Disclaimer: It's called constructive criticism. And yes, I will liberally name people. It's called citations.
Common flaw: Virtually no caster gets suspense right.
There seem to be two kinds of casters, those who call it over when the game goes on for 30 more minutes, and those that continue to hype completely lost games. I've yet to see a caster who's actually spot on with the amount of hype of uncertainty. Let's look at the GSL, Flash' group of death. "Oh hey Tasteless, there's no way soO is going to hold this opening by DRG." -> soO holds. Next game "DRG is absolutely going to die to this, no cahnce he will hold this attack." -> DRG holds (but loses in the end after losing a bunch of festors for free.
But I hear you say "But soO only held because DRG made some small mistakes." or "Mistakes can happen". And yeah, that's absolutely true. soO held due to DRG's indecisiveness. But people make mistakes all the time. "THere is no way soO will hold." even with creative interpretation implies the only way for soO to hold is due to a mistake a progamer won't realistically make. If all soO needs to hold is a mistake that is realistic for a progamer to make, then "no way" is certainly not appropriate nomenclature. These kind of mistakes that lead to these holds happen all the time. If you assume from the start that DRG is not going to make a mistake. You might as well before the game start say "No way soO is going to win, because DRG never makes mistakes, and soO does.", simple as that. An assumption of no mistake is an unrealistic one. Hell, in the event that it kills soO most likely DRG would've made mistakes as well, just not mistakes that cost him the game. This whole "There's not a chance this attack will be held." or "Not a chance he will hold the third." before the attack even starts start to recalcitrate upon me because every time it happens you know it's like 50% chance. Wolf (especially Wolf), Tastosis (well, Artosis, Tasteless' profession is agreeing with Artosis), Apollo. They're all all guilty of this.
On the flipside we have people like TB who create hype where anyone with a brain can see it's actually never going to happen and for it to happen would require a mistake that is unrealistic for a progamer to make. Flash only has 10 marines, 2 medivacs versus a giant colossus army? "CAN FLASH DO THIS?", no, Flash can't.
And this can be done correctly. Big shoutout to RotterdaM for always keeping the appropriate level of hype going. RotterdaM, and in fact a lot of progamers casting like Destiny/Catz have mastered the simple art of speaking in ranges of possibilities. Artosis and Wolf seem to have this fetish with proclaiming with absolute confidence what will happen to then look like a fool when it doesn't happen. If you watch RotterdaM or CatZ cast they speak like "I think this could happen, but this could also happen, and maybe this." RotterdaM's lines are "It's going to take absolutely phaenomenal micro from him to hold his third." (I know, you read that in his voice.) not "He'sgoing to lose his third 100%." which is what Wolf would say in a similar situation.
Common flaw: Foreigner bias
We all know Artosis is a champion of saying "There is no way X will beat Y here" based on perceived skill differences giving rise to the famous "Artosis curse" when he's wrong. But ever noticed how he never does that with foreigners? If two Koreans play and are of a relative skill difference. This phrase typically comes out, but if the weakerly skilled Korean would be a foreigner and the skill difference is the same. Suddenly Artosis will come with all sorts of explanations why our foreign hope has a shot here. Apollo and Wolf are also copious offenders. Especially Wolf who is known to be extremely critical, even ingame about mistakes (and things he doesn't understand). But when casting a foreigner, all his criticism suddenly evaporates. Would be great to actually hear an objectively cast games for once where a foreigner is involved instead of being extra hard on the Korean while sugar-coating the flaws the foreigner makes. Also note that the above rule is influenced when a foreigner is involved. Suddenly people aren't going to lose 100% any more if the person defending is a foreigner.
Common flaw: Metagaming bullshit passed as analysis
Seriously, some of this post-game and during game analysis is basically psychoanalysis, just make something up that sounds deep, accurate or not, to fill space. Some of this stuff is like beyond ridiculous. ToD saying something along the lines of "The reason Flash took so long to find his stride was because he was so good at BW, then it takes longer to adjust.". Does he honestly believe this shit himself or does he just count on the audience to be dumb enough to believe it so he can fill time? If Flash immediately became good after the switch he would have said "When you're as good as Flash, adjusting to a new game takes no time.", Jesus Christ. How stupid does he think we are to buy into that?
Or Day[9], the king of overanalysis, seeing seemingly brilliant plans in purely random things. One of the things I will always remember is how he said about Ret who went hatch first again after losing to a 2rax proxy last game. "Now, some people after that would mix it up, but what I like about Ret is that he sticks to what he knows and is comfortable with.", okay, sounds plausible. But three months back he said about Morrow. "What I like about Morrow is that after a loss he adjusts his gameplan.", whatever you do Day[9] will find a way to like it and mark it as being genius and awesome.
Common Flaw: Passing your opinions as facts.
Yo Artosis, how's the mech revolution in TvT going? It's the future right? Mech is so much better right and eventually all Terrans will switch to mech right? Oh wait...
I take it that at this point even the biggest believers into that creed who originally bought into it will know it's a false prophecy. Mech isn't bad and perfectly viable in TvT, but it's not the future of it and please don't come with this nonsense of "But if you play perfectly Mech will always win.", how do you even know that? Have you ever seen someone play a perfect TvT? I haven't.
Common Flaw: Underappreciation of Zerg
What I mean with this is that no caster ever seems to spend a single word on any Zerg micro in any engagement. I know there are some people that like to believe that Zerg is just amove. But that's a function of the some-what messy visuals of the race that make it less than obvious that a great deal of control is going on. Banelings actually acquire, like any unit, the enemy that is nearest to them as target. They need to be controlled and directed to go into the right target, split against mines, amoving banelings will just make them run into the marauders up front. As a random player. I find ZvT micro actually extremely stressful with the re-emergence of the mine I have to say. But it visually looks a bit indistingushable. But a trained eye can definitely see the difference between average baneling control and amazing baneling control.
That famous series of DRG vs Inno where DRG was the first to break Inno in a macro ZvT? That was in no small part due to DRG's exceptional ling/baneling control against bio/mine, yet Tastosis didn't utter a single word about it. Did they actually not notice the superb baneling control that DRG was constnatly maintaining? THey were constantly talking about great marine splits. But great ling/bane split apparently don't exist, it's all a red goo right? I can pardon the casual audience for not noticing this with the messy visuals of Zerg. But professional casters? No, absolutely not. It's your job, learn to see it and adequately translate that so the viewer notices it. This just isn't fair to all those Zerg players who micro their arse off in ZvT yet get no recognition for their skill.
Another thing is undertranslation of the ZvZ matchup. ZvZ is a hyper-reactionary matchup where every decision count and people are constnatly making decisions of where to allocate larvae based on what they see. ZvZ is like "Aha, I see you have this ling count and this drone acount at your natural and this much gas mined, thus I know that I can make this mutch drones, have to get my baneling nest around this time and this many zerglings and can be this greedy with my tech to lair without dying.". ZvZ is very cerebral in getting that vaunted drone advantage to eventually get more roaches for the inevitabl raoch vs roach war. But casters seem to basically not at all translate the decision process involved to the viewer. No caster, nor observer, highlights that when an attack comes, the defending player with an overlord sees the undersaturation of the natural which prompts the construction of a spine. This isn't some random guess, this is a reaction. If you can talk about missle turrets going up because you saw a running tech lab, you can do this as well.
Common Flaw: Racial bias
In general, from a lot of casters it's plainly obvious what race they play. Tastosis focusses so ridiculously on the Protoss player's build orders and plan in their commentary. Nathanias' Terran shines through and Bitter, while having fixed some of it still shows he's a Zerg player. Which intersetingly enough makes him one of the few casters who adequately translates ZvZ.
