|
On November 16 2011 21:43 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 21:38 Porcelina wrote:On November 16 2011 18:18 Porcelina wrote:
I have high hopes for this...blog.
It is always nice to not be disappointed. If you try to discuss if Lawyers or Engineers are the more valuable human beings AND if matchfixing is ok or not in the same thread, then the result can only be epic.
Now we just need someone to post pictures of hot girls, beef stroganoff recipes, and rekrul to "LOL". Then the transformation would be complete.
|
|
|
|
|
I know, what a typo eh? Can a mod edit the title for me please?
|
Weighing in.
Each profession has its own set of individuals that greatly excel in their respective fields. For whatever skillset or backstory that led to it, I do not think it should have really any bearing when you consider the MORAL implications of the issue at hand which is match fixing/dumping.
Starting with the doctor, scientist, engineer and lawyer issue. I would simply put it this way in terms of heirarchy, 1) Doctor, 2) Engineer 3) Scientist 4) Lawyer. The reason I do so is health is the most important issue here. In a deserted island you would need someone with enough background to address health concerns because if no one can recover and become healthy again, then that spells death. Also, Doctors take up a bit of biology and they have some idea with plants and animals. The second is the engineer. The engineer will assist in building protection from weather and later on development. I think that's simple enough. If he got injured/sick, he'd need a doctor to help which is why the doctor is at the top of the list. The scientist comes in at third. Whatever innovation he/she may have in mind, would need to be designed first, the engineer is the best person to come up with a technical solution for this and he can collaborate with the scientist to further this. The lawyer, in essense, doesn't really make sense to me in terms of relevance. Would he determine sharing of food based on amount of work for the survivability of the group? Does that justify his importance in an abandoned island scenario?
The essense of sports is you play the game by a set of rules (not necessarily laws) and act in a sportsman like fashion. I think that would be pretty straight forward.
See, when you speak of this, you must keep something in mind, MORAL and LEGAL are two separate things. An example of which is permissible use of weed in Amsterdam is LEGAL but frowned upon by others as IMMORAL.
The legal argument for me just provides for a piece of paper to fall back on to justify actions. Do you need a law that tells you not to hurt a person (anyone) so that you wouldn't do it? Or would your morals make it natural that you don't do it?
The problem with Coca and Byun is, if it were just them in a closed environment/world, it is up to them who won or loss. But you put them now in a tournament scenario where there are rules and you add into that your respective teams and sponsor and you clearly see that it does not solely affect just 1 or 2 individuals but a lot. So their actions reflected badly on their respective ends and such needed to be addressed.
Now for whatever reason, the severity of the punishment may or may not be deemed extreme by people, but it does not mean that a punishment was not called for nonetheless.
You also have an organizing/monitoring/governing body, a REFEREE (which I think is not pointed out and I'll go back to this in a sec), and team managers/owners. So you have an organization or heirarchy as who calls the shots in these cases. Does it need a lawyer? I don't really think so. Why?
Well you have a REFEREE don't you? In sports like basketball, if the REFEREE makes a bad call, do you call in a lawyer to settle a dispute or travelling or double dribbling or what not? No you don't the REFEREE may discuss it with his peers in the game (meaning fellow referees) or simply opt not to and the REFEREE's call is immediately final. They end up as the judge.
And going by boxing as a sport, you not only have referee's, but you also have judges. If no one is knocked out when all the rounds are over, then the judges need to add up the points, BASED ON WHAT THEY DEEM AS A POINT AGAINST THE OPPONENT, and decide from the majority as to who one.
Point is you don't need a lawyer for a sport in terms of the events within a game but it should be outside a game when it is to protect your "client" from a violation of contract between you and the team, or if you need to sue an event organizer for failure to adhere to the agreement (funds, airfare, accomodation and the like.)
Not a lawyer. So you may count me as sheep. =)
|
On November 16 2011 21:46 RetFan wrote:
BlahBlah,
its unfortunate that a blog directed predominantly to address match fixing becomes a critique of my credentials.
Sorry but that's your own fault. If you want to leave your credentials leave them at the END of your post and in a spoiler.
The way you elaborate and where you placed them make them a normal topic for discussion.
And since you're a lawyer you must know that one way of argueing is to discredit the other person's credentials 
|
I am currently studying law in the university of london year 2 , However I failed to see any correlation between you introducing your law background and the issue at hand which is coca and byun , It's simple matter ,Clubs or teams have overreaching jurisdiction to their participants , you join in there are clauses and standards that each member has to live up to . Failing to meet standards only meets with punishment and Coca was deem to have fail the standard of what required to be a progamer hence he either volunteered to pull out of Code s by him self or was forced to do so.
