Critical Concepts, and Exceptions

[Ian Brill]

Point 1: American football is a very complicated sport, yet for some reason or another it is an American staple. Millions of people watch it. Economies and societal norms are altered by it. Most importantly, however, I would like to reiterate that it is a very complicated sport.

Point 2 I have witnessed people develop a working understanding of footbag fundamentals after a brief exchange of question and answering I have seen this work effectively between people of limited public-speaking prowess, and people with only a moderate level of focus or interest.

Overall goal of this post: I believe that the add system is important, and rather than discarding it (as some people feel inclined to do these days) I feel it requires one, if not multiple addendum's. In other words, I believe that it needs to be modified.

Here is my proposal: I believe that when a footbag player is evaluating the overall-content of a particular trick that there are at least two more elements that should be taken into consideration, and these are: "critical concepts" and "exceptions". While there are particular occurrences where the add system fails us (and among these, it is capable of failing us miserably,) I feel that the add system has done a considerable deal to help this sport evolve and that it is in our interest to remedy the add-system of its short-comings by giving it more responsibility. Please humor me as I share with you a couple of ideas that I feel would enhance our ability to communicate, judge and prolong the integrity of our sport.

Critical Concepts
I feel that our community needs to identify and organize as many concepts as we possibly can. Specifically, those that we feel are significant for evaluating an individual tricks. Then we need to adequately define every one, and consider each as a possible, crucial, "concept".

Why does whirl have the potential for paradox status when dyno does not? Opinions are not as important as explanations. I feel that top players should take the responsibility for determining specific concepts, other than paradox, X-Dex, symposium and body. There must be so many of them. For every argument regarding how the add system fails to accurately compare two moves, there is a ripe opportunity to identify potentially crucial concepts. Why is triple-spinning inside kick the same value as butterfly? I have my reasons but they are not as important as Vasek's. They are not important as Moir's, C-Fan's, Clavens's, Bevier's, Penske's, Olav's, etc's.

We are a community yes, but we are a community of freestlyers. I feel that our sport evolves like a great string. So it should be that those with the ability to perform the greatest strings that should have the power to direct our sport. It's not even that they have earned the privilege of directing it. It's because it is a function that they already assume.

If someone should determine how freestyle is judged, I believe it should be the individuals that are already leading the sport where it is heading. This has been the nature of the sport all along and it should continue this way. Having them identify, or at least evaluate the significance of proposed, crucial concepts, is something that should be voted on semi-regularly, and dictated by the top performers. Like any good string, it should evolve and play out. And, if doesn't work, each component should be drilled. And then it should be revised. Accordingly.

Exceptions:
When a trick is evaluated for its worth necessary exceptions should be taken into consideration. I feel that a vote among the top competitors should be suitable for making such possible exceptions. And, as some exception will occur more frequently than others, these should collectively help identify crucial concepts. Ianek's example of Fairy whirl versus blurry whirl really inspired this idea. Could there potentially be another "version of paradox" that could accredit this move accordingly? I think so

I feel that there would be a major reluctance to implement major changes to the sport, but I feel that it can handle some exceptions and appreciate a few more "crucial concepts". It would be much easier to keep track of logically integrated exceptions than the disarray of randomly-named footbag moves we already have. Please trust me on this, and at least consider my idea.

Prolonging the integrity of our sport
My interest is to limit subjectivity as much as possible in favor of the combined interests of the talent that is currently ranked at the top- because they are dictating the direction of the game, and not the personal interests, or biases of judges. No matter who the judges are, or were.

Anyway, this is an idea that popped in my head and I felt like it's worth evolving with the help of the footbag community.

I've been typing forever. Please excuse any obvious typos or bad grammar for now.

[Outsider]

So, what are you trying to say here, Ian? That we "fix" the ADD system?

And you're asking us to do some brain-storming... to throw some ideas out there? Is that it?

Okay, I'm game.

My little notion:

Symposium and Paradox currently fall under the "Body" ADD category. I don't think they belong there. The majority of "Body" moves exist independently of whatever other move elements are also in a given move. For instance, a spinning move might or might not also have a dexterity in it, might or might not also have a cross-body element in it, might or might not also have a stall involved. With or without any of these other elements in the move, you can still do a spin. Same goes for ducks and flyers. Even flyers might be a flying kick OR a flying stall, might have a dex in the move or might not, might end as a cross-body move or a toe move. It doesn't matter what other move elements are present for there to be a flyer, a spin, a duck, or perhaps some other kind of body move.

