has less than 400 edits. So I'm basically basing my choice off of whether Leo's judgement on this subject is more credible, or Hawk's.

TL;DR

Despite where I originally stood, I side with the supporters that this fight is fair. Given these stats, there are two supporters for this battle being unfair, and four that think this is fair. Therefore, I believe that this battle should be allowed to continue given that there are less than three supporters for this being unfair. Not only that, but even supposing there were three supporters for this being unfair, there would be more than enough supporters to overturn the belief that this battle is unfair, 'cause 4 > 3. So then shouldn't this battle continue, and be considered legal? I don't want to really keep the author of a blog post waiting when there's stats like these, so shouldn't this solve the controversy going on regarding the fairness of this battle?