There is a whole lot of things happening behind the scene and we can only speculate , these issue that is happening here is not as bad as Savior match fixing scandal which involve a lot of money and third party who are not really keen in promoting the good will of the sport they are promoting . Although I do agree with the lawyer argument that lawyers should step in when legal suite's are being thrown across the board .
I believe utopia is unachievable but us not working to strive towards that utopia is a much greater crime .....
|
On November 16 2011 21:46 RetFan wrote:
BlahBlah,
its unfortunate that a blog directed predominantly to address match fixing becomes a critique of my credentials.
I'm CERTAIN you are aware that rankings are determined mostly by success in the field of research and academia. Which is not that relevant when it comes to law schools. Similarly I'm sure you realise that Jiao Tong University isn't the only institution that publishes university rankings. Have a look at Times Higher Education World University Rankings which shows a number of Australian Universities in the top 50, and as high as top 30 a few years ago. But whats your point in bringing this up? To try and insult me? LOL
I'm going to refrain from discussing with you the merits of the field of law against modern science. It's practically not something I have time nor do I have the interest in discussing. If you want to troll, do it elsewhere with someone else.
Yeah you could have avoided this by simply stating in one sentence that you're law student (if mentioned it at all). Instead you had almost a page of text detailing your "achievements" in the name of context.
|
|
|
Let the ridiculousness ensue.
The stranded island example you used is poor.
Your rant lacks substance and for the record you sound just as ill-informed as the rest. Several tournaments have their own rules with regards to cheating.
The teams already have their own association in Korea, but do they have the right people streamlining the operation? Doesn't look like it, especially considering the punishment imposed on Coca was self-inflicted by his team. Yes, we need rules and regulations right across the map and when it comes to lawyers. You need the right one. You aren't going to hire an electrician to do a carpenter's job. The amount of specialty lawyers out there is quite absurd and this is something you should know already.
Anyway, you come off really bad in your rant. You consider yourself smart? Good for you. Hopefully one day you'll become more humbled and realize that we're all stupid in some capacity. You might consider yourself smart in some areas, but I can already see huge flaws in your character based off your posting alone.
|
First of all, unless there is something in the constitution or the rules of the teams that prohibits matchfixing, there is no reason why it should be disallowed per se.
This is why no one wants to bring the lawyer to the island. "Well you didn't SAY or put IN WRITING that we weren't allowed to steal each other's food or murder each other! This is an island! We need laws for these things!"
A huge preamble about how smart you are leading up to a really weak initial point... Yeah whatever. You wanna know what the reason is that you don't do that? First: It makes your team look really bad. Second: It makes fans less eager to watch your games since they know you might be throwing them. Those are the very logical, very financial reasons that anyone with two braincells to rub together could figure out. Lawyers are smart people, you're right. They're studious. You, as a specific individual, are very unwise.
I think I'd rather take a philosopher than a lawyer.
edit: Let's respond to your opening rant too. Lawyers are the smartest people in the world? Law school is hard to get thru, but let's remember that a PhD in most sciences takes more time and is harder, and the work is more humanitarian. And yet by some strange justice they are paid less. Oh right, justice is decided by lawyers.
|
Well this is amusing, I didn't know that being a lawyers makes you more superior than others.
|
On November 16 2011 21:46 RetFan wrote:
BlahBlah,
its unfortunate that a blog directed predominantly to address match fixing becomes a critique of my credentials.
I'm CERTAIN you are aware that rankings are determined mostly by success in the field of research and academia. Which is not that relevant when it comes to law schools. Similarly I'm sure you realise that Jiao Tong University isn't the only institution that publishes university rankings. Have a look at Times Higher Education World University Rankings which shows a number of Australian Universities in the top 50, and as high as top 30 a few years ago. But whats your point in bringing this up? To try and insult me? LOL
I'm going to refrain from discussing with you the merits of the field of law against modern science. It's practically not something I have time nor do I have the interest in discussing. If you want to troll, do it elsewhere with someone else.
You made this about your credentials, or lack thereof, by devoting about 20% of your original post to discussing them. The distinction between rankings of professional programs and overall university quality is fairly irrelevant; the general correlation between the two is high, and unless you have strong evidence proving that the quality of law programs at Australian universities is conspicuously higher than the general quality of their postsecondary institutions as a whole the distinction is fairly irrelevant. The Shanghai Jiao Tong rankings are simply better than the Times rankings, and I say this as a Ph.D student at a school which scores a fair bit higher on the Times rankings (needless to say, my institution is higher on either list than yours, and I have turned down admission offers from top 10 schools on those lists).