BUT -- symposium and paradox cannot be present in a move that does not have a dexterity element.

So, symposium and paradox do not belong in the same ADD category. Somehow, they aren't really "Body" moves in the way that spin, duck, and flyer are. Instead, they should be counted as some kind of "Dexterity Modifier".

What difference does any of this really make? I don't know. Less and less all the time, seemingly... But, if you're looking to tally everything up correctly, this is a change we could make.

I've got a few other ideas. Regarding rakes. Regarding unusual surfaces. Regarding some other stuff. I might get to that stuff later. For now, this is just where I wanted to start.

[Ian Brill]

So, what are you trying to say here, Ian? That we "fix" the ADD system?

Yes. More specifically: reward it with more responsibilities. I say this because I feel like it has done wonders for the sport and that it is about time that it gets updated, rather than left the way it is and potentially dismissed as obsolete, in favor of something else. Something subjective, and out of control.

And you're asking us to do some brain-storming... to throw some ideas out there? Is that it?

Exactly.

Okay, I'm game.

Awesome.

...BUT -- symposium and paradox cannot be present in a move that does not have a dexterity element.

This is exactly what I am talking about. This is the sort of detail that I would like to see complied with many others. I am already glad that I started this post because of this point alone. Thank you.

So, symposium and paradox do not belong in the same ADD category. Somehow, they aren't really "Body" moves in the way that spin, duck, and flyer are. Instead, they should be counted as some kind of "Dexterity Modifier".

I have a good feeling about this idea. "Dexterity Modifier" sounds like a contagious term. And I feel that there should be many more of them. I have always been in full support of symposium adds, though paradox has seemed a little undefined. Xdex on the other hand seems like a temporary placeholder to compensate for some obvious short-comings of the add-system in its current state.

What difference does any of this really make? I don't know. Less and less all the time, seemingly... But, if you're looking to tally everything up correctly, this is a change we could make.

Thanks. I think that enough ideas along these lines, could lead to some important breakthoughs.

I've got a few other ideas. Regarding rakes. Regarding unusual surfaces. Regarding some other stuff. I might get to that stuff later. For now, this is just where I wanted to start.

I really hope that you can get to these. Your opinion on these matters strikes me as being significant. Particularly regarding the multiple concepts that you have pioneered and mastered.

[Jorden]

Well, before we can explain footbag to people we need to show it to people. There isn't a man alive that can properly conceive it on words alone.

I think presenting footbag in an attractive way so that people WANT to ask questions should be top priority.

Why not tell someone this:
"Here's a footbag. Here are the places and ways you can contact the bag. Here are some things you can do between contacts. The rest is up to you. Be creative. Have fun."

Is there really a need to bring up ADDs at all? How many more patches can ADDs take before it bursts at the seams?

Showing people freestle then talking ADDs like showing people Windows Vista and then talking about assembly language.

Art...or numbers?

JM

[Jayjoo]

Art...or numbers?

Show or sport?

[Ian Brill]

Well, before we can explain footbag to people we need to show it to people. There isn't a man alive that can properly conceive it on words alone.

This is a common characteristic about creative endeavors.

I think presenting footbag in an attractive way so that people WANT to ask questions should be top priority.

I think the sport is the top priority, and I feel that it is up to its players to decide what is best for it. I also feel that you, and players on or around your level are pushing the fabric of the sport. Changing it. And I think that is why you would know what is best to change about it.
I also think that the add system got us where we are and we have neglected it. Rather than using more creative ways of reinforcing it (so that it can more accurately prescribe appropriate values for tricks) we have let it drag along, to the point that some people have lost sight of it strengths in lieu of it glaringly obvious shortcomings.

Why not tell someone this:
"Here's a footbag. Here are the places and ways you can contact the bag. Here are some things you can do between contacts. The rest is up to you. Be creative. Have fun."

I think that is great. In particular, that is a very effective way to introduce it to children. As an individuals appreciation for the sport evolves, however, having an established set of terms and universal reference points does assist in communication, and organizing goals.

Is there really a need to bring up ADDs at all? How many more patches can ADDs take before it bursts at the seams?

Strange. I've been conscious of this sport for 13+ years and I don't feel that the add-system has received too many patches in the process. Maybe a few bandaids (where there could have been a skin-graph,) other than Xdex, not too many.

Showing people freestle then talking ADDs like showing people Windows Vista and then talking about assembly language.

