Oh darn, you’re right. The one time I don’t check the sources…
With that in mind, let’s redo this:
The fact that the Piraka thought the Nuva armour looked weird doesn’t really affect Matoro’s (supposed, but not really) recognition of it. The Toa Nuva were a unique type of Toa never seen by anyone outside of the Mata Nui Matoran, but Matoro was one of those Matoran. There’s no reason he wouldn’t recognize it while Reidak didn’t.
Of course, this ultimately doesn’t matter, since the quote was only referring to Matoro’s recognizance of the mask, not the armour.
(Plus, even if Matoro did recognize the armour, that doesn’t necessarily mean it was Nuva-style armour. If he recognized an old mask based on Nuju’s tales of the past, I don’t see why he couldn’t also recognize other styles of Toa armour)
Maybe nitpicky, but i personally think it is supposed to be Matoro recognizing it as Toa armour. The line specifying it as Toa armour is right after a line that is definitely from Matoro’s perspective, and if it were just for the agudience benefit, Teridax states that it’s a Toa right afterwards, so it could have just said “bits of armour” if Matoro didn’t recognize it as Toa armour. At least, that’s how I read it.
It was said at the end of the discussion that they still don’t know when the contest will start. It sounded like there’s going to be at least one more talk first.
didnt nokama or someone draw pictures of the metru on a cave wall when she left gali to drown? maybe matoro had seen a drawing of the metru before so knows what a metru build looks like. especially likely as he was mr lil translator boy
hm I completely forgot about the fact that matoro spent some time back in metru nui post MOL. yeah entirely possible
lots of things were proposed google docs were vandalized and meso said they will have another meeting in private to go over logistics and feasability of some of the proposals that they both semi agreed on
It started off with proposals for wider community engagement, in terms of both entering and voting, and ended with fairly lengthy discussions about the specifics of contest rules and auditing.
One of the proposals was for an “ambassador plan”, where people could submit their entries to any website involved in “the plan”, and then those entries would be passed on to a central auditing team (probably the same one as the last contest).
The other notable proposal was for voting. If it can actually be done reliably and securely, the idea would be that any website could host a new voting “applet”, which would consolidate all votes from all sites before calculating the winners.
There was also talk of giving banned users limited access to TTV if the applet idea doesn’t work. The accounts can be set to “Silenced”, which still prevents people from posting, but allows for participation in votes.
Just to be clear, nothing I have mentioned here is confirmed. There was very little, if anything at all, that was concretely decided in the talk.
Question that directly affects less than 20 people, but since you, jerm, listened through, and I won’t have the time to for a couple days:
Can you elaborate on what the said about auditing in specific? I know it was likely non-conclusive, but nonetheless. Would be helpful to know how the role will evolve.
The proposed benefits would be that people can participate without being forced to use any specific website. It seems like this idea was primarily conceived with consideration towards those who have been banned from TTV, but it would also apply to anyone who simply prefers another site.
From what I understand, though, the voting process wouldn’t change much with either proposal. Not for voters, at least. The polls would still be set up more or less the same, maybe just on different sites. All entries would still be consolidated into one pool; it’s not like the Makuta Contest, where each site ran their own polls and produced their own finalist.
Of course, anyone can only still vote once. One of the criteria for implementing the applet system, rather than just keeping it on TTV, is a way to ensure that each community member can only vote once, regardless of what site they do it on.
It had less to do with the auditing itself, and more to do with how to determine what rules are “auditable”. A large portion of the later parts of the talk were similar to recent discussions here, trying to figure out what quotes should be mandated vs. “suggested”. No specific points were covered in much detail, but it was a more general discussion.
The most notable proposal in this regard was the idea of the auditors having a “grading sheet” of canon criteria, with each entry only needing to meet a certain amount of “points” on the sheet.
/s