Come on, you're a professional, your livelihood is knowing the game well. Some casters switched to random to improve their casting. Apollo, Day[9] and Kaelaris definitely deserve mention for this and they show no such bias. Is it too much to ask that a caster plays random? Would maybe make Artosis see that mech isn't the answer to everything in TvT if he actually played the matchup he's so fond of spouting bullshit about.
Common Flaw: Language
Okay, this is a cheap shot and if you think this shouldn't matter I think that position is reasonable and I'm just putting it here for the sake of completeness. But some casters, native or otherwise, have an absolutely terrible command of English. One would assume a professional play by play caster would have some better grammar.
- "Colossus" is singular, "colossi" is plural. Both words are basically used interchangeably. If a classical plural is to hard for you, just say "colossuses", no one will hate you for it. - "Lair" and "Layer" are nor homonyms, Dr. Evil does not hang out in his Evil Layer - The "Id" in "IdrA" is pronounced like the "id" in "idiot" - Huge number of Zerglings, not "amount", "Zergling" is a mass noun. - You can take 10 seconds to learn to adequately pronounce the name of people. For fucks sake RotterdaM, you're Dutch, you had French in school. "Ilyes" is not pronounced the same as "Elias".
The number of grammatical errors in the "Language" section is a bit funny. All in all, I enjoy the work of most SC2 casters. but you bring up some valid points. In my opinion the production and casting of esports is only becoming more professional with time, so I'm not too concerned about it.
nice read, but if you talk about casters you should mention that tastless is by far the worst of all, no matter what and i agree with your points, but tasteless is just so bad he made me unsubscribe from gsl and watch korean vods instead of english ones
I agree with some points, disagree with others: 1. I think some casters are doing this "No way he holds this!!" to hype up the player when he actually holds it. Artosis comes to by mind, but maybe it were some other casters.
2. Racial bias is fine imo, let Nathanias cast the terran games, let Tod cast Protoss games etc. Nowadays, we have normally multiple casters at an event (except WCS and PL), so it should be possible that the duocasts cover both races well.
3. Pretty sure many casters used to mispronounce Idra just to fuck with him.
However, I heavily agree with the the Metagaming bullshit passed as analysis part. Like, I have seen collapse rocks being destroyed by baneling splash and the casters hyped the Terran for killing the rocks as a retreat because it fitted their narative. I also chuckled about the Artosis mech revolution comment, I would agree there.
However, my biggest complaint with casters nowadays is the heavy bias to random fan favorites etc. Remember how everyone hyped Flash as THE GOD when he was still stuck in Code A. How everyone overhyped Jaedong, only too see him getting owned by sOs, a guy nobody gave a shit about cause the caster didnt hype him. Like, i get it, Flash was good at broodwar, but he still got rekt by soO and DRG, no need to overhype like mad.
Overall however, I would say that the current casting is pretty fantastic. Most caster have good knowledge, and those who dont are aware of that and do the play by play part. And thats the most important thing imo.
Part of this is just you hearing what you want to hear, although some of it is legitimate criticism.
I think a lot of the issues with the casters are actually flaws in SC2's design. It's just a very shallow game right now and there's not a whole lot to analyze. How many times can you actually say "Sick splits!" or "Awesome overlord building!" until you get bored and just act like you give zero shits about the game? In BW, it seems like there were a lot more subtle things and since the battles were slower paced you could sort of analyze them while they went on. Battles happen so quickly in SC2 that by the time a caster can say something, the micro/engagement is already over.
On September 23 2014 09:28 MtlGuitarist97 wrote: Part of this is just you hearing what you want to hear, although some of it is legitimate criticism.
I think a lot of the issues with the casters are actually flaws in SC2's design. It's just a very shallow game right now and there's not a whole lot to analyze. How many times can you actually say "Sick splits!" or "Awesome overlord building!" until you get bored and just act like you give zero shits about the game? In BW, it seems like there were a lot more subtle things and since the battles were slower paced you could sort of analyze them while they went on. Battles happen so quickly in SC2 that by the time a caster can say something, the micro/engagement is already over.
see the Zerg part, they could start by actually talking about ZvZ and the reactionary decisions involved?
Disclaimer: This is called criticism. It sometimes happens when you're wrong.
Or Day[9], the king of overanalysis, seeing seemingly brilliant plans in purely random things. One of the things I will always remember is how he said about Ret who went hatch first again after losing to a 2rax proxy last game. "Now, some people after that would mix it up, but what I like about Ret is that he sticks to what he knows and is comfortable with.", okay, sounds plausible. But three months back he said about Morrow. "What I like about Morrow is that after a loss he adjusts his gameplan.", whatever you do Day[9] will find a way to like it and mark it as being genius and awesome.
Before you think I'm biased, I'd just like to say I totally am because Day[9] is a totally handsome baller, and you are not. So I'm definitely biased. Did you even watch the video of how "he almost died"? Watch that, and tell me you are not charmed by it. I predict by the end, Terrans will all be going mech you will love Day[9]. Now, for someone such as yourself, who is incredibly critical of peoples' pronunciation of various terms and what-have-you, you somehow find a way to create new words by combining two words together that don't actually go together, like: "gameplan", "overanalysis" + Show Spoiler +
Yeah. I went there.
but this is the English language, not German. Knock that shit off.
Furthermore, Day[9] (or anyone) saying he likes consistency and then saying he likes self-adjustment in two different settings is not a contradiction. The circumstances not only change, but the players and match-ups also change, and varying styles of play will arise, and it's not wrong to point out how much you can appreciate an aspect of a player's game that you find to be a strength of theirs.
Common Flaw: Underappreciation of Zerg
This aspect of casting is done specifically to harvest delicious Zerg tears.
Suddenly Artosis will come with all sorts of explanations why our foreign hope has a shot here. Apollo and Wolf are also copious offenders. Especially Wolf who is known to be extremely critical, even ingame about mistakes (and things he doesn't understand). But when casting a foreigner, all his criticism suddenly evaporates. Would be great to actually hear an objectively cast games for once where a foreigner is involved instead of being extra hard on the Korean while sugar-coating the flaws the foreigner makes.
I like my foreigner mistakes like your mom likes her p I like my candy: covered in sugar.
"Mistakes can happen"
Like your spelling? Type this shit up in Word or something so you can spell-check it. Don't give me any of that "English isn't my first language" nonsense, because it's clear you know how to spell, but choose not to do so out of laziness. Let's look at some of your mistakes:
I think your blogs have a lot of room to improve, but you don't seem to want to improve upon them at all. The grammar mistakes, I can understand. Nobody knows how grammar works. But the spelling mistakes are an unforgivable trespass, and I hope you repent and accept Tastosis into your heart.
Most of it is acceptable feedback in my opinion, though you unnecessarily sound like a dick given your tone which slightly takes away from your otherwise legitimate criticism.
Some of the language stuff I would agree with, but some of the pronunciation issues you mentioned are inevitable due to the fact that English isn't the native language of many casters. Even if you know the proper grammar or pronunciation and English isn't your first language that doesn't really give you the right to shit upon other people who haven't studied the finer points of the English language.
I, for example, also had to take French when I was younger and I have no idea how to pronounce many words properly, especially names as there's no surefire way of ensuring you're saying it right without confirmation from said person. Even native English speakers often pronounce my name wrong after reading it...
There's always room to improve; you're definitely right about that, but you make it sound a lot worse than the majority of people perceive it.
Common flaw: Virtually no caster gets suspense right.
The games are frequently unpredictable, or at least there's enough room for error that even the best analytical casters can miscall the ending. Think of how important positioning is in a fight; one player could have a huge army advantage going into the fight, but if he attacks into a concave, he can throw away the game. That's not the caster's fault.