I am suggesting that footbag is like making a website on myspace, and that the add-system is like coding in Dreamweaver. What I am suggesting is that we learn how to code html by hand so that we can learn enough to troubleshoot and have things run on more browsers.

Art...or numbers?

you would have got a kick out the performance I did this weekend:
http://garthzeglin.com/Wax-Poetic/
Boy it's late.

If you could make a patch what would you do? I would rather not defend the add system. I simply feel that it has always been over-simplified. Football takes along time describe. I don't see why our sport should be simplified to accomodate potential interest at the expense of its current players.

[Rieferman]

Ian wrote:

Overall goal of this post: I believe that the add system is important, and rather than discarding it (as some people feel inclined to do these days) I feel it requires one, if not multiple addendum's. In other words, I believe that it needs to be modified.

So, let's keep on topic rather than getting back into the "we have to show our sport" conversation - I'm not debating the merits of that separate conversation, but it's a separate conversation from the topic proposed here.

Ian - your opening points.. Point 1 about American football. Although there are lots of rules, the concept of the game is as simple as it gets, and as old as time. It's basically a war. One army trying to march to the other's home base. Also, every kid on the planet at some point learns to throw and catch, so this sport at it's base level is actually very easily understood.

But I get what you're trying to say, which I think is basically "There are hugely popular activities out there that are complicated, so a complex sport like footbag can be popular too". Just the football thing isn't the right example in my mind is all.

Anyhow... I don't personally care about adds because I don't compete, and I basically feel that most of our competitions are kind of pointless anyways. Even with a perfect measurement system, I would feel our freestyle competitions sort of don't mean much. Ask most players if they're more riveted by competition or by watching (playing in) a circle, and most would say circle. Because that's where the really bad ass stuff happens. The more perfect the scoring system, the more freestyle footbag becomes figure skating in my opinion. Yawn. Much prefer true freestyle in a circle.

That said, my point really is that the add system as currently devised is most useful (again, just my opinion) for people that become interested and want to learn the game. I used it to learn tricks early on, and to be able to communicate and ask questions. That only lasted a few months, and then I knew nick names and didn't need it anymore. It's over 10 years for me now, and I can honestly say, I haven't used the add system for anything in about 8 years.

In other words, for purposes of competition, there might be a use. But in my opinion, the system is good enough for all its other purposes.

Which doesn't really help. Ha ha.. All that after I posted your original goal. My bad.

[Asmus]

Art...or numbers?

Show or sport?

When playing in public = art
when at competition = sport

my answer = both

[Ian Brill]

Ian wrote:

...I feel it (the add-system) requires one, if not multiple addendum's. In other words, I believe that it needs to be modified.

So, let's keep on topic rather than getting back into the "we have to show our sport" conversation - I'm not debating the merits of that separate conversation, but it's a separate conversation from the topic proposed here.

Good point. I think we should try to refrain from the "we have to show our sport" conversation.

Ian - your opening points.. Point 1 about American football. Although there are lots of rules, the concept of the game is as simple as it gets, and as old as time. It's basically a war. One army trying to march to the other's home base. Also, every kid on the planet at some point learns to throw and catch, so this sport at it's base level is actually very easily understood.

I agree. Footbag is also very easy to understand. Although there are a lot of rules, the concept is as pretty simple. We are manipulating an object with our feet. There also happens to be some rules, and I would argue that there are far fewer than Football. I raise this point because I feel that people may fear letting competitive footbag become more complicated when I believe there is reasonable headroom for adjustment.

But I get what you're trying to say, which I think is basically "There are hugely popular activities out there that are complicated, so a complex sport like footbag can be popular too". Just the football thing isn't the right example in my mind is all.

That is fine with me. Football has always struck me as having a considerable amount of rules. Not in any negative way, but more so than any other common sport that I am familiar with.

Anyhow... I don't personally care about adds because I don't compete, and I basically feel that most of our competitions are kind of pointless anyways. Even with a perfect measurement system, I would feel our freestyle competitions sort of don't mean much. Ask most players if they're more riveted by competition or by watching (playing in) a circle, and most would say circle.

I do care about the add system because I am competitive with myself. I like to set goals for myself and accomplish them, and the add system helps me organize these goals as I develop my game.

Because that's where the really bad ass stuff happens. The more perfect the scoring system, the more freestyle footbag becomes figure skating in my opinion. Yawn. Much prefer true freestyle in a circle.

I agree that circle competition is riveting. I also feel that by identifying more crucial concepts and exceptions to the add system, the sport, and thus judges, will acquire more objective material for evaluating what is currently more subjective criteria.

