Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 05:24 Freakling wrote:
That the quality of a map or the even just the exact impact of a certain severe bug are not quantifiable does not mean they are not measurable (or testable, if you prefer that term) or objective.
If you can not quantify something you can not measure it.
Wrong, because:
Measuring is the process of mapping an input to an output of an ordered set. If you can not give an output how can you call something measurable? It doesnt make any sense.
There are X minerals with bugged mining on the map is a very well quantified output, in fact.
For certain bugs, the output [0,1], i.e. it's there or it isn't, is an output to an ordered set. So it actually even fits your definition. Claiming anything else would be hair-splitting at best.
And 'testable' doesnt have anything to do with it. Nor has 'objective'. You dont "test" the temperature outside. You measure it. And you dont measure whether a program produces the correct output for a given input, you test it.
In scientific terms, objective, testable and measurable pretty much mean the same thing.
Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 05:24 Freakling wrote:
In fact, they are testifiably there. That is a very objective fact, i.e any one can have a quick look and confirm for themselves. They are reproducible and not dependant on any one's personal point of view. That is the very definition of objective.
You say "they are" but what are the "they" you are referring to?
Things like cover bugs, mining problems, random cliffs everywhere, blocky ramps (with more buggy terrain)...
May it be:
Show nested quote +On June 06 2016 02:15 Freakling wrote:
There's one good thing at least: Since no way in its current desolate state this is going to be added to iCCup, the obvious clash in map name will not happen
or
Show nested quote +On June 06 2016 02:15 Freakling wrote:
decoration: I mean, there's hardly any. But it's just deco right?! Why would you care? As long as it play well... Only that it does not and yet another time the two minute job on deco tells you all you need to know about precisely how not at all this map maker actually gave a damn about the map he made...
Are these things testifiable? (is that even a word?)
+ Show Spoiler +Do you call these reproducible or non dependant of personal point of view?
It's not the first
I personally dont and I guess that is all it takes to prove you wrong.
Prove me wrong about what exactly? And why are you even so eager to do this, I have to wonder?
First one is an educated guess, but a well grounded one. It is almost certain that this will never be an ICCup map unless it is massively improved on. The other points I made (i.e. the more serious bugs I pointed out and which non-surprisingly you so far just entirely ignore completely as they are too solid to be just dismissed through bickering about semantics) tell you exactly why that is.
And yes, how well the little details (like decoration) are worked out on a map is a pretty accurate predictor of the amount of thought and work that the map maker put into that map. And whereas you could hypothesize that maybe all the work and thought went into other, more important aspects (which is certainly true for some maps, just take Outsider as an example), my analysis clearly shows that this is clearly not the case here.
Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 05:24 Freakling wrote:
You also rightly observer that this makes my analysis correct, which it can only be if it is objective in the first place.
No. Correctness has nothing to do with objectiveness. I can say "all ravens are black because I think its the coolest color for ravens". That is not objective, but its still correct that all ravens are black. Even if I was to say "all ravens are black" that isnt objective because it is just a statement. Something that can be either true or false but it is not a judgedment.
Subjective issues cannot be divided into correct and wrong ones. Its always a judgement call. Only if an issue is objectively decidable you can find it to be either correct or wrong.
The sentence "all ravens are black" is in fact objective, as it makes a clear statement that can be evaluated and found correct or wrong based on observable facts. It happens to be wrong in fact, as there is (or at least used to be) a species of raven which was for the most part
not black. And several more if you extend the term "raven" to species of crows and other corvids which most people cannot tell apart anyway. And of course, there are
albino ravens which are not black at all...
And even if we assume "ravens are black" to expresses the (statistically correct) observation that typical representatives of the species corvus corax are reflecting comparatively little light in the spectrum visible to the human eye, the sentence "all ravens are black because RoomOfMush thinks it is the coolest colour for ravens" is still definitely not correct, as that is not the reason why ravens are black. It is also still an objective statement, as it makes a claim that is either correct or wrong.
On the other hand, stances such as "I think ravens are cool" or "black is a nice colour" are in fact merely expressions of an opinion and therefore purely subjective.
Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 05:24 Freakling wrote:
I have explained for every of my points how it is actually objectively bad (yes, I also say it simply looks kind of ugly and, well, loveless, which is subjective, though most people will probably agree, but reducing my whole post to that minor point is exemplary strawmaning and should have no place in a serious discussion)
No again. You have said why you think it is bad. It is true that probably 99% of all BW players agree with you. Maybe ALL 100% agree with you. But thats not how to be objective. Being objective is much more complicated than that and maybe impossible.
Of course not, as what is correct and what is wrong is not a matter of majority decision. If something is wrong, it's wrong even with a 100% approval rating. I never claimed anything else. Just means every one is wrong. Again, you are trying to burn a strawman here.
And whether it is possible to always be objective about anything has nothing to do with the question whether there are objective stances.
Everything a human being perceives is based on subjective perception. There is no way to proof that anything you ever perceive has been perceived the very same way as it is perceived by somebody else. From a purely theoretical point of view it is impossible for any human being to do anything objectively.
blah blah. Philosophy 101 sounds always so profound and can effectively avoid having to address any actual issues...
But even if we assume that the scientific approach is objective then obviously you are still not being objective. To follow a scientific approach you would have needed to define the things you talk about. You have to tell us why something is bad and why something is good and how these things can be tested and how these things can be measured and how these measurements are to be interpreted and how (...) etc etc
No, I don't, in fact. Not if I can assume the people I am talking to to have a certain level of base knowledge so they can follow my explanations. If you need to have explained to you how to move and attack with units in Broodwar, what a Siege tank is or how to mine minerals, what are you even doing in this forum?
And if in fact some things are not quite clear to you, you could have just asked, which would probably have given you an actually helpful answer to your problem and not just some very interesting but completely unrelated facts about ravens.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6YlsaIx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oAlVhAx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/W94plUi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6fsdfaZ.jpg)
