|
On August 08 2013 08:13 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 08:05 EchOne wrote:On August 08 2013 07:56 ggrrg wrote:
In the current situation, it's not about players wanting to leave the team for good. They don't want to leave their team, yet they want to make another team? Yes, because players ABC want to play together. In your example, you assume that one player leaves his team. Here, a bunch of players who want to play together are involved.
Players ABC want to play together. Players ABC are already on the same team. They are also in the state of "not wanting to leave the team for good." ABC are closely associated with their original team and already play together. This is a great situation, and often teams with huge rosters are happy with this situation, as evidenced by super-teams in previous seasons like TAKK or mSj or NW, with rosters around 3 times as large as a lineup.
The ostensible problem was: the team has too many players, so players ABC feel in danger of being benched more often. Leaving aside the issue of "bench" as a perfectly legitimate practice in sports, let's see how they can solve this problem.
Perhaps it goes something like this: ABC realized the issue and discussed it amongst themselves and decided that perhaps they should all create a new team together. They take it to their captain, who approves and informs the forum that a number of his players are leaving to form a new team. That could've been the case with SB, and I'd be fine with it!
Instead the announcement began with: "Hey can we have an SB 1 and an SB 2?" from the captain of SB. This is followed by much arguing and backpedaling into the current announcement of, "SB is recruiting players and once it has enough players for two teams, ABC will leave and form a new team." If SB already has enough players for one team, why does it need to recruit more? What about the rest of the teams in the league who are relying on being able to recruit some of these players to function? If ABC remain on SB, doesn't that mean the current SB team already fulfills their needs? If getting "benched" were such an unacceptable problem, wouldn't they have left already?
|
No on team split.
Yes on tonight.
|
On August 08 2013 08:37 EchOne wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 08:13 ggrrg wrote:On August 08 2013 08:05 EchOne wrote:On August 08 2013 07:56 ggrrg wrote:
In the current situation, it's not about players wanting to leave the team for good. They don't want to leave their team, yet they want to make another team? Yes, because players ABC want to play together. In your example, you assume that one player leaves his team. Here, a bunch of players who want to play together are involved. Instead the announcement began with: "Hey can we have an SB 1 and an SB 2?" from the captain of SB. This is followed by much arguing and backpedaling into the current announcement of, "SB is recruiting players and once it has enough players for two teams, ABC will leave and form a new team." If SB already has enough players for one team, why does it need to recruit more? What about the rest of the teams in the league who are relying on being able to recruit some of these players to function? If ABC remain on SB, doesn't that mean the current SB team already fulfills their needs? If getting "benched" were such an unacceptable problem, wouldn't they have left already?
Firstly, you call it "backpedaling" but that's quite a loaded term. If you're suggesting that I SHOULDN'T have changed my opinion on the situation and that I should have stuck with trying for two sB teams then you're basically saying people shouldn't change their minds in arguments, which defeats the purpose of debate in the first place. I changed my mind about what I want, and that's a good thing.
We have MORE than enough players for one team, which is where the problem lies. We need to recruit one more to facilitate the split such that we have at last 7 players on each team, which means that both teams should be capable of lasting the entire season.
As I've said OVER AND OVER AGAIN, the players I recruited weren't going to join the league anyway, so there's no "rest of the teams relying on recruiting some of those players". That was never going to happen for most of them. Any players I recruit are "bonus" players that the league would otherwise not have; I'm not somehow denying players from other teams. I'm promoting league growth, not hindering it.
Whereas quite frankly Courage wanting to leave over the issue strikes me as a childish response to a situation where the league isn't quite doing things as they want it to happen. I mean this with all due respect, and I do respect Courage as a team, but I think that throwing the toys out of the cot is not the correct response to things not going the way you want them to. That's hindering league growth, not promoting it.
Team split vote tally.
Votes Yes (8):
Birdie
dazed_spy
DarkNetHunter
art_of_turtle
greenelve
Biolunar
Babo (NOT PLAYING AFAIK)
RulZBoooM (ggrrg)
Votes No (8):
Cpt.Beefy (AtomicArchon)
ImAtTheBeach
EchOne
Sentenal
Squishy
Gao Xi (Shuruken) NOT PLAYING AFAIK
Nagisama
aeghrur (ghrur)
|
On August 08 2013 06:37 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 07:07 anklebreak wrote:
tossboy is themarine? this is sad. you were c- rank when i left and then 1.5 year later you're worst then you were before. i guess practice everyday back then in ued didn't help at all. You know what's really sad? That you got to C rank somehow.