That said, my point really is that the add system as currently devised is most useful (again, just my opinion) for people that become interested and want to learn the game. I used it to learn tricks early on, and to be able to communicate and ask questions. That only lasted a few months, and then I knew nick names and didn't need it anymore. It's over 10 years for me now, and I can honestly say, I haven't used the add system for anything in about 8 years.

I feel that the add system also helped me early on, in terms of understanding and communicating the elements of this sport as I tried to develop my game to another level.

In other words, for purposes of competition, there might be a use. But in my opinion, the system is good enough for all its other purposes.

I agree.

Which doesn't really help. Ha ha.. All that after I posted your original goal. My bad.

It's all good Bob, I'm more glad than everything that you took the time to not only read, but respond to this post. My main intention is to acquire as many working examples of important exceptions and concepts that need to be adressed by the add-system. I am happy discussing any or all related material, particularly if it helps enable me to reinforce or clarify my original intention.

[calemccoy]

i both agree and disagree with this idea. heres what i have to say.

- i like the idea and agree with pdx and symp being "add modifiers".... but if they are still an add, who cares what "category" they are in? an add is an add. if you called spinning a dexterity, i could care less.

- i think some "exceptions" should get an add. heres a few examples. obvioulsy, they are sort of rare and underexecurted and underappreciated, but look at dragon/frigid stalls. an outside stall is just a delay add when done normally... but i believe that when done xbd it should get an "anomoly" add, or a "strange" add. also, why should something as difficult and unique as a frigid stall get the same credit as a toe stall? its not cross body, so its only awarded one add. i think it too should get a "strange" add.

- i have a problem with something you said in the first post, regarding "top players determining how freestyle is judged". it raises a few questions... just how much can they change? who decides who is at the 'top of the sport"? what would be required to attain such influential status? the only solution i can see is BAP members being ordained with this power.... i think that would be fair, because it takes alot to be in BAP. i dont think anyone who plays tripless should be able to decide what gets an add or not. the main problem i see with this idea is consistency. how would "lower players" keep up with all the changes? there is already enough confusion with adds,. levels of play, and job's notation, and i think rules and categories changing even semi-frequently would be detrimental to understandiong the sport. also, this might creat a political status complex that would lead to seperation and possibly spite among the community, which would not be good. BAP sserves as a form of recognition and respect for achievement... not authority. please correct me if i am wrong.

-i very strongly agree that footbag is both art and sport... and pushing it too far either way is slightly off. its all about balancing competition and fun.

-i could care less if there was absolutely no add system
whatsoever. it would just be "i can do this move, and its cool." i think that would lead to players basing the moves they do in strings solely on aesthetic purposes and the like. however, i do believe that the sort of game that is comprised of raw skill is beautiful in its own right, so i think that that might be lost if adds were abolished.

-basically.... leave the add system as is. sure, it has shortcomings, but its made the sport what it is today... and i do love footbag as of right now, everything about it. please dont change that.



that is my longest modified post ever, i believe. and im sitting in art class =]

[Ian Brill]

- i like the idea and agree with pdx and symp being "add modifiers".... but if they are still an add, who cares what "category" they are in? an add is an add. if you called spinning a dexterity, i could care less.

I think that identifying new modifiers allows for great potential. Some I feel are worth more than others. Particularly in different contexts. Identifying these concepts and accounting for exceptions could, I feel, enable a stronger relationship between a move and its add-count.

- i think some "exceptions" should get an add. heres a few examples. obvioulsy, they are sort of rare and underexecurted and underappreciated, but look at dragon/frigid stalls. an outside stall is just a delay add when done normally... but i believe that when done xbd it should get an "anomoly" add, or a "strange" add. also, why should something as difficult and unique as a frigid stall get the same credit as a toe stall? its not cross body, so its only awarded one add. i think it too should get a "strange" add.

I completely agree with your reasoning.

- i have a problem with something you said in the first post, regarding "top players determining how freestyle is judged". it raises a few questions... just how much can they change? who decides who is at the 'top of the sport"? what would be required to attain such influential status?

Believe me, I have problems with what I said as well, and how supine it may come across as. But, I also stand by this. I hate politics. This sport has a lot of it. I play this sport because for the most part it is enjoyable. An escape from things like politics. I would like to see the masters of this sport determine agree on the petty details so that everyone else can focus on mastering the sport. The day we retire from footbag I feel we become spectators, no matter how much we contribute otherwise. It is the talent ,I feel, that should determine how best that freestyle is evolves, and is evaluated.

the only solution i can see is BAP members being ordained with this power.... i think that would be fair, because it takes alot to be in BAP.