Additionally, I have nothing against law as a field of study. It's fairly intellectually rigorous, requires good critical thinking skills, and also several other skills that are often ignored or overlooked in academia. It also pays well, which is nice. However, it's simply low-hanging fruit for sufficiently smart individuals; literally anyone with the requisite intelligence and virtually no specialized knowledge can get into and excel in law school. This is simply not possible in more rigorous programs, many of which have much more restrictive de facto requirements on intelligence/talent in addition to requiring mastery or familiarity with a very substantial body of work.
|
;D
It doesn't help when anyone can represent themselves in court too.
|
Retfan as intelligent as you may be, you're an idiot for posting at TL. People aren't going to listen to you in a fair manner. These people hate being looked down upon even if you make it a point to show people that you're aren't bragging or showing off. They simply don't give a shit once someone with higher credentials comes on to the scene, they feel like their know-it-all selves are threatened because they themselves don't have any high value legitimate credentials. But I'm sure you'll realize that by the time you're done running through the comments.
Fortunately I'm able to separate ego from legitimately earned credentials through hard work and a spice of talent. However, I don't know how school works over in Australia but if what you claim is correct and you're already working for great people then people here really are just mad that you are more successful than them =P.
What makes people feel really insulted is the fact that you made your OP in a way that people would feel threatened because its well-written for a simple issue. That's simply how law is, simple issues get turned into overly complicated cases. It is correct but the general public hates that, that's why my wonderful country of the US of A is quite dumb when they try to act smart and assume the position of a justified crusader of morals over the legitimacy of legality.
In the end really its a question of whether or not there was a clause that held the players legally responsible for match fixing and whatnot. Whether or not there was something that specifically said "No, you cannot do that". That's what I'm getting from your post.
People will continue to hate on you for stupid reasons because they can't quite grasp the fact that there really are intelligent people in this world who can show off their credentials if they want to, or perhaps they can understand but just refuse to accept it =P
You should have fun arguing them however, the TL community members can be wonderful balls of spiteful hate that you can toss around.
|
Snuggles... No. Making an argument is a skill and if you do something stupid like talk about how smart you are for the first few paragraphs then you can't really justify it. Those paragraphs were completely unnecessary to his argument. He could have drawn on what he's learned in his education without mentioning 'you should believe me because lawyers are the smartest people in the world.' That's a very basic fallacy.
People would have paid more attention to his argument if he'd let that be the whole post, but instead he distracts his readers from his argument. And you're calling this smart? I'm sorry, it's a mistake. He did the wrong thing. He walked a bunch of marines into hold lurkers and got owned. It was his fault. You can't blame the audience for not liking your act. If there is something wrong with it then that's all there is to it. It'd be like naming your thread "Ding Dong Farts" and then writing a very serious argument. Then calling your audience stupid when they talk about your moronic title.
It doesn't help that his first argument was so weak I just groaned and realised I'd wasted a lot of time reading his credentials for nothing.
So let me say it one more time in case you don't get it: It's not TL's fault that they didn't like the OP. It's the OPs fault for making a bad OP. Take some responsibility for your mistakes..
|
On November 17 2011 00:47 Snuggles wrote:
Retfan as intelligent as you may be, you're an idiot for posting at TL. People aren't going to listen to you in a fair manner. These people hate being looked down upon even if you make it a point to show people that you're aren't bragging or showing off. They simply don't give a shit once someone with higher credentials comes on to the scene, they feel like their know-it-all selves are threatened because they themselves don't have any high value legitimate credentials. But I'm sure you'll realize that by the time you're done running through the comments.
Fortunately I'm able to separate ego from legitimately earned credentials through hard work and a spice of talent. However, I don't know how school works over in Australia but if what you claim is correct and you're already working for great people then people here really are just mad that you are more successful than them =P.
What makes people feel really insulted is the fact that you made your OP in a way that people would feel threatened because its well-written for a simple issue. That's simply how law is, simple issues get turned into overly complicated cases. It is correct but the general public hates that, that's why my wonderful country of the US of A is quite dumb when they try to act smart and assume the position of a justified crusader of morals over the legitimacy of legality.
In the end really its a question of whether or not there was a clause that held the players legally responsible for match fixing and whatnot. Whether or not there was something that specifically said "No, you cannot do that". That's what I'm getting from your post.
People will continue to hate on you for stupid reasons because they can't quite grasp the fact that there really are intelligent people in this world who can show off their credentials if they want to, or perhaps they can understand but just refuse to accept it =P
You should have fun arguing them however, the TL community members can be wonderful balls of spiteful hate that you can toss around.
There're also people who can make a persuasive argument without relying on credentials, even when their credentials are superior. It's easy to forget that TL is not filled by a narrow spectrum of basement dwelling nerds, instead from a wide range of academics and fields, some of which more prestigious and successful than the OP presented.
|
Why are you trying to speak for other people?
Speak for yourself.
