Well, occasionally I browse, but not too often. I suppose I was able to catch your art purely by chance.
So that's the case.
I've found your drawings on Tumblr as well (because someone I follow rebloged them).
Well, occasionally I browse, but not too often. I suppose I was able to catch your art purely by chance.
So that's the case.
I've found your drawings on Tumblr as well (because someone I follow rebloged them).
Oh! I think I saw that Nami/Robin one on Tumblr. So that was you then, huh? I like it a lot, the way you shade is pretty awesome.
Thank you.
You must be browsing through One Piece tag on Tumblr on daily basis or something to be able to catch my drawing.
@Rob:
typo in the title was driving me nuts.
Thanks for kindly pointing this out to me and correcting it for me. Up to this point I hadn't realised there was a typo.
!
I was practicing drawing humans and I wanted to draw One Piece character, because it's more fun. This came out. Than I remembered initial purpose of this thread and made a very sketchy chibi.
!
I said I was going to draw them and I did. They are so cute together. For all fellow shippers.
@MDL:
So… what DID happen? This a permanent thing or is he coming back soon?
When I've talked to him he had no idea why it happened. He will try to sort this out.
@MDL:
So… DBZ shenanigans AND joke bannings happened? Busy year o_o
No Maam being gone IS a joke, right? .....right? :(
No Maam finds it very nice, that someone is worried over what happened to him.
I voted Chibiusa, I don't care to evaluate Sailor Moon Chracters, I just wanted to become the worst human being. Yay, me.
I'm on a convention. It's pretty cool, apart from the fact, that I have a cold and sneeze frequently. Also I have no luck in completions I enter, but that's fine, since I have fun either way.
My friend attends convention for the first time, his reaction, after getting into the area where convent takes place was: "Wow, I've just entered into the Internet. That is real life version of the Internet." Precious.
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/10/the_science_of_objectification/
that's surprising. Nudity in certain contexts and certain situations can be used to objectify someone, but it's not like it's objectifying by itself. Certain discourses in culture can strengthen the objectifying factor of nudity, but after all nudity is a natural state of human body.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Anyway getting too philosophical
Thit thread is already concerned with cognitive and normative and does it in a manner of dispute. That's philosophical as hell.
hmm… maybe don't mind me. It seem I have to weird of a perspective on that to get to others, what I'm meaning.
I dare say leading human life is something more than having living human body functioning in certain time and place.
It would not be possible to lead human life in state of total alienation.
Oh, I know what wolfwood meant, I've only suggested, that there is more to learned from what he said and word he used than just what he meant.
I don't think you are catching my drift here.
Sorry that just flew over my head. Could you please dumb it down a couple of shades and specify
Someone, who is alienated gets excluded (on some level) from human way of existing. Alienated individual cannot participate in the society to full extent. Alienated individual is for some reason prevented from participating.
Someone can be physically alone, wandering around Himalayas or something, but by the fact, that they have social relations to other people, is actually not alienated.
Someone who is alienated becomes an alien.
I imagine that he meant without any meaningful social ties.
In the sense that a person can meet a ton of people every day and still feel totally alienated from everyone around him.
Have you considered, that word "alienated" ain't used for nothing in this context?
But…money? What's stopping someone from saving money through legal means and then going on an adventure on his own?
You have no sense of scale. Why it's not impossible, it's hard for individuals, maybe some of nobility or very successful business people could do that.
Ohh you guys had a fight in here, can somebody give me a really small summary. one liner pls
Darth being in very typical way Darth, people get upset about that, while RazgrizX explores the meaning of piracy.
@Medical:
I don't care about this debate, but a few pages back someone said there are no regular wanderers or explorers in Won Peace. I wanted to point out that Cricket, Noland's descendant, is a regular explorer and not a pirate.
No, he is a pirate.
No, there actually are explores and adventurers in One Piece world, they just don't play important part in the plot.
Probably having no social ties whatsoever.
It's arguable if humans can even exist that way.
That would be scary.
So are you guys still doing white beard? I'm new here what's the deal?
Yes, Whitebeard, please go on.
Rules are explained in the first post.
Here is were I have problem with your reasoning: A still contributes to X. X would still happened, but it might have happened in a less extreme manner.
And more importantly, even if we say that A was only contributing, that doesn't change the fact that A was contributing towards an evil.