This is one point I disagree on. BAP, I feel is an elite club with its own inner politics and agendas. I can't imagine what it's like to be in this club, though I like to imagine that it is similar to the 5 timer's club on Saturday Night Live. I would rather see ideas be presented by the community, and have the high-ranking talent of the current year vote anonymously on adjustments for the next year. Perhaps around the time of worlds.

i dont think anyone who plays tripless should be able to decide what gets an add or not.

Me neither. Even if they were the first person to hit "Super Nemesis". If you are not playing at the top level at present then I do not feel you have the right to determine how footbag is evaluated at present. It is freestyle, so it should be free to evolve. This does not mean that it can't be evaluated adequately or objectively, at any level.

the main problem i see with this idea is consistency. how would "lower players" keep up with all the changes?

I think that lower players should concentrate on their own skill level, and that the changes will make themselves available as the individuals talent and interest evolve together. I honestly feel like the the changes will seem drastic at first but quickly lead to something just as functional and intuitive. As it is, I feel we are doing a disservice by allowing for so many generalizations and oversimplifications, as our sport is rapdily developing. I think it is negligent.

there is already enough confusion with adds, levels of play, and job's notation, and i think rules and categories changing even semi-frequently would be detrimental to understandiong the sport.

I see your point but I am not worried about this. The sport can be understood on many levels, just like football or perhaps a painting. The people who really need clarification on a deeper level are those whom are competing on a level that requires a physical understanding of these concepts and exceptions already. Otherwise, the can be (and is often) played without taking these details into consideration.

also, this might creat a political status complex that would lead to seperation and possibly spite among the community, which would not be good.

Not if the right to partake in the decision making process was based on recent achievement, and particularly not if the voting was done anonymously.

BAP sserves as a form of recognition and respect for achievement... not authority. please correct me if i am wrong.

I agree with your distinction. And, for the record, I never suggested BAP. I was hoping they would not get brought up, but I am also relieved that I have had a natural opportunity make this address this.

-i very strongly agree that footbag is both art and sport... and pushing it too far either way is slightly off. its all about balancing competition and fun.

I agree. I thought of footbag more as art at first. After taking time away from it during art school, innovators like J. Moir sucked me back in. It was not without appreciation for athleticism of Vasek and DC that I was inspired to maintain enthusiasm for integrity of the sport. Often, my favorite players to watch are appreciated for different reasons. This does not mean that they can't be evaluated comparatively and more objectively. At a recent tournament I watched three of my favorite footbag players perform at a level that made it difficult for seasoned judges to come to a consensus. This resulted in a first-place tie for routines. This sort of situation can be avoided, and I feel should be. I was happy to see that both of the two open winners seemed to score high for their creativity.

...i do believe that the sort of game that is comprised of raw skill is beautiful in its own right, so i think that that might be lost if adds were abolished.

I agree.

-basically.... leave the add system as is. sure, it has shortcomings, but its made the sport what it is today... and i do love footbag as of right now, everything about it. please dont change that.

I almost completely agree. But if changes are made, I feel they should improve the add system, not run away from it.

that is my longest modified post ever, i believe. and im sitting in art class =]

I feel you. I have put more time than I can afford into this thread today. I need a break. Thanks again for your ideas.

[gMoney]

Ok, this is what I think about the add system. I think everyone should just leave it alone. Now obviously, if you were to refer to a string as being "tiltless" or "guiltless" adds would matter. But we all know the add system can't fully dictate difficulty, but then again, what can? So what's the point in "modifying" the add system, or even for that matter making a new system? If we made a new system and for instance called it the "dadd" system (I don't really know why I said that, but just go along with it) there would probably be people who would "dadd" chase, and just try harder tricks rather than string. I don't know what else to say about this, but just take it into consideration.

edit: Although I skimmed most of this thread already, I didn't read everything everybody said, so I apologize if I said something someone already said.

[Laroche]

Err... what inner politics and agendas with BAP? You mean with the.. err, nvm, can't speak about it...

BTW, why bother with adds at all? Anyway, I'm off to plan world domin.. I mean, bake cupcakes with the other BAP mambers now.