No one has to wave their credentials around here. If you are going to make a smart thought-provoking argument then please do so; RetFlam's on the other hand wasn't. Lawyers are supposed to have good public speaking skills and make good arguments. Like I said earlier, the OP's opener was downright awful and as he even mentioned himself-- contrary to your belief, it was very poorly written.
What he said is no different from what many people have been preaching in the cluster fuck of pages known as the Team Liquid forums. It's called common sense when you look at the current policy on match-fixing and will to compete.
*
So, if someone says they are a graduate from Harvard, Yale, insert-any-other Ivy League school with a PhD in whatever you believe worthy you will hold their word above the rest on a public forum? Throw out the over-exaggerations and lies people tell to gain authority.
Undergrads say the goofiest things sometimes. You guys aren't helping this stereotype the working world has of the fresh meat. Just when you think your done with all your studies and schooling. The real training starts.
You got to earn your spot anywhere including here.
One of these days you'll eventually realize how little we truly know. This realization could take anywhere from fifty to sixty years. You could be a late bloomer! Anyway, it's a long road ahead.
|
Just as a clarification to those who misunderstood my OP, I have it recited here:
"If you had to choose three of four professionals listed below to bring with you to an abandoned island set up a colony..."
This does not mean only three people on the island but rather out of the people you bring to setup the colony, you could acquire the skills of only three professionals.
Starstruck and Chef seem like two individuals that either don't understand the substance of what was written or have decided it was fun to jump on the bandwagon to put in a few cents of nonsense. Unfortunately, the OP covers everything that they seem to have written. No need to expand.
Blah Blah, university rankings are based primarily on research and academia including publishing journals, or being cited on important articles to list a few. If anything the ranking system is more reflective of the quality of the postgraduate course in sciences, making it irrelevant in your argument that my University sucks because yours is higher. Further in Australia, the traditional system of law was in form of an llb. If you are a PHD student, you would also understand the need to backup the statement of why the Jiao Tong rankings are MORE accurate. You would also have to refine your argument to suit your insult of why my law school is inferior to those ranked above it based on ranking scores.
I know you are trying to provoke me into an argument where you get to rant why science is SUPERIOR to law. But I'm not stupid enough to waste my time on such a meaningless discussion. As I've said once before, if you need someone to massage your ego, do it elsewhere.
Snuggles, despite the fact I knew that some people might take it the wrong way, part of the reason I posted here is the hope that some people could get to know the issue in more depth without having to go through fifty pages of comments where everyone is either:
1. Giving a different opinion;
2. Talking out of their ass;
3. Mixing up moral and legal arguments;
4. Not understanding the issue at all.
What people don't understand is that a judge is a basically a barrister who has been promoted, most barristers were once solicitors and solicitors all studied law before getting admitted. They also forget that law oversees all other professions and lawyers are chosen from the smartest people in the country by measure of academic results. If my plan in the field of law goes as planned, in thirty years, I will likely be a judge overseeing important matters. Trying to help people differentiate simple matters relating to matchfixing for a video game is kids play.
Regarding everyone's smite of lawyers, it should be put that while many people can study law, not many people can excel in the field. If you get a scientist or an engineer to do a lawyer's job, society will be fucked in a week. Million dollar deals, rules governing banks and other financial institutions, product liability - do people really think you can get an engineer to do a lawyer's job? The GFC and most of the other financial crisis were caused by insufficient regulation which is why things like the Sarbanes–Oxley Act has now been put in place.
People complain that I brag about my credentials but they don't realise what I've had to sacrifice to attain them. It does feel good to be able to list what I've accomplished and be proud. To be reassured by people who are more successful than me that I am part of the top few thousand legal minds in the country.
I want people on Team Liquid to view be able to read and TRUST my view on things so they can disregard 90% of the trash comments that are based on a biased opinion or written by adolescent kids between ages of 14-21 who have no life experience.
|
Another thing, if someone told me they were a graduate from an Ivy League school like Yale or Harvard, and their posts reflected intelligence, I would have respect for them.
There are very few people who are desperate enough to lie about their credentials online. Most people who do are either losers or children who can hardly substantiate a valid argument let alone be able to make a succinct argument. It would be sad to imagine a guy sitting at a computer who goes to a fourth tier university claiming to go to Yale. Who cares if he even pulls it off online, if in reality he is unable to ever attain what he wants.
It's the same reason people don't lie about people in their family dying. If they do, you should believe them because if they are lying then that's beyond low. It's simply disgusting.
I also find it quite sad that people from Ivy League schools are expected by society to be modest. I mean come on, these guys are likely to be the top students going to some of the best universities in the world. They have a right to be proud; they've had to sacrifice so much get in. Are these people not allowed to brag about their achievements?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