Now, what we disagree on here is a matter of degree. You say that because of the unknown variables we are not able to determine that A was evil. However, that is not argument for A being not evil. The only to argue that, would be to make an absoluty: A had not contributed in any way to the evil that is X. And unless you can do that, the A would still be classified as evil, I'm afraid.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Yes it can.
Shall we close the thread until One Piece ends, then? Because I can't really argue against some unrevealed thing that might happen. Hell, I can make the argument: One Piece will bring end to the WG, therefore causing a massive civil world war, that will bring end to the society as we know it, and cause countless loss of life. And therefore, Whitebeard was even more evil then we thought he was, and all he was after was petty revenge against WG for killing Ace.
And that's why we should focus on what already did happen, and not on speculation.
A affected X in negative way in is this place very strong thesis here. A may affected X in more than one way. It may have contributed to number of pirates, but in this situation it is actually impossible to prove. A may have affected the attitudes of those people. It may have done it in numerous ways, both positive (inspire them to concentrate on romance rather than on robbery) or negative (ambitions for power). Again it's impossible how.
Outcome you are presenting as possible isn't really possible given what we already know.
Assumption that Whiteboard made his speech out of revenge, or only out of revenge is also unproven. Maybe he just wanted to pass the message and it was last moment for him to do so, maybe that was the most important thing in his dying mind, he just felt need to expose.
what do you even mean by being completely alone?
Oooooh, now I see what you're trying to say. You're basically saying evil pirates outnumber good ones and that neutral ones don't matter since they're not going to help people anyway. So inspiring piracy is bad since it causes more problems.
Yeah, I can agree with that. But I think it's kinda ridiculous to expect Whitebeard to consider all of that while he's dying and hate him for inspiring more pirates.
In simplification you may say so. If I were to draw your reasoning it would be as followed:
A caused X, but since X wan't bad, A wasn't bad either.
A being Whitebeard Speech, X being rise of piracy.
The problem in your reasoning was that X was bad, your premise was wrong, so it can't validate your claim, that A wasn't bad.
Now Darth is making different mistake.
A caused X, since X was bad, A likewise was bad.
The problem is, that's not what happened.
What happened was: A, B, C, D, E occurred and X happened as a result.
If B, C, D, E occurred and A wouldn't, than still X would have happened.
X was bad, but that does not validates the claim that A was bad. We do not what effect A would have caused uttered in different circumstances, we do not know if A would occur without B, C, D, E. We do not know in what way A affected in this particular circumstances X.
I feel like you're not really getting my point. Did you read my other posts? I'm not trying to start a philosophical debate on "WHAT IS PIRATE? A MISERABLE LITTLE PIRATE OF SECRETS" here, I'm saying being a pirate in One piece is different than being a pirate in the real world for actual in-story reasons. That's it. You can disagree with it but you're not even addressing that so I don't even know what you think about it.
Also, I think you're also focusing too much on "good" pirates. I'm also talking about neutral, selfish and harmless pirates who you wouldn't even know are pirates if they didn't tell you.
I've read all your post.
It doesn't matter if I'm concentrating about "good" pirates or not (I'm not, by the way), because, those "bad" pirates still outnumber "non-bad" ones (I don't like "labels" like good or "bad" in this context, but whatever).
Your whole argument argument (only thing defining a pirate is sailing with no affiliation to political power) does not relate to original point (whether is correct or not), since it does is not sufficient characteristic of piracy in One Piece.
Cases of piracy, that are actually significantly different from real world piracy are a margin. That matters for whole story of One Piece, but not for particular piece of history in One Piece world.
Your argument is inadequate, not in a sense, that it's false (that's debatable, but also besides the point), but because it can't be applied to this situation.
Imagine situation, where most of pirates are "non-bad" ones. Most of pirates, good or bad, be ever only stronger, than average citizens, but no where near as strong as important characters in the manga. So if piracy rises "non-bad" pirates will be exploring desert islands or will be having parties on their ships, while bad pirates will be robbing or killing people. Outcome for general population will be negative regardless. Even if there would be some "good" pirates, willing to protect people, it won't work, since most of them will be on comparative power level, and you need more force to prevent violence, than to start it. Unless you want to argue that "good" pirates outnumber "bad" ones.
Discussion is good, although it appears we must remind ourselves from time to time that we are not suppose to evaluate Darth here (however tempting the perspective seems to be).
Firstly, I wanna say that I read the rest of your post and agree with mostly everything in it. But most of it is about the morality of the pirates shown in the story, which is not really what I'm mainly discussing here. I'm mainly talking about piracy in general and what it means to be a pirate in OP basically.