Common flaw: Foreigner bias
They're the underdogs, and often times they're the ones we (the viewers, many of whom are foreigners) may be able to connect best with. Country-pride, etc. etc. By hyping these guys, they're doing it right, not wrong. (Obviously, Koreans should also still be hyped, and they definitely are.)
Common flaw: Metagaming bullshit passed as analysis
Sometimes it's your job to justify stuff, and you do it any way you can. Obviously, you can't always interview the player to know exactly what he was thinking, so you take a guess.
Common Flaw: Passing your opinions as facts.
+
Common Flaw: Racial bias
+
Common Flaw: Underappreciation of Zerg
= lol
Common Flaw: Language
Not every caster is as fluent in English as Polt is Dialects, second languages, and speech impediments all hinder perfect fluency and pronunciation. That's life. Deal with it. I'm sure you still understand the commentary.
Or Day[9], the king of overanalysis, seeing seemingly brilliant plans in purely random things. One of the things I will always remember is how he said about Ret who went hatch first again after losing to a 2rax proxy last game. "Now, some people after that would mix it up, but what I like about Ret is that he sticks to what he knows and is comfortable with.", okay, sounds plausible. But three months back he said about Morrow. "What I like about Morrow is that after a loss he adjusts his gameplan.", whatever you do Day[9] will find a way to like it and mark it as being genius and awesome.
Before you think I'm biased, I'd just like to say I totally am because Day[9] is a totally handsome baller, and you are not. So I'm definitely biased. Did you even watch the video of how "he almost died"? Watch that, and tell me you are not charmed by it. I predict by the end, Terrans will all be going mech you will love Day[9]. Now, for someone such as yourself, who is incredibly critical of peoples' pronunciation of various terms and what-have-you, you somehow find a way to create new words by combining two words together that don't actually go together, like: "gameplan", "overanalysis" + Show Spoiler +
Yeah. I went there.
but this is the English language, not German. Knock that shit off.
Furthermore, Day[9] (or anyone) saying he likes consistency and then saying he likes self-adjustment in two different settings is not a contradiction. The circumstances not only change, but the players and match-ups also change, and varying styles of play will arise, and it's not wrong to point out how much you can appreciate an aspect of a player's game that you find to be a strength of theirs.
Is this supposed to actually be an argument? You're not actually answering my points or anything.
Suddenly Artosis will come with all sorts of explanations why our foreign hope has a shot here. Apollo and Wolf are also copious offenders. Especially Wolf who is known to be extremely critical, even ingame about mistakes (and things he doesn't understand). But when casting a foreigner, all his criticism suddenly evaporates. Would be great to actually hear an objectively cast games for once where a foreigner is involved instead of being extra hard on the Korean while sugar-coating the flaws the foreigner makes.
I like my foreigner mistakes like your mom likes her p I like my candy: covered in sugar.
Do you really live in the impression that you are actually saying something here, or what?
Like your spelling? Type this shit up in Word or something so you can spell-check it. Don't give me any of that "English isn't my first language" nonsense, because it's clear you know how to spell, but choose not to do so out of laziness. Let's look at some of your mistakes:
Apart from the obvious typos which I concede because they're obvious typos:
- That you can't start a paragraph with a conjunction is ridiculous, you can even start a conversation with a conjunction. You walk into a room and ask "And just what the hell is this noise here?"
- "weakerly" is a perfectly acceptable adverbial form of "weaker". Like with any adjective, you can turn the comparative into an adverb.
- "underappreciation" is also a word.
- "undertranslation" is also a word.
Do you think words don't exist if you don't know them or something? You could, you know, google the word to make sure it's not just your lack of knowledge of it?
I think your blogs have a lot of room to improve, but you don't seem to want to improve upon them at all. The grammar mistakes, I can understand. Nobody knows how grammar works. But the spelling mistakes are an unforgivable trespass, and I hope you repent and accept Tastosis into your heart.[/QUOTE]
This is getting pretty heated. In the end this entire argument is based on opinions, which make debate extremely silly because neither side can really back up their points with facts. That said I think, SiskosGoatee, that many of your opinions are not as widely held as you think. I tend to agree with most of what ninazerg said
On September 23 2014 10:44 Yorkie wrote: I tend to agree with most of what ninazerg said
Such as with what? Ninjazerg said one thing which I can see as an actual point. That people get suspense wrong to create hype. Okay, I can see that, the other "points" were heavily sarcastic responses which don't actually go into anything. I may assume you don't agree that casters underappreciate Zerg micro to cause Zerg tears right?
And the language. That's 50% pointing out typos, which exist, and I honestly don't care much about but hey, I concede, those are errors. And 50% claiming that words which have entries on Dictionary.com and Wiktionary don't exist. Don't blame me if you never heard of the verb "to recalcitrate". I can assure you it exists.
- That you can't start a paragraph with a conjunction is ridiculous, you can even start a conversation with a conjunction. You walk into a room and ask "And just what the hell is this noise here?"
- "weakerly" is a perfectly acceptable adverbial form of "weaker". Like with any adjective, you can turn the comparative into an adverb.
- "underappreciation" is also a word.
- "undertranslation" is also a word.
Do you think words don't exist if you don't know them or something? You could, you know, google the word to make sure it's not just your lack of knowledge of it?
The word you're looking for is "Recalcitrant".
"Phaenomal" is missing an entire syllable. The word is Phen-om-min-al, not Phen-no-mal.
I feel like what is most ironicalized about this debachle are how aggressivized your postdefense is rather than confessionating that yourself may be wrong. The problemicity in Englishspeak is that you can't simply inventicate new words out of nowhere. If you're going to pick on casters for small nuances you see as flaws in their casting, don't get all defensive when someone picks out the small critical nuances that you exhibit.
- That you can't start a paragraph with a conjunction is ridiculous, you can even start a conversation with a conjunction. You walk into a room and ask "And just what the hell is this noise here?"
- "weakerly" is a perfectly acceptable adverbial form of "weaker". Like with any adjective, you can turn the comparative into an adverb.
- "underappreciation" is also a word.
- "undertranslation" is also a word.
Do you think words don't exist if you don't know them or something? You could, you know, google the word to make sure it's not just your lack of knowledge of it?
The word you're looking for is "Recalcitrant".
That's the adjective, to recalcitrate is the verb from which it was derived. "Starts to recalcitrant upon me?", no, not really, it was a verb in that context.
"Phaenomal" is missing an entire syllable. The word is Phen-om-min-al, not Phen-no-mal.
Even the King James Version, the most authoritative and defining work of modern English uses the style.
I feel like what is most ironicalized about this debachle are how aggressivized your postdefense is rather than confessionating that yourself may be wrong. The problemicity in Englishspeak is that you can't simply inventicate new words out of nowhere. If you're going to pick on casters for small nuances you see as flaws in their casting, don't get all defensive when someone picks out the small critical nuances that you exhibit.
I could see this point if "to recalcitrate" wasn't a word that had citations and is simply used.
It has citations on Dictionary.com, The Free Dictionary, and Wiktionary amongst others. "To recalcitrate" is a word, that you didn't know of its existence doesn't make it less of a word and if you had simply taken the time to google it you'd find out it's a word listed in dictionaries.
my beef with SC2 casters is that they don't ever shut up, spending a lot of time talking for the sake of talking. sky sports commentary on the premier league/champions league is really well done, at least when Martin Tyler is commentating. it's not a never-ending conversation where as soon as one commentator stops speaking, the other is ready to take up the job of pointlessly explaining something we can clearly see.
On September 23 2014 10:33 SiskosGoatee wrote: - "weakerly" is a perfectly acceptable adverbial form of "weaker". Like with any adjective, you can turn the comparative into an adverb.