Best post in this entire debate. By far.
Debate about Team Spit and all of a sudden, bam! ninazerg.
Edit: I vote yes on tonight. I don't care much for Team Spit. I just wish we could all get along and hug and kiss and live happily ever after.
|
On August 08 2013 08:47 Birdie wrote:
Firstly, you call it "backpedaling" but that's quite a loaded term. If you're suggesting that I SHOULDN'T have changed my opinion on the situation and that I should have stuck with trying for two sB teams then you're basically saying people shouldn't change their minds in arguments, which defeats the purpose of debate in the first place. I changed my mind about what I want, and that's a good thing.
I noted your initial stance to illustrate how your initiative looked to me as a reader of the thread. You first brought it up with a poll that even suggested running a single roster. I'm glad you're of a flexible mind on this. I just wanted to show how being informed of the team split like this differs drastically than from if TheMarine and Arca had posted telling us they wanted to captain a separate team.
We have MORE than enough players for one team, which is where the problem lies. We need to recruit one more to facilitate the split such that we have at last 7 players on each team, which means that both teams should be capable of lasting the entire season.
So you have more than 7 and less than 14 players? Well it looks like that team will fit right in with 75% of the teams from DRTL4, who also had more than 7 and less than 14 players.
As I've said OVER AND OVER AGAIN, the players I recruited weren't going to join the league anyway, so there's no "rest of the teams relying on recruiting some of those players". That was never going to happen for most of them. Any players I recruit are "bonus" players that the league would otherwise not have; I'm not somehow denying players from other teams. I'm promoting league growth, not hindering it.
Fair enough.
Whereas quite frankly Courage wanting to leave over the issue strikes me as a childish response to a situation where the league isn't quite doing things as they want it to happen. I mean this with all due respect, and I do respect Courage as a team, but I think that throwing the toys out of the cot is not the correct response to things not going the way you want them to. That's hindering league growth, not promoting it.
You tell me about a loaded word and then tell me about how my entire team is childish with infant crib imagery for added style points? First of all, only Sentenal and I have expressed any desire to stop playing in the league. Please do not extend whatever defamation you feel compelled to throw around to Courage. Second of all, just as a player has the right to leave his team, a player also has the right to not participate in an event.
|
On August 08 2013 07:22 EchOne wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 06:45 Dazed_Spy wrote:On August 08 2013 06:38 EchOne wrote:On August 08 2013 06:21 Dazed_Spy wrote:
@Echone It doesnt prescribe anything to him unless he voluntarily submits to it, nor does it preclude him creating a new team, though if his current team is simultaneously undergoing an organized split it will dampen his potential player pool. But thats just a contingent scenario, its just as possible the player will be leaving the team prior to any organized team split and will have the ability to entice individual members away from his old team, and other teams. Yes I mentioned specifically that the player still retains his right. Technically, he can choose to do whatever he wants to do whenever he wants to do it. In reality, people tend not to act without impetus. The nature of leadership and decision making is such that a man will "voluntarily submit" to any number of things should he be convinced they benefit him. Such persuasion is the core of marketing anything from products to presidents. In almost all cases, and likely in this case too, this is sufficient. But it will always differ slightly from a man creating a solution on his own. So we shouldnt allow team splits because people may be persuaded? Yet somehow if theres a vote, then its legit? As if there wont be persuasion prior to the advent of any democratic team split? Your objection is...pointless. A captain telling his players to do a thing carries its own persuasive power. For instance, as a captain I could... tell KazeHydra to play even though he is D- and thinks he will lose. tell Nagisama to get me replays even though that has nothing to do with him. tell Sentenal to express good manners even though he's in a heated argument. and they will be inclined to do these things (even though other inclinations may prevail.) They still have every right to act however they want, but because I told them to do something, my proposed action now occupies part of their thoughts. The course of events (Birdie proposing the split as 2 SBs, Birdie reframing the issue as a double roster and finally as a team split after confrontation, Birdie detailing that he specifically "asked nicely" of each of his players to do this) suggests to me that we have a captain masterminding the decisions of his players. If TheMarine, Arca, and their players were arguing with me about their grievances with SB and how they just need to leave, that would suggest something more along the lines of players exercising their will vs a captain exercising his will over his players. Why would you need a greviance to leave a team? I dont think RedAxis is bitter over TAKK, yet he left just a few days ago. Marine/Arca may simply see the positives of a new team [command, organization, more play time for everyone] to outweigh the negatives of leaving.