But let's talk about Nami and Robin. Nami was already prejudiced against pirates because a pirate ruined her life. I see her hating pirates and talking about how they're all evil as a reflection to the terrible things Arlong did to her. There is no indication that Nami would, say, give someone who calls himself a pirate a chance to prove himself as a harmless guy. In fact, that's exactly what she didn't do when she met Luffy. As soon as Luffy said he was a pirate, she captured him and gave him away to Buggy, fully aware that he would likely be killed.
And about Robin, Robin was on the other side of the fence. She was the one branded as criminal and ostracized by pretty much everyone. If she were to meet a nice pirate, they'd probably be the ones to turn her down over the fact that she's a demon child and would screw her over. Her only option was to associate with pirates who were as bad as the whole world was made to believe that Robin was.
I'm curious about something. For the ones who believe pirates are, in a general sense, bad or that bad pirates make up the majority, I ask you this:
Why are there no "treasure hunters"/"adventurers" in One Piece?
How would the government prevent a nice, upstanding person who respects their laws to look for One piece/ find out what is at the end of the Grand Line?
Why do think "Absolute Justice" exists?
If you want to dwell on what being a pirate means on some kind of philosophical level in One Piece, than your argument is misplaced, since all the consequences we were talking about connect to how piracy actually works, not that possible idea behind this.
Nami - even though she was prejudiced, she wasn't completely blinded by this, she likely observe a lot of pirates and how they act in order to steal from them. It only strengthen her negative opinion.
Robin - if she had met the actually good pirates, they wouldn't judge her by what government was saying (because they were nice people, who don't care about government, and likely posses understanding of complicated situations misfits can be in).
There are adventurers and explorers in One Piece world, there are books written by them, apparently such people also visit sky islands. And you know Scholars from Ohara were pretty much that as well.
Normally, when you have an individual they are associated in a way to some country or government. Not many people would give up social privileges, that come with that. Would you give up your citizenship? It's not weird, that there are very few adventurers not associated with some sort of political organization.
Explaining in detail why "Absolute justice" exist would take too long. I'll just say, that high level of violence and inequality results in people radicalising, some people are just assholes, who want to enforce their values over others and it's politically convenient to have such radicals around.
I still don't see how all of that translates to "Evil( or wrongdoers) pirates outnumber non-evil pirates". They are great in numbers, yes, and obviously the number 1 concern of everyone but that still doesn't mean they're the majority.
All I'm saying is: In OP, piracy means roaming the seas without authorization, which is not something inherently bad. And so, inspiring piracy is not something inherently bad.
Narrative, really, really suggests, that while there is nothing inherently wrong with piracy, most pirates engage themselves in actual crimes (for example, you have Nami and Robin, who met many criminals in their lives, comment on it, general fear pirates are regarded with).
Actually, in whole series there is just one crew, that is pretty much asserted to be good, and even they need to engage in some ambiguous activities to survive. Those are Sun Pirates.
There are some crews who are depicted as basically good, those are Luffy's, Whiteberad's, and Shanks. That doesn't mean that they never do anything bad or at least questionable.
And there are crews, that seem neutral and hadn't been reported to do anything "bad" and those are Saruyama Alliance, Whiteberd's allies (there is Whitebeard's influence on people coming to play), Foxy's (if you don't consider taking away crew members from different crews away and leaving rest of the crew basically to die). Againg, you can't claim, that they are all holly, after all it's unlikely that all got their bounties for doing something against the government.
And you have all the others, in varying degree of nastiness. Buggy doesn't seem to be as nasty as Kuro of Blejam, and Law doesn't seem to be as murderous as Kid, and some of will get sympathetic back stories like Hancock. From East Blue to Mock Town, to all the crews, that wanted to enlist when Demolo Black pretended to be Luffy, wrongdoers among pirates dominate everywhere.
Murdering the population of entire country, when they possessed no immediate danger just to ensure his idea of world order will triumph, is as evil as it gets. Hold on a second. It gets even more evil, he pictures it as act of righteousness.
At least Crocodile or Doflamingo or Kuro or Kid or Blackbeard do not claim they are force of justice.
(Neither do Luffy or Whitebeard.)
Akainu dehumanises people and he do not consider them mournable. And uses "Justice" as an excuse.
@Panda:
Personally, for all my posts, I just mash at my keyboard for a little while, then hit go advanced, and the final product pops right out.
Does it not work that way for everyone?