It's hard to take you seriously when you defend this as a word when it clearly isn't one. Like with English, there are few rules that are true in all cases. Whilst I agree with the sentiment in parts of your blog the aggressive tone and poor writing really don't help your case.
On September 23 2014 08:30 SiskosGoatee wrote: I've yet to see a caster who's actually spot on with the amount of hype of uncertainty...
Big shoutout to RotterdaM for always keeping the appropriate level of hype going.
On September 23 2014 13:55 SiskosGoatee wrote: It has citations on Dictionary.com, The Free Dictionary, and Wiktionary amongst others. "To recalcitrate" is a word, that you didn't know of its existence doesn't make it less of a word and if you had simply taken the time to google it you'd find out it's a word listed in dictionaries.
I'll have to do more research, and later, may retract my indictment of your spelling in the future, but something about the sources seems fishy to me. I'm going to have to consult a concurrent 2014 paper dictionary.
On September 23 2014 10:33 SiskosGoatee wrote: - "weakerly" is a perfectly acceptable adverbial form of "weaker". Like with any adjective, you can turn the comparative into an adverb.
It's hard to take you seriously when you defend this as a word when it clearly isn't one. Like with English, there are few rules that are true in all cases. Whilst I agree with the sentiment in parts of your blog the aggressive tone and poor writing really don't help your case.
Of course it's a word, what else should I have said "the more-weakly skilled player"? "the weaker skilled player?"
The word weakerly is very common in physics literature where "weak" is a technical term, or in Linguistics where it is too.
On September 23 2014 13:55 SiskosGoatee wrote: It has citations on Dictionary.com, The Free Dictionary, and Wiktionary amongst others. "To recalcitrate" is a word, that you didn't know of its existence doesn't make it less of a word and if you had simply taken the time to google it you'd find out it's a word listed in dictionaries.
I'll have to do more research, and later, may retract my indictment of your spelling in the future, but something about the sources seems fishy to me. I'm going to have to consult a concurrent 2014 paper dictionary.
Google corrects all sorts of words that aren't common but still exist. Recalcitrant is an adjective derived from the verb recalcitrate. The word may be uncommon, but it definitely exists.
Hell, google is known to sometimes correct "do" to "don't" in your search term because more people searched the opposite. Google's correction algorithm is purely based on the number of times people search for it.
On September 23 2014 10:33 SiskosGoatee wrote: - "weakerly" is a perfectly acceptable adverbial form of "weaker". Like with any adjective, you can turn the comparative into an adverb.
It's hard to take you seriously when you defend this as a word when it clearly isn't one. Like with English, there are few rules that are true in all cases. Whilst I agree with the sentiment in parts of your blog the aggressive tone and poor writing really don't help your case.
Of course it's a word, what else should I have said "the more-weakly skilled player"? "the weaker skilled player?"
The word weakerly is very common in physics literature where "weak" is a technical term, or in Linguistics where it is too.
So much literature that the best proof you can find is some Taiwanese masters thesis on accounting. Try finding it in an actual dictionary.'The weaker player' or 'the lesser skilled player' would've been fine. Making up words isn't a capital offense but it's rare to see someone so determined to defend them.
On September 23 2014 10:33 SiskosGoatee wrote: - "weakerly" is a perfectly acceptable adverbial form of "weaker". Like with any adjective, you can turn the comparative into an adverb.
It's hard to take you seriously when you defend this as a word when it clearly isn't one. Like with English, there are few rules that are true in all cases. Whilst I agree with the sentiment in parts of your blog the aggressive tone and poor writing really don't help your case.
Of course it's a word, what else should I have said "the more-weakly skilled player"? "the weaker skilled player?"
The word weakerly is very common in physics literature where "weak" is a technical term, or in Linguistics where it is too.
So much literature that the best proof you can find is some Taiwanese masters thesis on accounting. Try finding it in an actual dictionary.
Dictionaries seldom list inflected forms of words. Dictionary.com also doesn't list 'sleeps" for instance.
'The weaker player' or 'the lesser skilled player' would've been fine. Making up words isn't a capital offense but it's rare to see someone so determined to defend them.
Because I didn't make it up, I've seen the word before plenty of times.
I will admit though that when I google the word about 80% of its occurrences seem to be particle physics and someone's name. And I studied physics, so that's probably where I picked it up, it doesn't seem to occur a lot outside of physics and some linguistics literature when I google it.
Edit, a better alternative than lesser would be "weaklier", not sure if you also deny the existence of that?
On September 23 2014 10:33 SiskosGoatee wrote: - "weakerly" is a perfectly acceptable adverbial form of "weaker". Like with any adjective, you can turn the comparative into an adverb.
It's hard to take you seriously when you defend this as a word when it clearly isn't one. Like with English, there are few rules that are true in all cases. Whilst I agree with the sentiment in parts of your blog the aggressive tone and poor writing really don't help your case.
Of course it's a word, what else should I have said "the more-weakly skilled player"? "the weaker skilled player?"
The word weakerly is very common in physics literature where "weak" is a technical term, or in Linguistics where it is too.
'The weaker player' or 'the lesser skilled player' would've been fine. Making up words isn't a capital offense but it's rare to see someone so determined to defend them.
Because I didn't make it up, I've seen the word before plenty of times.
Edit, a better alternative than lesser would be "weaklier", not sure if you also deny the existence of that?
Why assume I'd deny the existence of a far more legitimate word? Regardless, as you said, weakerly is pretty much exclusive to particle physics' abuse of the language unless it does fulfill a specific role in that particular field. In which case I wasn't aware your blog was on physics.
Recalcitrate is a word, yes, but you still used it wrong. You stated that
"This whole "There's not a chance this attack will be held." or "Not a chance he will hold the third." before the attack even starts start to recalcitrate upon me because every time it happens you know it's like 50% chance. "
Let's condense it to make it less difficult to read:
"This whole predictions before the attack even starts start to recalcitrate upon me because every time it happens you know it's like 50% chance."
Recalcitrate is a verb, either transitive or intransitive, that means "to kick back/out/against", usually to suggest opposition.
Let's look at your sentence without modifying it to what I think it means. You are saying that the predictions start to kick out or oppose 'upon' you. I'm not even sure what you want to mean. Not only do you use an odd preposition in "upon", you are saying that the predictions are against you, as a person, instead of your own predictions. Perhaps the predictions are against your own thoughts and predictions, or are in opposition to what actually happens. However, for the latter case, the word still doesn't make sense unless you mean the casters are obstinately defending such a prediction despite the outcome. While a prediction can arguably be recalcitrant towards a prevailing thought or expectation, a prediction cannot recalcitrate an outcome since the outcome is undetermined. However, that's not what you meant. You are saying that the predictions somehow oppose upon you. Even as metaphorical language it doesn't fit in your sentence. Perhaps you meant that the predictions upset, repulse, or annoy you.
Using the same word in a similar context, the sentence could have been: "The outcome of games often recalcitrate against the casters predictions."
However, changing to a more appropriate word allows you to mean what you actually want to mean: "This whole tendency to make predictions before the fight even begins starts to repulse me because they only get it right 50% of the time."
Since we're being nitpicky, might as well mention that the preposition should be against not upon, your S-V agreement between "whole" and "start" is questionable, and your use of the word 'start' twice is unfortunate. Also, it's usually correct to use more + adverb, instead of adding +er.
On September 23 2014 13:55 SiskosGoatee wrote: It has citations on Dictionary.com, The Free Dictionary, and Wiktionary amongst others. "To recalcitrate" is a word, that you didn't know of its existence doesn't make it less of a word and if you had simply taken the time to google it you'd find out it's a word listed in dictionaries.