Regardless, your comments on the inherent persuasive power of authority is again largely trivial, because its nothing more than a complaint about the inherent ways in which humans interact and come to decisions. Authority [perceived or real] will always have some charisma to it, so to speak, but I dont see how it delegitimizes the voluntary nature of this situation. And if it does, then it impugns all human interaction because at the end of the day, what relationship is without perceived authority? None.
edit: YES on tonight.
|
So in other news, here are the free agents that has actually signed up on the thread. I'm under the assumption that no free agents that has signed up has been picked up by any other team.
 jjwhg (D)
 lightson (D+)
AcE (D)
Magreidis (D)
 Nikon (D+)
LTY (D)
austriavienna (D)
master_soul (D)
MinscandBoo (D)
Kopp (D+)
swerve6986 (D-)
Mordoboy (D+)
sMi.tonight (loser)
Also, only TAKK, SunKhan, and Airforce Ace of Spades has actually signed up as a team. Any current roster available for DeSPA or Stealth Bunnies?
|
|
|
On August 08 2013 08:37 EchOne wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 08 2013 08:13 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 08:05 EchOne wrote:On August 08 2013 07:56 ggrrg wrote:
In the current situation, it's not about players wanting to leave the team for good. They don't want to leave their team, yet they want to make another team? Yes, because players ABC want to play together. In your example, you assume that one player leaves his team. Here, a bunch of players who want to play together are involved. Players ABC want to play together. Players ABC are already on the same team. They are also in the state of "not wanting to leave the team for good." ABC are closely associated with their original team and already play together. This is a great situation, and often teams with huge rosters are happy with this situation, as evidenced by super-teams in previous seasons like TAKK or mSj or NW, with rosters around 3 times as large as a lineup. The ostensible problem was: the team has too many players, so players ABC feel in danger of being benched more often. Leaving aside the issue of "bench" as a perfectly legitimate practice in sports, let's see how they can solve this problem. Perhaps it goes something like this: ABC realized the issue and discussed it amongst themselves and decided that perhaps they should all create a new team together. They take it to their captain, who approves and informs the forum that a number of his players are leaving to form a new team. That could've been the case with SB, and I'd be fine with it! Instead the announcement began with: "Hey can we have an SB 1 and an SB 2?" from the captain of SB. This is followed by much arguing and backpedaling into the current announcement of, "SB is recruiting players and once it has enough players for two teams, ABC will leave and form a new team." If SB already has enough players for one team, why does it need to recruit more? What about the rest of the teams in the league who are relying on being able to recruit some of these players to function? If ABC remain on SB, doesn't that mean the current SB team already fulfills their needs? If getting "benched" were such an unacceptable problem, wouldn't they have left already?
You read my mind
If there' s too many birds in one nest, some of the birds have to leave and build there own nest, if their objective is to be independent from their original bird nest. No one can build it for them. Otherwise they will always turn back to the mother bird if they have a problem. These birds need to learn how to fly on their own, if they wish to form a family of their own and fly around and whatnot. Its noble to try and help them, but in the long term it will only create a co-dependence relationship. There would be nothing wrong with this per-se , but one must take into consideration the outside world and the fact that these birds are living in a forest and are going to have to interact with many other birds. The best thing would be to teach them if they ask for help, instruct them and advise them with the experience accumuated. But teaching is not deciding for them, not building for them, not getting things for them, not conditioning them (even without counsciously knowing of doing so)
If they are missing a twig to build the nest, it cannot be provided by someone else, they have to find it. They have to look for it, pick it up, bring it back to the base.
|
DeSPA is:
DNH
Artofturtle
Squishy
Puyi
Biolunar
AtomicArchon
Rauk
CheeseCake nee
We need 7 more players so squishy and art can start there new team with half of DeSPA.