! http://satwcomic.com/art/welsh-smash.jpg
Clearly, this is the most popular way of handling things.
Lets try this.
kfsglcAJ:O?uiPncio:NHFIOUHHGHLIDUYAOYW3OEJa;jkalnhfrfff;ll;hfccxzx,kbcfddxnhj bm,.vbxce3647608ipja
I'm saying it's not clear. And I can count more than that. I'm talking about evil x non-evil pirates. Neutral pirates who just go around without bothering civilians would count too.
From everyone I can remember, I would categorize them as this:
Good/neutral pirate captains
Shanks, Montblant Cricket, His two monkey friends, each with a crew, Whitebeard, Fisher Tiger, Jinbei,Mihawk, Foxy, Luffy
Unclear morality
Law,Hancock,Kuma,Most of the Supernovas,Kaidou, most pirates currently in DressrosaEvil pirates
Buggy,Kuro,Krieg,Arlong,Croc,Doffy,Big Mom,Moria,BellamyFeel free to disagree or remind me of anyone I forgot
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Well, of course piracy is a problem. The world is like 90% water so it makes sense that the most problematic criminals and threats are the ones who roam the seas.
I think you guys are thinking too much with real world logic. Here to the WG, if you raise a jolly roger and sail around without permission, then you are automatically an outlaw simply because you might be someone who is after One Piece which is something they really REALLY don't want to happen for some reason.
You know, piracy is a problem to normal people mostly. Usually it's not a problem for government, as normally pirates do not go against the government. It's pretty much established that pirates are mostly wrong doers (they do not need to be essentially evil, maybe they were just poor or didn't have enough social chances to live normal lives - that is highly suggested by the narrative, actually, there are really not much people that are irredeemably evil in One Piece). I'd say there is a lot crime on the sea not only because sea covers most of the planet, but because violent crime level in One Piece world is high. Basically every village and small town on East Blue lives in fear of pirate attack, and East Blue least violent of seas (I'd say high level of violence in the world is part of narrative).
And seriously just look at Mock Town.
Is there any indication that the bad pirates make up the majority?
Piracy wouldn't be such a problem if it was otherwise. Typical pirates in One Piece are like Buggy's Crew when they first appeared, Black Cat Pirates, or Bellamy's crew. They may not be murderer and rapists (or at least not all of them), but they steal peoples belongings, destroy their homes and beat up people up to get whatever they want. And there is the fact, actually are murderers (and rapist, though that part isn't likely to be mentioned in the story).
As I said, the ideas have a lot of depth and complexity. Bu the writing itself doesn't delve deep into them. I think we're arguing with two different mindsets so let me clarify. When I say One Piece isn't deep, I mean that it has a very shallow exploration of the ideas it presents. Of course you can, as an individual, delve into those ideas on as deep a level as you wanted, but technically that's true for anything that has the right themes and ideas. I could do a thorough analysis on Naruto that delves deep into the ideas it presents, how correct I feel they are, what their implications are, and so on. But Naruto is anything but deep. The ideas One Piece presents are deep, the series itself is not. One Piece is well written so the themes are consistent an easily understandable, which makes it easy to think deeper on the subject if you want. But that still doesn't make One Piece itself deep
There really is more to One Piece and execution of ideas, that it seems at the first. It's just One Piece does not delves on Ideas that much, but there are bits and pieces connected to one another, that is just job for the reader to collect them. Not every reader would be interested to do so. For me it'd much more interesting than when author delves on the ideas, as there is still a lot for me to do. People who don't do this will just get the general ideas and still be satisfied without being force to endure deep exploration.
I do not share essentialist view on this matter.
I cannot evaluate Naruto, I don't watch or read it, I've lost interest in it relatively quickly.
This whole argument that the speech was bad operates under the assumption that pirates are bad. But Whitebeard's speech inspirated pirates of both kinds. Pirates like Luffy or Shanks and pirates like Arlong or Don Krieg.
that's because majority of pirates are bad or at least morally misguided and violent. Even if there are good ones, they would be lost in a storm of bad ones. At least in short time perspective. So the whole thing can be omitted in general calculus.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
I love One Piece. And it is complex and presents complex ideas. But it's portrayal of most of those ideas really isn't deep. One Piece presents interesting dilemmas, but the solutions are always simple, black and white concepts. One Piece is fantastically written and it does do its themes well. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that if you're trying to engage it on the basis of really getting a deep understanding and exploration of the themes, there are better places to look.