I'll have to do more research, and later, may retract my indictment of your spelling in the future, but something about the sources seems fishy to me. I'm going to have to consult a concurrent 2014 paper dictionary.
Google corrects all sorts of words that aren't common but still exist. Recalcitrant is an adjective derived from the verb recalcitrate. The word may be uncommon, but it definitely exists.
Hell, google is known to sometimes correct "do" to "don't" in your search term because more people searched the opposite. Google's correction algorithm is purely based on the number of times people search for it.
Look.
If you google "Recalcitrant used in a sentence", you get examples. You can get a quote of Winston Churchill using it.
If you google "Recalcitrate used in a sentence", you get a lot of definition pages, almost as if some weirdo went around posting it on all the dictionary sites because he wanted to make a word or list an outdated word.
"Recalcitrant" is in my 2001 Merriam-Webster dictionary, whereas "Recalcitrate" is not in there, nor mentioned.
Spell-checker recognizes "Recalcitrant", which is obscure in its own right, but does not recognize "Recalcitrate".
The case you're making, which is "Well, you can find the word on the internet, therefore it exists" is less compelling when I can't find any contemporary utilization of this term.
I believe casting is in a right position, for the majority, the casual audience. most of the people I know don't bother listening to casters or when they do it's only to make fun of the fake hype, while a better discussion over the games happens in chats.
I think the most annoying quality that many casters share is the attempt to predict outcomes. As a caster, it is not your job to predict the winner whether that be for a single battle, a game, or a series. Instead, it is your job to describe what is happening on the screen and hopefully provide an analysis of what just happened or some of the future possibilities (not certainties).
So as a battle goes on, a caster should not be predicting the outcome, instead, the play-by-play man should be describing the battle. Then immediately after the battle, an analytical caster can jump in and explain why one side won the fight and the other lost. He can then provide some possibilities of what each player might do next.
You certainly don't want to call attention to a game being over because you want your audience to keep watching. At the same time, you shouldn't really be hyping a done game. When it comes to a done game, I think the casters should be looking for any possible outs that the losing player might still have. I'd also say that asking questions like, "Can Flash do this?" is reasonable given then you aren't putting too much hype into your voice.
So I mostly agree on your first point as well as "passing your opinions as facts".
Foreigner bias... who cares? The English casters are catering to an English audience where the foreigners are usually the fan favorites. The hometown casting duo for a baseball game are biased too, but that's almost a part of the job description.
Metagaming Bullshit Don't ever watch a business channel on TV try to explain why stocks/commodities went up or down. These experts will tell you why stocks went up one day. The next day they'll give you the exact same reason for why stocks went down. Why did Reason X make the stocks go up today, but made it go down yesterday? Because they're trying to kill time.
The ability to fill dead time with babble is a bonus that creates a friendlier atmosphere between the casters and the audience. For some, like Tastosis, they are good at that babble and people get interested in what they have to say even if they aren't interested in the game.
For some casters that are more known for being analytical, that babble becomes Metagaming BS.
Underappreciation of Zerg and Racial Bias I do agree that if you want to cast full-time, you should probably start playing random (or changing your race every day/week/month) so that you can provide insight into every matchup. However, it's quite difficult to play all three races at a high enough level to be able to provide insight into any one of them. Unlike traditional sports, the game is still constantly evolving and Artosis's Zerg knowledge from 2010-2011 is now worthless. Former pro knowledge tends to become worthless in 3 months of dropping out of the competitive scene. Maybe if the game settles into normalcy after 5 years without a patch, then we might be able to get some casters who can really analyze all matchups of the game.
Language Language is meant to convey ideas. If the idea has been conveyed, then the rest is just bullshit your English teacher made you memorize. Nearly every English speaker in America pronounces it "layer" instead of "l-air". I had to look that one up to know WTF you were whining about. The rest of your complaints in this section are pointless because the message is being properly conveyed.
We don't have any perfect casters. The interesting thing is that I've been paying a lot more attention to commentators in traditional sports and they also tend to make similar blunders. Maybe I just don't frequent the right forums to hear the feedback about them, but it seems that "we" complain a lot more. I think there's too much of an emphasis on the casters - some of it put there by themselves trying to hard to entertain. I hope eventually there will be less importance placed on personalities and we can see some things change. (It's also important to note that some of this has to do with the target demographic compared to traditional sports.)
As a hobby caster I'd love constructive criticism (just don't forget that constructive usually means you're pointing out more of "what you would like me to do" instead of "what you don't like").
On September 23 2014 13:24 ninazerg wrote: The word you're looking for is "Recalcitrant".
"Phaenomal" is missing an entire syllable. The word is Phen-om-min-al, not Phen-no-mal.
I feel like what is most ironicalized about this debachle are how aggressivized your postdefense is rather than confessionating that yourself may be wrong. The problemicity in Englishspeak is that you can't simply inventicate new words out of nowhere. If you're going to pick on casters for small nuances you see as flaws in their casting, don't get all defensive when someone picks out the small critical nuances that you exhibit.
On September 23 2014 16:15 lichter wrote: Recalcitrate is a word, yes, but you still used it wrong. You stated that
"This whole "There's not a chance this attack will be held." or "Not a chance he will hold the third." before the attack even starts start to recalcitrate upon me because every time it happens you know it's like 50% chance. "
Let's condense it to make it less difficult to read:
"This whole predictions before the attack even starts start to recalcitrate upon me because every time it happens you know it's like 50% chance."
Recalcitrate is a verb, either transitive or intransitive, that means "to kick back/out/against", usually to suggest opposition.
Let's look at your sentence without modifying it to what I think it means. You are saying that the predictions start to kick out or oppose 'upon' you. I'm not even sure what you want to mean. Not only do you use an odd preposition in "upon", you are saying that the predictions are against you, as a person, instead of your own predictions. Perhaps the predictions are against your own thoughts and predictions, or are in opposition to what actually happens. However, for the latter case, the word still doesn't make sense unless you mean the casters are obstinately defending such a prediction despite the outcome. While a prediction can arguably be recalcitrant towards a prevailing thought or expectation, a prediction cannot recalcitrate an outcome since the outcome is undetermined. However, that's not what you meant. You are saying that the predictions somehow oppose upon you. Even as metaphorical language it doesn't fit in your sentence. Perhaps you meant that the predictions upset, repulse, or annoy you.
Using the same word in a similar context, the sentence could have been: "The outcome of games often recalcitrate against the casters predictions."
However, changing to a more appropriate word allows you to mean what you actually want to mean: "This whole tendency to make predictions before the fight even begins starts to repulse me because they only get it right 50% of the time."
Since we're being nitpicky, might as well mention that the preposition should be against not upon, your S-V agreement between "whole" and "start" is questionable, and your use of the word 'start' twice is unfortunate. Also, it's usually correct to use more + adverb, instead of adding +er.
While literally in Latin "recalcitrate" means "kick back" and you sometimes get that when you look it up. In practice to recalcitrate pretty much means "to disagree in an aggressive manner.
Honestly, the way you people speak about the word makes it seem to me you never seen nor used it and go by a dictionary definition too much. If something is recalcitrant it in practice just means you find it very annoying. Most typically said of noise or odours. "My god, the smell in your bathroom is recalcitrant, do you ever clean it?"
However "x recalcitrates upon y" just means "y is annoyed/offended by x", that's different from "x recalcitrates y." As in "this habit starts to have an effect of recalcitration upon me."
On September 23 2014 21:08 RenSC2 wrote: Foreigner bias... who cares? The English casters are catering to an English audience where the foreigners are usually the fan favorites. The hometown casting duo for a baseball game are biased too, but that's almost a part of the job description.