(Doesn't that sound stupid to anyone else?)
|
On August 08 2013 09:12 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 07:22 EchOne wrote:On August 08 2013 06:45 Dazed_Spy wrote:On August 08 2013 06:38 EchOne wrote:On August 08 2013 06:21 Dazed_Spy wrote:
@Echone It doesnt prescribe anything to him unless he voluntarily submits to it, nor does it preclude him creating a new team, though if his current team is simultaneously undergoing an organized split it will dampen his potential player pool. But thats just a contingent scenario, its just as possible the player will be leaving the team prior to any organized team split and will have the ability to entice individual members away from his old team, and other teams. Yes I mentioned specifically that the player still retains his right. Technically, he can choose to do whatever he wants to do whenever he wants to do it. In reality, people tend not to act without impetus. The nature of leadership and decision making is such that a man will "voluntarily submit" to any number of things should he be convinced they benefit him. Such persuasion is the core of marketing anything from products to presidents. In almost all cases, and likely in this case too, this is sufficient. But it will always differ slightly from a man creating a solution on his own. So we shouldnt allow team splits because people may be persuaded? Yet somehow if theres a vote, then its legit? As if there wont be persuasion prior to the advent of any democratic team split? Your objection is...pointless. A captain telling his players to do a thing carries its own persuasive power. For instance, as a captain I could... tell KazeHydra to play even though he is D- and thinks he will lose. tell Nagisama to get me replays even though that has nothing to do with him. tell Sentenal to express good manners even though he's in a heated argument. and they will be inclined to do these things (even though other inclinations may prevail.) They still have every right to act however they want, but because I told them to do something, my proposed action now occupies part of their thoughts. The course of events (Birdie proposing the split as 2 SBs, Birdie reframing the issue as a double roster and finally as a team split after confrontation, Birdie detailing that he specifically "asked nicely" of each of his players to do this) suggests to me that we have a captain masterminding the decisions of his players. If TheMarine, Arca, and their players were arguing with me about their grievances with SB and how they just need to leave, that would suggest something more along the lines of players exercising their will vs a captain exercising his will over his players. Why would you need a greviance to leave a team? I dont think RedAxis is bitter over TAKK, yet he left just a few days ago. Marine/Arca may simply see the positives of a new team [command, organization, more play time for everyone] to outweigh the negatives of staying behind. Regardless, your comments on the inherent persuasive power of authority is again largely trivial, because its nothing more than a complaint about the inherent ways in which humans interact and come to decisions. Authority [perceived or real] will always have some charisma to it, so to speak, but I dont see how it delegitimizes the voluntary nature of this situation. And if it does, then it impugns all human interaction because at the end of the day, what relationship is without perceived authority? None.
RedAxis told me of at least one grievance. I will leave it at that.
I have not witnessed Marine/Arca reveal their decision making on this with any positives / negatives matrix.
Voluntarily assenting to the request of an authority is different from independently conceiving and undertaking an action. I already mentioned the formation of Team Courage as a counterexample where we split with our original team entirely of our own accord.
Everyone has some ability to influence someone else and we can call that authority. However disparities in authority are not always pronounced and not always codified, as in languages with honorific tiers or organizations with explicit authoritative titles. A man is at far more of a disadvantage in interactions with his head honcho than with a drinking buddy of same age and status.
|
On August 08 2013 09:26 EchOne wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:12 Dazed_Spy wrote:On August 08 2013 07:22 EchOne wrote:On August 08 2013 06:45 Dazed_Spy wrote:On August 08 2013 06:38 EchOne wrote:On August 08 2013 06:21 Dazed_Spy wrote:
@Echone It doesnt prescribe anything to him unless he voluntarily submits to it, nor does it preclude him creating a new team, though if his current team is simultaneously undergoing an organized split it will dampen his potential player pool. But thats just a contingent scenario, its just as possible the player will be leaving the team prior to any organized team split and will have the ability to entice individual members away from his old team, and other teams. Yes I mentioned specifically that the player still retains his right. Technically, he can choose to do whatever he wants to do whenever he wants to do it. In reality, people tend not to act without impetus. The nature of leadership and decision making is such that a man will "voluntarily submit" to any number of things should he be convinced they benefit him. Such persuasion is the core of marketing anything from products to presidents. In almost all cases, and likely in this case too, this is sufficient. But it will always differ slightly from a man creating a solution on his own. So we shouldnt allow team splits because people may be persuaded? Yet somehow if theres a vote, then its legit? As if there wont be persuasion prior to the advent of any democratic team split? Your objection is...pointless. A captain telling his players to do a thing carries its own persuasive power. For instance, as a captain I could... tell KazeHydra to play even though he is D- and thinks he will lose. tell Nagisama to get me replays even though that has nothing to do with him. tell Sentenal to express good manners even though he's in a heated argument. and they will be inclined to do these things (even though other inclinations may prevail.) They still have every right to act however they want, but because I told them to do something, my proposed action now occupies part of their thoughts. The course of events (Birdie proposing the split as 2 SBs, Birdie reframing the issue as a double roster and finally as a team split after confrontation, Birdie