Not really. One Piece is about as deep as you are willing to go. The resolutions are simplified to a degree, to be approachable for kids, but you can always stop at any given point and start asking questions and there are actually answers in the manga or ones you can deduce.
I really wouldn't be reading it for so long if it wasn't philosophically engaging.
I apologize about the way I worded my last statement so perhaps I should clarify myself a bit. There's nothing wrong with having an alternate interpretation, and certainly not with criticizing things you like. What I meant is I really don't understand what you like about One Piece, given that its world view and value that it trumpets quite loudly are completely counter to what you seem to believe in. Also, the existence of alternate interpretations doesn't mean they're all equally valid. I find it ludicrous to suggest that One Piece isn't espousing themes of adventure, dreams, and freedom because Oda hasn't even been subtle about anything. One Piece isn't deep. It's complex, but not deep.
From this post I guess you like it because you like to analyze the viewpoint counter to yours, but if that's the case I can't help but feel like there's a lot more engaging and appropriate stuff to look at for the same subject matter than a children's comic about a Rubber Pirate. I love One Piece, but if I wanted to engage in the themes and ideas it presents from an analytical standpoint, I'd be reading a good book because that's going to present a far more thorough, deep, and better thought out look at the stuff than a comic aimed at kids that has to be chugged out on a weekly basis
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Also, how does WB's speech affect Jinbe in any way? Pretty much all the stuff Jinbe dealt with post timeskip was because Whitebeard died, or because he quit the shichibukai and that is clearly not something the WG would let him get away with. I'll grant that it did reinvigorate the Great Age of Pirates, but that really doesn't change how it affected Jinbe
Is that a joke?
One Piece is one of the best and most enjoyable (if not the most) things to analyse I've ever encountered. It doesn't matter, that it's a comic for kids, because type of media has nothing to with depth or complexity and many great things come from children's literature. Main difference are not themes, but language, that is easier in writings for children.
I sometimes do. Not always, but sometimes.
My point here would be that it is threated as a big deal in universe, and not just confirmation of Roger's words… All and all, either we go that the speach had very little effect on pirate community, which lessens the meaning of it, or that it actually had quite large effect, but also with negative side-effects. I personaly would go with the latter. Sooo... I dunno. You might be wrong, you might be right.
However, I would still say that it was ill considered of him to do, considering Fishman Island, and the problems caused by the original speach given by Roger. Seems a little bit unfair to Jimbei. But that's just my opinion.
I'm not sure if Whitebeard actually considered possible effects of his speech.
I'd think the speech could screw things up much more.
Any way aim of the speech was firstly and obviously to remind the Government and Marines, that their power is not secure, secondly, to give hope to those, who have at least some vague idea what One Piece is actually connected to, by asserting that it really exists. And that was major good thing.
Thank you. It's always nice to hear that I don't completly fail. :happy:
I don't always manage to get my exact point across, I think, because of english being my second language only, and I lack a bit of proper wording for some of my more complicated thoughts…
Agreed on me being idealistic. And I hold the true Machiavellian philosophy close to my heart, not the popular misinterpretation. Both Prince and Discourses are actually quite idealistic, I know, but at the same time... well, they are some truths to it, and it's not a bad philosophy to have, to be honest. I know some worse ones...
We'll English is not my first language either, but I see absolutely no problem with your wording.
You sometimes amuse me to no end, I wonder if you see irony if your own words, if not I'll let you scratch your head on that.
To other matter. I think You guys overestimate effects of Whitebeard's speech. It's somehow hard to evaluate as few things happened simultaneously. Balance of power have been shaken, it inevitably had to result in rise of opportunists. Marines had been weakened by the War, that meant, even if morale rose, they were less effective in their work. There is also value of Whiebeard's death itself. He was huge factor stopping many pirates from even trying with his sheer existence. That was a huge factor in whole case, and outcome being rise of piracy was mentioned even before the War. Furthermore, relatively unknown earlier Balckbeard rose to power, and that had to be inspiration for others.
All things considered, whatever Whitebeard said wouldn't cause much of additional damaged. The situation isn't parallel at all to Rogers death.
I have annoying tendency of not letting things go. One of my many flaws.
And, regardless of what I have been showing, I know when I'm being unreasonable. And I try to not be. I sometimes get carried away, and fail at that.
Disregarding that, I would like to think that my interpretations do not suck. Not all of them anyway.
And I admit, I was annoyed by the sugestion that I cannot enjoy One Piece, and that I should not read it based on my different interpretations of the characters. I'm not saying anything goes. I'm saying that the art is subjective, and can be interepreted as such. With more than one interpretation.