[Spontaneous Spaz]

how about an ammendment to make repetitions more adds...

for example, a trick like atw gets 2 adds, 1 dex, and 1 stall (toe)
DATW gets 3, but is substantially harder
and TATW gets 4, however it is considered to be one of the hardest moves to hit.

so i propose: a repetition rule.
any time there are 2 or more of the same type of component; whether it be a dex or a spin, and in the same direction or the same foot and same direction; we should give it 1 more add

i propose this the repetition add [rep]

so tricks like
DATW get 4 : toe > same in [dex] > same in [dex][rep] > toe [del]
or double spinning toe: toe > spin [bod] > spin [bod][rep] > toe [del]

it might be a little difficult to understand, but i believe it will make the harder tricks, more to scale (if you know what i mean)

...although i haven't decided if [rep] adds can be cumulative ; meaning TATW = 6 adds, not 5.... or 4

tell me what you think, world.

[Zac Miley]

That would make Pixie Paradon, Blurriest, Scorpion's Tail and such all 6's, which is too many adds for those tricks. I don't like that idea. Repetition already sounds sort of like XDex anyways.

[Ian Brill]

Err... what inner politics and agendas with BAP? You mean with the.. err, nvm, can't speak about it...

BTW, why bother with adds at all? Anyway, I'm off to plan world domin.. I mean, bake cupcakes with the other BAP mambers now.

I appreciate this natural opportunity to clarify that I am not trying to suggest any paranoid ideas. BAP is a club. A club that I used to dream of being in when I was younger and that whose members I generally admire for various different reasons.

Every club has interpersonal politics. I never suggested it is the Skull and Bones. I simply feel that BAP is mostly a bunch talented dudes that have mixed-degrees of relevance as the sport continues to evolve. There are members of BAP that have very little involvement in freestyle anymore. Why should they have more to say than John Smith, the 15 year old prodigy from X-ville that bursts onto the scene with Front-side Fusioning rakes?

[Ian Brill]

how about an ammendment to make repetitions more adds...

for example, a trick like atw gets 2 adds, 1 dex, and 1 stall (toe)
DATW gets 3, but is substantially harder
and TATW gets 4, however it is considered to be one of the hardest moves to hit.

so i propose: a repetition rule.
any time there are 2 or more of the same type of component; whether it be a dex or a spin, and in the same direction or the same foot and same direction; we should give it 1 more add

i propose this the repetition add [rep]

so tricks like
DATW get 4 : toe > same in [dex] > same in [dex][rep] > toe [del]
or double spinning toe: toe > spin [bod] > spin [bod][rep] > toe [del]

it might be a little difficult to understand, but i believe it will make the harder tricks, more to scale (if you know what i mean)

...although i haven't decided if [rep] adds can be cumulative ; meaning TATW = 6 adds, not 5.... or 4

tell me what you think, world.

Thank you for the thoughtful suggestion.

I have started down this path of thinking before in the past. In some ways I feel like it is a very natural progression, but at other time it just doesn't make sense. I think that with identifiable exceptions it could be very useful. If not as a general rule, at least as an important reference point when gathering and identifying other unique concepts and exceptions.

[Ian Brill]

That would make Pixie Paradon, Blurriest, Scorpion's Tail and such all 6's, which is too many adds for those tricks.

Right, but everything is relative, meaning that many tricks that get 6 adds now would be bumped up accordingly. Scary thought, eh?

I find it interesting that there seems to be a potential fear of such slight change, and yet my initial post was inspired by what I observed as a growing level of discontent with the add-system, to the point of abandoning it.

I don't like that idea. Repetition already sounds sort of like XDex anyways.

I think that both would be steps in the right direction, but that neither solve the issues by themselves. I am glad that we are all discussing this. It is the best way to come up with useful ideas.

[calemccoy]

i personally like the ideas of x-dex adds and repition adds.

whirr is waaay harder than whirl. almost deserving 2 more adds, not just one.

matador is waay harder than ripwalk. i think it too deserves one more add. however, it already gets a pdx add... so i think it is somewhat disqualified. perahps the differnce between atomsmasher and eggplant?


this is such a hard topic. despite some personal likes about this idea, i still standby the idea to leave it be.

[Spontaneous Spaz]

That would make Pixie Paradon, Blurriest, Scorpion's Tail and such all 6's, which is too many adds for those tricks. I don't like that idea. Repetition already sounds sort of like XDex anyways.

zac, what i meant was, that moves the have the same leg doing the same dex more than once, would get a [rep] add

pixie paradon, or just paradon has technically 2 "out" dexes during down time... but the butterfly portion of the move wouldn't get the extra add because, the butterfly is a half dex...
i should change it so that it has to be at least 2 whole dexes