detailing that he specifically "asked nicely" of each of his players to do this) suggests to me that we have a captain masterminding the decisions of his players. If TheMarine, Arca, and their players were arguing with me about their grievances with SB and how they just need to leave, that would suggest something more along the lines of players exercising their will vs a captain exercising his will over his players. Why would you need a greviance to leave a team? I dont think RedAxis is bitter over TAKK, yet he left just a few days ago. Marine/Arca may simply see the positives of a new team [command, organization, more play time for everyone] to outweigh the negatives of staying behind. Regardless, your comments on the inherent persuasive power of authority is again largely trivial, because its nothing more than a complaint about the inherent ways in which humans interact and come to decisions. Authority [perceived or real] will always have some charisma to it, so to speak, but I dont see how it delegitimizes the voluntary nature of this situation. And if it does, then it impugns all human interaction because at the end of the day, what relationship is without perceived authority? None. RedAxis told me of at least one grievance. I will leave it at that.I have not witnessed Marine/Arca reveal their decision making on this with any positives / negatives matrix. Voluntarily assenting to the request of an authority is different from independently conceiving and undertaking an action. I already mentioned the formation of Team Courage as a counterexample where we split with our original team entirely of our own accord. Everyone has some ability to influence someone else and we can call that authority. However disparities in authority are not always pronounced and not always codified, as in languages with honorific tiers or organizations with explicit authoritative titles. A man is at far more of a disadvantage in interactions with his head honcho than with a drinking buddy of same age and status.
greenelve knows of my grievance... HE IS THY REASON I LEFT.
greenelve2, shame upon thy.
|
On August 08 2013 09:26 EchOne wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:12 Dazed_Spy wrote:On August 08 2013 07:22 EchOne wrote:On August 08 2013 06:45 Dazed_Spy wrote:On August 08 2013 06:38 EchOne wrote:On August 08 2013 06:21 Dazed_Spy wrote:
@Echone It doesnt prescribe anything to him unless he voluntarily submits to it, nor does it preclude him creating a new team, though if his current team is simultaneously undergoing an organized split it will dampen his potential player pool. But thats just a contingent scenario, its just as possible the player will be leaving the team prior to any organized team split and will have the ability to entice individual members away from his old team, and other teams. Yes I mentioned specifically that the player still retains his right. Technically, he can choose to do whatever he wants to do whenever he wants to do it. In reality, people tend not to act without impetus. The nature of leadership and decision making is such that a man will "voluntarily submit" to any number of things should he be convinced they benefit him. Such persuasion is the core of marketing anything from products to presidents. In almost all cases, and likely in this case too, this is sufficient. But it will always differ slightly from a man creating a solution on his own. So we shouldnt allow team splits because people may be persuaded? Yet somehow if theres a vote, then its legit? As if there wont be persuasion prior to the advent of any democratic team split? Your objection is...pointless. A captain telling his players to do a thing carries its own persuasive power. For instance, as a captain I could... tell KazeHydra to play even though he is D- and thinks he will lose. tell Nagisama to get me replays even though that has nothing to do with him. tell Sentenal to express good manners even though he's in a heated argument. and they will be inclined to do these things (even though other inclinations may prevail.) They still have every right to act however they want, but because I told them to do something, my proposed action now occupies part of their thoughts. The course of events (Birdie proposing the split as 2 SBs, Birdie reframing the issue as a double roster and finally as a team split after confrontation, Birdie detailing that he specifically "asked nicely" of each of his players to do this) suggests to me that we have a captain masterminding the decisions of his players. If TheMarine, Arca, and their players were arguing with me about their grievances with SB and how they just need to leave, that would suggest something more along the lines of players exercising their will vs a captain exercising his will over his players. Why would you need a greviance to leave a team? I dont think RedAxis is bitter over TAKK, yet he left just a few days ago. Marine/Arca may simply see the positives of a new team [command, organization, more play time for everyone] to outweigh the negatives of staying behind. Regardless, your comments on the inherent persuasive power of authority is again largely trivial, because its nothing more than a complaint about the inherent ways in which humans interact and come to decisions. Authority [perceived or real] will always have some charisma to it, so to speak, but I dont see how it delegitimizes the voluntary nature of this situation. And if it does, then it impugns all human interaction because at the end of the day, what relationship is without perceived authority? None. RedAxis told me of at least one grievance. I will leave it at that. I have not witnessed Marine/Arca reveal their decision making on this with any positives / negatives matrix. Voluntarily assenting to the request of an authority is different from independently conceiving and undertaking an action. I already mentioned the formation of Team Courage as a counterexample where we split with our original team entirely of our own accord. Everyone has some ability to influence someone else and we can call that authority. However disparities in authority are not always pronounced and not always codified, as in languages with honorific tiers or organizations with explicit authoritative titles. A man is at far more of a disadvantage in interactions with his head honcho than with a drinking buddy of same age and status. They have already stated they're leaving because they desire a leadership role and the team is too big, I dont see how you could of failed to have seen that.
