Was By-Tor truly Non-Committal?

**Daniel Muir** · November 18th, 2006, 01:39 PM

Here's something for debate.

When the question of going to a free opera or a $60 pre-Broadway flop was asked, By-Tor chose neither. By my judgement, he didn't commit to either one, therefore, he's Non-Committal.

By-Tor's original reply:

>I would have to see if either of these friends are planning to attend.
Would I be their date for the evening??? If so, it would depend on the friend and my availability, but most likely I would decline both offers.
If they are not going to be there, I would tell them I would think about it, then call and see if you want one or the other.<

Was I unfair in awarding By-Tor the Non-Com? Tell me what you think.

[ November 23, 2006 09:45 PM: Message edited by: The Grand Inquisitor ]

**Craig T Gustafson** · November 18th, 2006, 03:22 PM

One of the unwritten rules of the NQ is that there are no rules.

Whoops! Wait just a cotton-pickin' minute...

Does that mean I can go back to being political and ignore the Unwritten Rule I was sent in writing?

But, to answer the question:

>I would have to see if either of these friends are planning to attend. Would I be their date for the evening??? If so, it would depend on the friend and my availability, but most likely I would decline both offers. If they are not going to be there, I would tell them I would think about it, then call and see if you want one or the other.

How less committal could it get?

[ November 18, 2006 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Sgt. Bilko ]

**suzychapstick** · November 18th, 2006, 03:41 PM

I agree with your reasoning. (S)he was choosing between the friends and not the events.

**crhickman** · November 19th, 2006, 02:14 AM

Well... I think so, but then again, maybe not.
I mean, sure they gave a reply, but it seemed, maybe, that they were vacillating between other issues rather than the issue at hand and not answering the question at all.
And, if they were committed to their answer, how committed were they: a lot or just some? And what makes a committed answer officially ?committal??

It seems obvious they weren?t committed to picking between the two choices. When given a choice between one option or another, there isn?t much room for play.

Or is there? Maybe there is no right or wrong; no up or down. Maybe up really is down! Maybe all of communication convention is up for grabs and/or unimportant.

For instance: Does a question sentence really need to end with a question mark.

Would it sew confusion if words sentence the were not of a placed order conventional in an?
I think (I know), therefore (I?m not sure) I am!
?
I just want you to know that I?m fully committed to this question.
What were we talking about?
Sorry, just had to scroll back up to that thingy you wrote (I believe it?s called a question, but don?t quote me on that.)
Was the answer committal or not? Not!
I?m sure of it! I think.

[ November 18, 2006 10:19 PM: Message edited by: Maelifisis ]

[ November 18, 2006 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Maelifisis ]

**By-Tor** · November 21st, 2006, 08:30 PM

Please keep in mind; it is not being labeled a noncommittal I have contention with. When I am noncommittal, I freely admit it. In this case, however, I contend that our esteemed moderator pulled the old bait and switch on us. In the original question, no mention was given to the underlying purpose of the question, which was, and I quote, "I wanted to see who would rather choose a new experience or be afraid of something they may not like and stick with the mediocre." This was only revealed to us with the answers. At that, there was only two of who did not give the "correct" answer, which obviously was OPERA. Both of us were labeled noncomm's. As I am just simple folk, I don't include opera or broadway shows in my entertainment repertoire. Instead, I attempted to re-translate the question into terms I could relate to. Being as how there are no rules, I deemed this to be completely acceptable. I then committed to my answer.

I contend that since I didn't give the answer which aligns with the rest of the forums view; (particularly the moderators? personal bias) in other words, the wrong answer, my answer was deemed to be noncommittal.

That is all.

[ November 21, 2006 04:31 PM: Message edited by: By-Tor ]

**Daniel Muir** · November 22nd, 2006, 01:38 AM

The NQ has, among it's participants, a fair number of actors I've come to know over the years. I wondered if they'd be so dyed-in-the-wool theater folk that they'd take the flop over the opera, but no! Most of them chose the opera. Well, after all, it IS still theater, and from the given scenarios, the better of the two shows. If given the choice of a great Broadway show for $60 and a bad but free opera, I'm sure everyone would've chosen to pay for good entertainment than see something bad for free. I know I would!

I think this all boils down to where the better entertainment is. And who would take a chance on it. IF there were a free ticket to am Eminem concert and a $60 PBF(pre-Broadway flop), as much as I can't stand rap, I'd try the free Eminem concert. I might see where his talent lies, gain some insight and respect for him, and see a damm good show. Or I might not. At least I'd find out, and it wouldn't cost me $60.

Actually, it wasn't that OPERA was the right answer; the wrong answer was not choosing between the two scenarios. In not choosing the PBF or the opera, you and Sadie, who also protests the NC award, avoided both, not committing to either. If someone had chosen the PBF, they wouldn't have won the NC, because they would've committed to one of the two. That's what makes you non-committal in my eyes.

But don't sweat it. This is just for fun.

And since this IS just for fun, I might just have to come up with a few rules and actually write them down, to make sure we CAN have fun with this.

[ November 21, 2006 10:16 PM: Message edited by: The Grand Inquisitor ]

**Pook** · November 26th, 2006, 07:59 AM

And the other non-com speaks up:

"I wanted to see who would rather choose a new experience or be afraid of something they may not like and stick with the mediocre."

I'm sure it was unintentional, but there really is a slight condescending tone to that phrasing, and it does give the impression that Opera was the "right" answer. I thought that NQ was a matter of expressing opinions - how can there be a "wrong" answer? Choosing "neither" is , in my opinion, the "right" answer for me. (But now that I've read the new rules, I'll know better next time.)

And...why assume that fear has anything whatsoever to do with it? As I said in a note to our esteemed moderator, I am afraid of snakes; I am not "afraid" of opera or bad theatre - I simply don't like them. My response came from the fact that I considered both choices to be mediocre.

Sadie [img]graemlins/rose.gif[/img]

**Daniel Muir** · November 26th, 2006, 05:21 PM

From what I've encountered, I've found that most people are afraid of making the wrong choice and wind up with something they truly hate, so they stick with something they've tried before, thinking it won't be as bad as they imagine the alternative to be. Mostly, they've judged what they don't like on a small sampling rather than a larger portion. THAT'S what I was going by.

I once asked a coworker if he'd like to see a show I was in. It was "Forum", one of the funniest shows I was ever in. He said no, he doesn't like theater. He saw a high school production of Fiddler once, and didn't like the story, so he doesn't like theater. Think of how much he's missed! But he didn't feel he missed out on anything; he had his TV, so he was happy. Oooo boy!

But let's not beat a dead horse here. I've learned something from this situation. And Sadie, I didn't mean any condescension. Sorry if you felt that way. I'll sing you something nice sometime!

Thread: Was By-Tor truly Non-Committal?

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions