Define ~ Family

I see what you mean, but when you talk about fountains for instance there's a ton of different moves you can do that are all fountains. If you don't want to call those a family, then what are they?

I think I'm with Rev here again. I think the butterfly weave is it's own base pattern though. I also like the sound of this plural z alpha stuff.

Ithink family should be based not on based pattern but on theory.. weave family from weave theory.. tangle from tangle theory and what not.. because some families don't ahve base patterns but ideas from which they are derived..

well see base theory differs from bae pattern in that there some families operate according to a principle (ie. wraps- rotation reverse via the body; tangles- performing moves while the strings are connected in a manner resembling a tangle.) [the use of resembling a tanlge is because some tangle stuff doesn't actually tangle]

point is that these other categories of families being derived from a principle don't have any base pattern per se.. that is they are applications of a theory or principle upon moves themselves.. think of a a hyperloop as like a tanlged weave... so now we are wroking with not two base pattern but two base theories.. i.e. the thoeyr behind how the weave operates and the applicaiotn of that via the principle of a tangle..

**this is just meant to illustrate a point not to declare the hyperloop as a simply a tangled weave.. it is obviously more then that.. ***

Works here.

8O
i don't have clue what your talking about...

defining 'families' is arbritrary innit?

the differences you're describing are real, but how you choose to group entities according to those differences is your own creation, and says nothing about that group.

thats not just me who says that, Aristotle says it too. And he invented putting stuff into groups.

when you take your 'scalpel of reason' and divide unique entities into factions, it should be based entirely on how it serves your purpose.

Until a much more integrated 'theory of poi' is worked out, and we can actually put together a periodic table kinda thing, you'll just be confusing terminology with random groups of stuff.

i say that the terminology for this kind of stuff has to be useful for extrapolating new moves
NOT just for looking at the moves we know already but arranged in a satisfying pattern.

or am i missing the point and talking rubbish?

How about we just use simian's definition and not bother trying to define any actual families then? Would save a lot of pointless arguing

:oops: yeah, ok, it's a fair cop. i was being a little facetious with the Aristotle bit.

i'm not saying :evil: DON'T GROUP THINGS EVER :evil:

i'm saying that you should have a good reason FOR putting things in the groups you put them in. Just because you can divide things a certain way, doesn't mean that it's a meaningful or useful division

Yay to the periodic table of moves

but boo to trying to put all the complex stuff in before we properly understand the hows and whys and stuff

am i rambling now? i think i am...

The Periodic Table of Poi....
um, think it's gonna have to be 3D in order to fit in different plane variations though....but I can see how it's gonna work

Front page:
[code:1]
Figureofeight |Butterfly |Tangle1 |Tangle2
3btweave |TTN |2bt tangle1 |2bt tangle2[/code:1]

Second page:
[code:1]
2bt corkscrew |OH butterfly |H Tangle1 |H Tangle2
3bt corkscrew |OH TTN |2bt H Tangle1 |2bt H tangle2
[/code:1]

Abbreviations: OH: Overhead, H: Horizontal.
Tangle1 and 2 as you want for the two different types.

If you follow me you follow me. I agree that the fountain is not a family of moves, but is just a succession of weaves with transitions, done at different points of the body in different planes. As for butterfly weaves I still have to remain silent... I don't see much of a point in continuing a periodic table though as it's in essence just listing increasing beat numbers as you descend and will have different planes and variations in the different pages... maybe somekind of grid with moves along the top and planes down the side:
[code:1]
| Weaves |Butterfly |
X| Weave |Butterfly |
Y| Corkscrew|OH Butterfly |
Z| Windmill |Side Butterfly|
[/code:1]

...can anyone else tell how bored I am?

Weave, butterfly and buzzsaw?

since I no longer prescribe to the idea that families are derived from base patterns.. I know logner see those three.. I would also add links, crossers, wraps, butterfly weave (because although rooted in weave and butterfly you cannot accomplish it weith the theory of one and thus I make it tis own, even if only for the purpose of dleineation.. )..

I also think flowers, because the more I do them the more I realize they have so many variations complete unto themselves without needing to resort back to any other family to base..

etc.... see I think by defining things in here, we have been getting at everythings root concept.. ie.. the geekness has emergerd.. WE have gotten all techy because we want not to merely know just the pattern and how its done.. but also why it worked so we can learn to apply it mentally.. each of these patterns poses within it ia concept that is emerging.. very rarely are any of these just moves.. this is what's really coming to light in all of our descriptions..

and each of these concepts like any other function, are derived from another more base concept .. the most base of which is found in all variations of the 'family'... because of this other things that have bases but with base patterns can also be kept together.. ie. links and wraps..

Family in my opinion is a why of keeping our concepts organized.. moves don't need to be organized.. we know them and use them.. that's enough.. but our concepts are how we can create new patterns that we might not stumble across..

I hate getting bogged down in detail like this stuff... here's the way I think about it.

There are basically 3 "families" of moves. Weave, Butterfly, and non-planar. Everything else is just about moving the poi around to different parts of the body, doing different numbers of beats, and embellishments.

1) Weave family moves involve the poi revolving in the same direction in a plane.

2) Butterfly moves are ones where the poi move in opposite directions in the same plane.

3) Non-plane moves involve the poi doing whacked out shit that hasn't been sufficiently explored.

The butterfly weave is a misnomer. It's just the forwards and backwards butterfly, in a different position. It's called a "weave" only because it's done in the position where people normally do a weave.

Buzzsaw usually refers to a weave done in... well, let's call it the buzzsaw plane. but you can also do a butterfly move in that plane.

I was talking with Glittergirl yesterday and although I don't agree with the way she breaks things down, I do think that it's useful to think about things in terms of parts of speech. Bear with me here...

Nouns. The basic move or move "family" - butterfly, weave, or non-planar. Again, the non-planar stuff just hasn't been explored much.

Adjectives and other modifiers. There are different variables that you can change to make a "weave" into a different move. This can be the position along your body, whether it's isolated or not, the plane it's in, interesting timing changes, etc. etc. We have modifiers that we all understand (sort of)... 5-beat, crosser, isolated, overheard, under arm, extended, etc.

Just as in chemistry, where things have their formal name and a common name, we can have both too. For instance, a forwards BF left plane to backwards BF right plane in front of the body can be called a butterfly weave. Once that particular move has a common name, you can then modify the common name - the wall plane butterfly weave (which looks more like a normal butterfly).

This, of course, completely ignores embellishments, transitions, style, presentation, and flow... which I think are the interesting bits of poi spinning.

Oops. I guess what I'm saying is, a Family should be defined as broadly as possible, and it's fine to have things that don't fit neatly into a family.