And if your really intimating that the degree of authority and pressure theoretically exerted by a faceless team capitain of a casually played RTS is sufficient to make the freeness of their choice questionable, you have lept well beyond the ridiculously absurd.
|
On August 08 2013 09:33 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 09:26 EchOne wrote:On August 08 2013 09:12 Dazed_Spy wrote:On August 08 2013 07:22 EchOne wrote:On August 08 2013 06:45 Dazed_Spy wrote:On August 08 2013 06:38 EchOne wrote:On August 08 2013 06:21 Dazed_Spy wrote:
@Echone It doesnt prescribe anything to him unless he voluntarily submits to it, nor does it preclude him creating a new team, though if his current team is simultaneously undergoing an organized split it will dampen his potential player pool. But thats just a contingent scenario, its just as possible the player will be leaving the team prior to any organized team split and will have the ability to entice individual members away from his old team, and other teams. Yes I mentioned specifically that the player still retains his right. Technically, he can choose to do whatever he wants to do whenever he wants to do it. In reality, people tend not to act without impetus. The nature of leadership and decision making is such that a man will "voluntarily submit" to any number of things should he be convinced they benefit him. Such persuasion is the core of marketing anything from products to presidents. In almost all cases, and likely in this case too, this is sufficient. But it will always differ slightly from a man creating a solution on his own. So we shouldnt allow team splits because people may be persuaded? Yet somehow if theres a vote, then its legit? As if there wont be persuasion prior to the advent of any democratic team split? Your objection is...pointless. A captain telling his players to do a thing carries its own persuasive power. For instance, as a captain I could... tell KazeHydra to play even though he is D- and thinks he will lose. tell Nagisama to get me replays even though that has nothing to do with him. tell Sentenal to express good manners even though he's in a heated argument. and they will be inclined to do these things (even though other inclinations may prevail.) They still have every right to act however they want, but because I told them to do something, my proposed action now occupies part of their thoughts. The course of events (Birdie proposing the split as 2 SBs, Birdie reframing the issue as a double roster and finally as a team split after confrontation, Birdie detailing that he specifically "asked nicely" of each of his players to do this) suggests to me that we have a captain masterminding the decisions of his players. If TheMarine, Arca, and their players were arguing with me about their grievances with SB and how they just need to leave, that would suggest something more along the lines of players exercising their will vs a captain exercising his will over his players. Why would you need a greviance to leave a team? I dont think RedAxis is bitter over TAKK, yet he left just a few days ago. Marine/Arca may simply see the positives of a new team [command, organization, more play time for everyone] to outweigh the negatives of staying behind. Regardless, your comments on the inherent persuasive power of authority is again largely trivial, because its nothing more than a complaint about the inherent ways in which humans interact and come to decisions. Authority [perceived or real] will always have some charisma to it, so to speak, but I dont see how it delegitimizes the voluntary nature of this situation. And if it does, then it impugns all human interaction because at the end of the day, what relationship is without perceived authority? None. RedAxis told me of at least one grievance. I will leave it at that. I have not witnessed Marine/Arca reveal their decision making on this with any positives / negatives matrix. Voluntarily assenting to the request of an authority is different from independently conceiving and undertaking an action. I already mentioned the formation of Team Courage as a counterexample where we split with our original team entirely of our own accord. Everyone has some ability to influence someone else and we can call that authority. However disparities in authority are not always pronounced and not always codified, as in languages with honorific tiers or organizations with explicit authoritative titles. A man is at far more of a disadvantage in interactions with his head honcho than with a drinking buddy of same age and status. They have already stated they're leaving because they desire a leadership role and the team is too big, I dont see how you could of failed to have seen that. And if your really intimating that the degree of authority and pressure theoretically exerted by a faceless team capitain of a casually played RTS is sufficient to make the freeness of their choice questionable, you have lept well beyond the ridiculously absurd.