Yes, I happen to like character everyone hates. It works well with machiavellan side of my personality. And?
Damn, I must look shallow in your eyes.
Well from formal side of the things your interpretation do not suck. Everything is clear, your premises are quite visible and your conclusions match your premises. It's obvious you are aware of your own premises, you do not limit yourself to surface, and in that regard you are quite sophisticated.
I haven't read all of your interpretations, so I can't tell if there are any passable among them, but given what I see from your profile of thinking, it's actually possible.
You are not very Machiavellian, you are far too idealistic (in popular sense of the world, not referring to your ontological stance) for that (again, Machiavelli was very much idealist, ideals he is known for expressing just weren't pretty ones, so people confused him (and possibly he himself) for a person with pragmatic approach. So maybe you actually are Machiavellian, but Machiavelli- sort of Machiavellian and not the type that is usually put under that denominator).
I've started training in museum's secretary room. That's a good thing, maybe it will be easier to find actual job later on.
On the down side, I'm starting to feel bit ill. Not good. There is a convention I'm going to attend this weekend.
And the hell you are doing, deciding that there is only one way to interpret a work of art?
Even if you there are infinite possible and equally valid interpretations, there still are interpretations that plainly suck. Some interpretations are just flat and some contradict basic ideas, work they are interpreting is build around.
You know some people do interpret "Year 1984" as advocating for liberal capitalism.
You are mistaken multiple possibilities with "anything goes". To give you a metaphor (and a hyperbole), you can build a house in multiple way starting with the design to construction techniques. However if you star by putting roof on the ground upside down circulate everything with a stairs and put bunch of doors and windows on the top, it won't be a house, no matter how hard you would persist to call it so.
I have nothing against seeing your posts around the forum. People are making excellent replies to them.
Oyaji 5/5. How could it be any different.
That to say many of you guys opinions sound twisted to me. Particularly when you start evaluating Whitebeard by praising his strength. I can see how aspect of power may draw people, but really, is it the most worthy feature of a character?
Why I like Whitebeard, is often something you've mentioned you dislike him for. I love Whitebeard for not not interfering with 0 Ace's actions, when the later was rushing after Teach. I love him because he let his son act on his own moral judgement and hadn't tried to prevent Ace from fulfilling his duty just because of vague uneasy feeling. I so love Whitebeard for not limiting Ace's freedom of action that time. Sure he wanted to protect his sons, but they are pirates, freedom of greater value for them than safety.
As mentioned by other people - family thing. I do not agree with all those, who claim that this is small ambition. This is far, far greater than ambition of ruling over somebody or something.
God archetype - Loving, Forgiving Father. Splendid and interesting execution of that archetype on authors part.
Saviour - it has already been stated, that he protected many islands. But, as asserted by Ace, he was also saviour of his children, and in very moral sense too. He basically gave them place in the world and love. In case you guys haven't realise, most of his children weren't living very good lives, both in moral sense and not fulfilling, they were pursuing hollow things like fame (instead of acceptance). Whitebeard offered moral guidance.
Personality - Whitebeard, however isn't niceness incarnated, he is stubborn old dude, who drinks too much and refuses to take proper care of himself (not atypical for old guys). He is very arrogant and treats younger people as brats. That makes him very human and relateable.
Not being all powerful - that's a good thing, he certainly is overwhelmingly powerful, but at the same time he is ill and his abilities are limited. That makes things much more interesting.
Asserting Hope - what his final speech was all about. Most people at that time couldn't understand it, but there was certainly those, who got the message.
Great design - just look at those moustaches (also he doesn't actually have a beard… ha ha). I'm also a fan of blade on stick weapons, and his bisento is awesome.
Over-the-top - he is about 4 meters tall, ridiculously manly and just remember the counts on wound he received during the war. That is clearly brand of One Piece.
edit:
Great post Panda (I've only seen it one I've posted mine).
@The:
I too support the 24hr character rule, but I find it impressive that a 3-chapter character like Bellemere has been able to sustain the thread for two days with discussion.
That is the power of good character-writing. Even though the character wasn't given much time, still there was plenty of things about character, that you won't spot unless you give yourself more time to think about them. When people start to debate, they also start to think about details, that they omitted before.
Welp, we had a perfectly good thread here. Not anymore, it seems…
Nothing to worry about here. Soon new character would be given to evaluation and people will stop debating previous one.