If only they didn't again come with metagame BS expecting the audience to swallow it.
Metagaming Bullshit Don't ever watch a business channel on TV try to explain why stocks/commodities went up or down. These experts will tell you why stocks went up one day. The next day they'll give you the exact same reason for why stocks went down. Why did Reason X make the stocks go up today, but made it go down yesterday? Because they're trying to kill time.
Yap, I know virtually nothing of management and even I picked up "My god, these people just make up reasons as they go along don't they?"
The point is, anyone with a modicum of intelligence sees right through it just walks away and is annoyed. I typically have the stream muted during post-game analysis because the vicarious shame is just too damned high.
The ability to fill dead time with babble is a bonus that creates a friendlier atmosphere between the casters and the audience. For some, like Tastosis, they are good at that babble and people get interested in what they have to say even if they aren't interested in the game.
Especially with Tastetosis the amount of BS is super high. BitterdaM does it better in my opinion, the conversation flows a bit more naturally there. Tastosis is a bit too much of "I didn't actually think your joke was funny, but I'll laugh anyway. To not make it awkward." BitterdaM is like "Okay Kev, I think some-where out there some-one might think that is funny."
Underappreciation of Zerg and Racial Bias I do agree that if you want to cast full-time, you should probably start playing random (or changing your race every day/week/month) so that you can provide insight into every matchup. However, it's quite difficult to play all three races at a high enough level to be able to provide insight into any one of them. Unlike traditional sports, the game is still constantly evolving and Artosis's Zerg knowledge from 2010-2011 is now worthless. Former pro knowledge tends to become worthless in 3 months of dropping out of the competitive scene. Maybe if the game settles into normalcy after 5 years without a patch, then we might be able to get some casters who can really analyze all matchups of the game.
Meh, I'm 3-0 against the [Apollo]Apollo account on EU, which is he because he streams under it in three different matchups. You can manage. Switching to random really isn't that hard. It's just "Are you willing to give up the race you love the most to improve your casting or not."
I don't really gain the impression that Artosis and Tasteless are that interested in putting in the work and research that say Apollo is. It's clear he puts more work and research into his casts
On September 23 2014 16:15 lichter wrote: Recalcitrate is a word, yes, but you still used it wrong. You stated that
"This whole "There's not a chance this attack will be held." or "Not a chance he will hold the third." before the attack even starts start to recalcitrate upon me because every time it happens you know it's like 50% chance. "
Let's condense it to make it less difficult to read:
"This whole predictions before the attack even starts start to recalcitrate upon me because every time it happens you know it's like 50% chance."
Recalcitrate is a verb, either transitive or intransitive, that means "to kick back/out/against", usually to suggest opposition.
Let's look at your sentence without modifying it to what I think it means. You are saying that the predictions start to kick out or oppose 'upon' you. I'm not even sure what you want to mean. Not only do you use an odd preposition in "upon", you are saying that the predictions are against you, as a person, instead of your own predictions. Perhaps the predictions are against your own thoughts and predictions, or are in opposition to what actually happens. However, for the latter case, the word still doesn't make sense unless you mean the casters are obstinately defending such a prediction despite the outcome. While a prediction can arguably be recalcitrant towards a prevailing thought or expectation, a prediction cannot recalcitrate an outcome since the outcome is undetermined. However, that's not what you meant. You are saying that the predictions somehow oppose upon you. Even as metaphorical language it doesn't fit in your sentence. Perhaps you meant that the predictions upset, repulse, or annoy you.
Using the same word in a similar context, the sentence could have been: "The outcome of games often recalcitrate against the casters predictions."
However, changing to a more appropriate word allows you to mean what you actually want to mean: "This whole tendency to make predictions before the fight even begins starts to repulse me because they only get it right 50% of the time."
Since we're being nitpicky, might as well mention that the preposition should be against not upon, your S-V agreement between "whole" and "start" is questionable, and your use of the word 'start' twice is unfortunate. Also, it's usually correct to use more + adverb, instead of adding +er.
While literally in Latin "recalcitrate" means "kick back" and you sometimes get that when you look it up. In practice to recalcitrate pretty much means "to disagree in an aggressive manner.
Honestly, the way you people speak about the word makes it seem to me you never seen nor used it and go by a dictionary definition too much. If something is recalcitrant it in practice just means you find it very annoying. Most typically said of noise or odours. "My god, the smell in your bathroom is recalcitrant, do you ever clean it?"
However "x recalcitrates upon y" just means "y is annoyed/offended by x", that's different from "x recalcitrates y." As in "this habit starts to have an effect of recalcitration upon me."
On September 23 2014 21:08 RenSC2 wrote: Foreigner bias... who cares? The English casters are catering to an English audience where the foreigners are usually the fan favorites. The hometown casting duo for a baseball game are biased too, but that's almost a part of the job description.
If only they didn't again come with metagame BS expecting the audience to swallow it.
Metagaming Bullshit Don't ever watch a business channel on TV try to explain why stocks/commodities went up or down. These experts will tell you why stocks went up one day. The next day they'll give you the exact same reason for why stocks went down. Why did Reason X make the stocks go up today, but made it go down yesterday? Because they're trying to kill time.
Yap, I know virtually nothing of management and even I picked up "My god, these people just make up reasons as they go along don't they?"
The point is, anyone with a modicum of intelligence sees right through it just walks away and is annoyed. I typically have the stream muted during post-game analysis because the vicarious shame is just too damned high.
The ability to fill dead time with babble is a bonus that creates a friendlier atmosphere between the casters and the audience. For some, like Tastosis, they are good at that babble and people get interested in what they have to say even if they aren't interested in the game.
Especially with Tastetosis the amount of BS is super high. BitterdaM does it better in my opinion, the conversation flows a bit more naturally there. Tastosis is a bit too much of "I didn't actually think your joke was funny, but I'll laugh anyway. To not make it awkward." BitterdaM is like "Okay Kev, I think some-where out there some-one might think that is funny."
Underappreciation of Zerg and Racial Bias I do agree that if you want to cast full-time, you should probably start playing random (or changing your race every day/week/month) so that you can provide insight into every matchup. However, it's quite difficult to play all three races at a high enough level to be able to provide insight into any one of them. Unlike traditional sports, the game is still constantly evolving and Artosis's Zerg knowledge from 2010-2011 is now worthless. Former pro knowledge tends to become worthless in 3 months of dropping out of the competitive scene. Maybe if the game settles into normalcy after 5 years without a patch, then we might be able to get some casters who can really analyze all matchups of the game.
Meh, I'm 3-0 against the [Apollo]Apollo account on EU, which is he because he streams under it in three different matchups. You can manage. Switching to random really isn't that hard. It's just "Are you willing to give up the race you love the most to improve your casting or not."
I don't really gain the impression that Artosis and Tasteless are that interested in putting in the work and research that say Apollo is. It's clear he puts more work and research into his casts
So you admit to stream-sniping Apollo? This brings great shame upon your family, friends and your cat, and not just vicarious shame.
On September 23 2014 16:15 lichter wrote: Recalcitrate is a word, yes, but you still used it wrong. You stated that
"This whole "There's not a chance this attack will be held." or "Not a chance he will hold the third." before the attack even starts start to recalcitrate upon me because every time it happens you know it's like 50% chance. "
Let's condense it to make it less difficult to read:
"This whole predictions before the attack even starts start to recalcitrate upon me because every time it happens you know it's like 50% chance."
Recalcitrate is a verb, either transitive or intransitive, that means "to kick back/out/against", usually to suggest opposition.