All I can find in the thread is this:
Stop being butthurt for 1 minute and listen.Arca/Me are going to captain the other team seperatly without birdie's guidance/commands/help.
Jesus Christ,i'd have an easier time winning an argument against a brick wall than winning it against you.
And nothing from Arca. I just want to be convinced that they independently thought this through, arrayed their reasons, and decided to do this without being pushed by Birdie.
Of course DRTL captain is like nothing in the grand scheme of things. But in the small small scope of DRTL, if a player is unsure and wants guidance, where does he go? The topic starter? His captain? The person who recruited him? Maybe he just says "Fuck it" and doesn't seek any counsel, making his decision, announcing it, clarifying it, whatever, by himself.
Gonna go to bed. Sorry for all the drama.
|
On August 08 2013 04:20 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 01:33 SynC[gm] wrote:
Basically as L1ghtning said, players that have been in these leagues for awhile are bound to improve to the point of C-/C. I definitely think people like the captains should all get together and firmly decide on whether certain players are right for the league, regardless of supposedly "flawed" iCCup ranking or TrueSkill.
Yes, it will hurt the league to take some of the strongest players out, if need be, even if they are the most active, but just for the sake of keeping the league active, should we extend the league to D-/D/D+/C-/C leagues? Yes, we should do that. Its pointless to go down on your sword just to 'follow the rules', something we can change at the drop of a hat. Regardless, most of Kais records are against d players. I never drop games to D players, it doesnt make him beyond the threshold of the league. Edit: I vote YES on splitting the teams.
I can understand the desire to expand the league for activity's sake but as a D- player with a 0% winrate in the league (think I'm 0-7), I'd feel there's really no place for me once you start including solid C-/C players. If you want to drop all the weak players in favor of stronger ones I guess sure but sucks for us.
No on splitting teams.
On sB split regardless of your opinon; things to consider:
1a) are 7 members enough to ensure 5 players can be fielded weekly and a minimal number of pp's/delays?
1b) does sB deserve to get in on the draft (or at least have an equal share) despite purposely splitting into small teams?
2) what is the number of teams we have playing? we don't want an odd number if possible
3) time limit on the decision please? Unless I missed something, Birdie is still trying to recruit enough to do the split, which means even if this voting "passes" it still might not happen? Too much uncertainty here with little time remaining.
|
On August 08 2013 08:47 Birdie wrote:
Whereas quite frankly Courage wanting to leave over the issue strikes me as a childish response to a situation where the league isn't quite doing things as they want it to happen. I mean this with all due respect, and I do respect Courage as a team, but I think that throwing the toys out of the cot is not the correct response to things not going the way you want them to. That's hindering league growth, not promoting it.
This is a load of bullshit. I have no obligation to play in this league. Neither does my team. I have no vested interest at all in "league growth" or promoting the league. I'm not an admin, I don't help run it. I do have a vested interest in "enjoying myself in a fair, competitive environment for BW". And if I think that interest is no longer satisfied by something here, and there is no way to rectify it, then I'll quit. Not wanting to play in a league that we don't like is not childish, it is rational.
And just to let you know, Birdie, posts like this, or your last adventure on our IRC, are a strong contributing reasons as to why things have exploded like this. Saying "with all due respect" doesn't magically make your insult go away.
|
you guys put more time into arguments for making teams than just starting the leagues
|
I vote yes to split, players seeing more play timeis never a bad thing, and tbh I think people should really quit crying about it myself
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On August 08 2013 11:13 dRaW wrote:
you guys put more time into arguments for making teams than just starting the leagues
Can't have low level BW without drama
|
On August 08 2013 11:49 amazingxkcd wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 11:13 dRaW wrote:
you guys put more time into arguments for making teams than just starting the leagues Can't have low level BW without drama
People worried about match fixing like this is the world series or something
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
