>>40210179Speaking from a no-stakes perspective, the effort to bridge between groups is touching, but ultimately misguided. All that matters is the following three points
a) How to continue to enliven and further the series, developing and improving while averting disaster and maintaining the good old without stagnancy
b) Whether people agree on this or not and how much of this is pure personal preference, different people deriving different things from the same game
c) How to allocate an ultimately finite band of resources to maximally achieve glory for all parts, and avoid a competition over a single game where no matter what, one group will swear vengeance on the other
Points a) and b) may reveal that one party is ultimately more correct than the other, thereby averting the climax of point c) entirely. "Even Stevens" is a fallacy, sometimes one party has better information than the other. Maximising total information to get to the bottom of questions, and then applying that to maximal greatness, is the task at hand to be ultimately emphasised.