Let's look at your sentence without modifying it to what I think it means. You are saying that the predictions start to kick out or oppose 'upon' you. I'm not even sure what you want to mean. Not only do you use an odd preposition in "upon", you are saying that the predictions are against you, as a person, instead of your own predictions. Perhaps the predictions are against your own thoughts and predictions, or are in opposition to what actually happens. However, for the latter case, the word still doesn't make sense unless you mean the casters are obstinately defending such a prediction despite the outcome. While a prediction can arguably be recalcitrant towards a prevailing thought or expectation, a prediction cannot recalcitrate an outcome since the outcome is undetermined. However, that's not what you meant. You are saying that the predictions somehow oppose upon you. Even as metaphorical language it doesn't fit in your sentence. Perhaps you meant that the predictions upset, repulse, or annoy you.
Using the same word in a similar context, the sentence could have been: "The outcome of games often recalcitrate against the casters predictions."
However, changing to a more appropriate word allows you to mean what you actually want to mean: "This whole tendency to make predictions before the fight even begins starts to repulse me because they only get it right 50% of the time."
Since we're being nitpicky, might as well mention that the preposition should be against not upon, your S-V agreement between "whole" and "start" is questionable, and your use of the word 'start' twice is unfortunate. Also, it's usually correct to use more + adverb, instead of adding +er.
While literally in Latin "recalcitrate" means "kick back" and you sometimes get that when you look it up. In practice to recalcitrate pretty much means "to disagree in an aggressive manner.
Honestly, the way you people speak about the word makes it seem to me you never seen nor used it and go by a dictionary definition too much. If something is recalcitrant it in practice just means you find it very annoying. Most typically said of noise or odours. "My god, the smell in your bathroom is recalcitrant, do you ever clean it?"
However "x recalcitrates upon y" just means "y is annoyed/offended by x", that's different from "x recalcitrates y." As in "this habit starts to have an effect of recalcitration upon me."
On September 23 2014 21:08 RenSC2 wrote: Foreigner bias... who cares? The English casters are catering to an English audience where the foreigners are usually the fan favorites. The hometown casting duo for a baseball game are biased too, but that's almost a part of the job description.
If only they didn't again come with metagame BS expecting the audience to swallow it.
Metagaming Bullshit Don't ever watch a business channel on TV try to explain why stocks/commodities went up or down. These experts will tell you why stocks went up one day. The next day they'll give you the exact same reason for why stocks went down. Why did Reason X make the stocks go up today, but made it go down yesterday? Because they're trying to kill time.
Yap, I know virtually nothing of management and even I picked up "My god, these people just make up reasons as they go along don't they?"
The point is, anyone with a modicum of intelligence sees right through it just walks away and is annoyed. I typically have the stream muted during post-game analysis because the vicarious shame is just too damned high.
The ability to fill dead time with babble is a bonus that creates a friendlier atmosphere between the casters and the audience. For some, like Tastosis, they are good at that babble and people get interested in what they have to say even if they aren't interested in the game.
Especially with Tastetosis the amount of BS is super high. BitterdaM does it better in my opinion, the conversation flows a bit more naturally there. Tastosis is a bit too much of "I didn't actually think your joke was funny, but I'll laugh anyway. To not make it awkward." BitterdaM is like "Okay Kev, I think some-where out there some-one might think that is funny."
Underappreciation of Zerg and Racial Bias I do agree that if you want to cast full-time, you should probably start playing random (or changing your race every day/week/month) so that you can provide insight into every matchup. However, it's quite difficult to play all three races at a high enough level to be able to provide insight into any one of them. Unlike traditional sports, the game is still constantly evolving and Artosis's Zerg knowledge from 2010-2011 is now worthless. Former pro knowledge tends to become worthless in 3 months of dropping out of the competitive scene. Maybe if the game settles into normalcy after 5 years without a patch, then we might be able to get some casters who can really analyze all matchups of the game.
Meh, I'm 3-0 against the [Apollo]Apollo account on EU, which is he because he streams under it in three different matchups. You can manage. Switching to random really isn't that hard. It's just "Are you willing to give up the race you love the most to improve your casting or not."
I don't really gain the impression that Artosis and Tasteless are that interested in putting in the work and research that say Apollo is. It's clear he puts more work and research into his casts
So you admit to stream-sniping Apollo? This brings great shame upon your family, friends and your cat, and not just vicarious shame.
Ehh, no?
I just know he streams under that account and I ran into him on the ladder three times and won all three. Long time ago though. This was with Alterzim still in the pool. Worsening of my motor control due to a condition has basically given me almost diamond MMR at this point.
I haven't watched SCII casting in a while but I remember always enjoying what I saw. Having a bit of analysis and some shoutcasting is fine and good. The only thing that I hated was when shoutcasting went over the top like that Husky game of Polt vs Life 1-2 years back.
It was a bo5 towards the end of the night, think like midnight or 1am and Husky was literally shouting the whole time and wouldn't knock it off or turn it down. I had no issues with him prior to that but once I saw that much shouting, I started disliking his future casts lol.
I do think you are being a bit too critical here though. Yes, the casting can always be better. More analysis, less bias etc... but I doubt you'll ever get 100% perfect casting and I'm sure more people than not enjoy things as they are. Last thing I noticed, you're really trying hard to write complex sentences, aren't you? XD There are so many places that it would've been easier to avoid mistakes like some of what was pointed out had you just phrased things better instead of using complex language but hey, to each their own
Second definition is obviously the one I'm going at, also see the "out of date" part, one assumes the meaning of the word shifted in the last hundred years from literally meaning "to kick against" to now meaning "to express repugnance.".
I've never seen anyone use "to recalcitrate" to literally mean to kick against something. In practice it just means "I vehemently disagree with this horseshit."
On September 24 2014 10:29 SiskosGoatee wrote: I've never seen anyone use "to recalcitrate" to literally mean to kick against something. In practice it just means
On September 24 2014 10:29 SiskosGoatee wrote: I've never seen anyone use "to recalcitrate" to literally mean to kick against something. In practice it just means
but that guy isn't even good in Taekwondo, his technique is really sloppy. )= To the point: It doesn't matter if you did use "recalcitrate" correct or not. You criticized Casters for very small, nuanced details in their casting and promoted these points as "flaws", when in reality they express just your notion on the subject. A common reaction to beeing overly critical towards a certain item or person is often, that your very criticism will be reviewed very harsh too. That's a known phenomenon in sociology.
Now: in the light of reason, it does make no sense to degrade the accuracy of your statements by your poor spelling standards, that is true. i think your fellow Users just wanted to remind you, that your adamant opinion on the qualities of some Casters appears arrogant and your spelling is an obvious point of leverage.
On September 24 2014 10:29 SiskosGoatee wrote: I've never seen anyone use "to recalcitrate" to literally mean to kick against something. In practice it just means
but that guy isn't even good in Taekwondo, his technique is really sloppy. )= To the point: It doesn't matter if you did use "recalcitrate" correct or not. You criticized Casters for very small, nuanced details in their casting and promoted these points as "flaws", when in reality they express just your notion on the subject. A common reaction to beeing overly critical towards a certain item or person is often, that your very criticism will be reviewed very harsh too. That's a known phenomenon in sociology.
Now: in the light of reason, it does make no sense to degrade the accuracy of your statements by your poor spelling standards, that is true. i think your fellow Users just wanted to remind you, that your adamant opinion on the qualities of some Casters appears arrogant and your spelling is an obvious point of leverage.
Meh, I'm not a caster myself so I see no hypocrisy in this. I'll freely admit I'll be a terrible caster because I have a pretty awful and mumbly voice.
About the TK guy, not a TK expert here, did some martial arts though and though his technique looks a bit of balance, though truth be told all TK looks off balance to me, I don't get that focus on kicking. Standing on both feet rules. The things he says sort of make sense. He spends more time on common pitfalls and misconceptions than a lot of other martial arts videos at least.
Seriously, I have never watched any martial arts video without some crazy debate in the comment section and someone going "This guy isn't that good, he's doing it wrong."
On September 24 2014 12:59 SiskosGoatee wrote: About the TK guy, not a TK expert here, did some martial arts though and though his technique looks a bit of balance, though truth be told all TK looks off balance to me, I don't get that focus on kicking. Standing on both feet rules. The things he says sort of make sense. He spends more time on common pitfalls and misconceptions than a lot of other martial arts videos at least.
Yeah, he slides the grounded foot after the kick every time. I'm not really sure this 'hurts' the technique much, though, since he gives himself slightly more effective range by doing so. Personally, if I tried to do that, it'd mess with my kick because I've practiced having the non-kicking leg planted for over a decade. Everyone is a bit different though, so if it works for him, then it's fine.
Shouldn't you comment that it should be "off balance" pumpkin? Two f's.
But seriously, I don't get Tae Kwon Do or any art that focusses so much on kicking. If you kick you stand on one feet. What happens if you kick and someone just intercepts the kick and fends it to the side. Even if you don't just fall over then, you're not exactly standing in a position that doesn't leave you open.
Kicks land pretty hard compared to punches I guess, the all in of martial arts.
About the foreigner bias: You should always ry to find the storyline within a series and more often than not, when a foreigner goes up against a Korean, the storyline is that of an underdog story. I heard on the Korean Starcraft show that even they, when they casted foreigners in Korean leagues, they were rooting for the foreigner.
On September 24 2014 17:46 ejozl wrote: About the foreigner bias: You should always ry to find the storyline within a series and more often than not, when a foreigner goes up against a Korean, the storyline is that of an underdog story. I heard on the Korean Starcraft show that even they, when they casted foreigners in Korean leagues, they were rooting for the foreigner.
That's just admitting your audience is either not that smart or wishful thinking that they buy into it though.
Hell, even when I want someone to win, please don't come with bullshit over-hyping that person's chance, it'll just make me feel patronized.
On September 24 2014 15:10 SiskosGoatee wrote: Shouldn't you comment that it should be "off balance" pumpkin? Two f's.
But seriously, I don't get Tae Kwon Do or any art that focusses so much on kicking. If you kick you stand on one feet. What happens if you kick and someone just intercepts the kick and fends it to the side. Even if you don't just fall over then, you're not exactly standing in a position that doesn't leave you open.
Kicks land pretty hard compared to punches I guess, the all in of martial arts.
"Off" does have two f's. I should also point out that "focusses" should be "focuses". If someone throws a strong kick, "fending it to the side" is very unlikely. However, catching the kick and then using your own kick to knock out the standing leg of your opponent is something very easy to do against a heavy-kicking style. Once they fall, you can get on top of them and they won't be able to do much.
On September 24 2014 15:10 SiskosGoatee wrote: Shouldn't you comment that it should be "off balance" pumpkin? Two f's.
But seriously, I don't get Tae Kwon Do or any art that focusses so much on kicking. If you kick you stand on one feet. What happens if you kick and someone just intercepts the kick and fends it to the side. Even if you don't just fall over then, you're not exactly standing in a position that doesn't leave you open.
Kicks land pretty hard compared to punches I guess, the all in of martial arts.
"Off" does have two f's. I should also point out that "focusses" should be "focuses". If someone throws a strong kick, "fending it to the side" is very unlikely. However, catching the kick and then using your own kick to knock out the standing leg of your opponent is something very easy to do against a heavy-kicking style. Once they fall, you can get on top of them and they won't be able to do much.
Here you go again, always, always first look it up before you correct something. The number of times I've been corrected to just reply with "lawl UK spelling bra, ignorant American much?"
I don't really see why it's unlikely that it's fended. A kick gives you a lot of time to react and your entire body signals it. Hell. This kick turns your back in half motion so you can probably do something with that, just punch someone before they're done. I'm not really convinced by the merits of kicking over punching. Yeah, they hit hard, but you're massively throwing all your eggs in one basket.
On September 24 2014 15:10 SiskosGoatee wrote: Shouldn't you comment that it should be "off balance" pumpkin? Two f's.
But seriously, I don't get Tae Kwon Do or any art that focusses so much on kicking. If you kick you stand on one feet. What happens if you kick and someone just intercepts the kick and fends it to the side. Even if you don't just fall over then, you're not exactly standing in a position that doesn't leave you open.
Kicks land pretty hard compared to punches I guess, the all in of martial arts.
"Off" does have two f's. I should also point out that "focusses" should be "focuses". If someone throws a strong kick, "fending it to the side" is very unlikely. However, catching the kick and then using your own kick to knock out the standing leg of your opponent is something very easy to do against a heavy-kicking style. Once they fall, you can get on top of them and they won't be able to do much.
Here you go again, always, always first look it up before you correct something. The number of times I've been corrected to just reply with "lawl UK spelling bra, ignorant American much?"
I don't really see why it's unlikely that it's fended. A kick gives you a lot of time to react and your entire body signals it. Hell. This kick turns your back in half motion so you can probably do something with that, just punch someone before they're done. I'm not really convinced by the merits of kicking over punching. Yeah, they hit hard, but you're massively throwing all your eggs in one basket.
Except your legs are longer than your arms. Have you ever tried martial arts? You need to be really good to just block a kick and sweep someone off their feet if they know what they do. You shouldn't write so anti-kick based, gosh you're a negative nancy. Go to the other emo kids and play twilight.
On September 24 2014 15:10 SiskosGoatee wrote: Shouldn't you comment that it should be "off balance" pumpkin? Two f's.
But seriously, I don't get Tae Kwon Do or any art that focusses so much on kicking. If you kick you stand on one feet. What happens if you kick and someone just intercepts the kick and fends it to the side. Even if you don't just fall over then, you're not exactly standing in a position that doesn't leave you open.
Kicks land pretty hard compared to punches I guess, the all in of martial arts.
"Off" does have two f's. I should also point out that "focusses" should be "focuses". If someone throws a strong kick, "fending it to the side" is very unlikely. However, catching the kick and then using your own kick to knock out the standing leg of your opponent is something very easy to do against a heavy-kicking style. Once they fall, you can get on top of them and they won't be able to do much.
Here you go again, always, always first look it up before you correct something. The number of times I've been corrected to just reply with "lawl UK spelling bra, ignorant American much?"
I don't really see why it's unlikely that it's fended. A kick gives you a lot of time to react and your entire body signals it. Hell. This kick turns your back in half motion so you can probably do something with that, just punch someone before they're done. I'm not really convinced by the merits of kicking over punching. Yeah, they hit hard, but you're massively throwing all your eggs in one basket.
Except your legs are longer than your arms. Have you ever tried martial arts? You need to be really good to just block a kick and sweep someone off their feet if they know what they do.
No, you need to be about as good as they. Obviously when a kick lands it hits hard but if someone intercepts it then you lie on the floor. It's also very easy to just take a step back or stand aside because they are telegraphed considerably longer in advance than a punch.
You shouldn't write so anti-kick based, gosh you're a negative nancy. Go to the other emo kids and play twilight.
Ahaha, lol what?
Yes okay, I get it, because I'm sceptical about the merits of kicks I watch twilight ahahah.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ySHR178.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pv37GPl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/r6iSExy.png)
Dialects, second languages, and speech impediments all hinder perfect fluency and pronunciation. That's life. Deal with it. I'm sure you still understand the commentary.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9gY56qJ.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7YTwPFz.png)
