|
On October 18 2007 12:00 MyLostTemple wrote:
looks like TL.net got owned by the internet. usually it works the other way around
Wendy Strachan's sitting there on her computer re-voting over and over for MBS.
As for the discussion at hand. I thought Id add another cog to this argument. In warcraft 3, the editor allows every unit to have its properties changed, you can create entirely new units if you want using it. This will continue into starcraft 2. So if someone (even blizzard themselves) decides to make a map, but changes the properties of the buildings so they are units, then they will be able to be all selected at the same time. This way, UMS'ing MBS is easy. However its not so easy to go the other way. Maybe blizzard should do this. BGH was a blizzard map, and its one of the most played maps on battlenet. This way, everyone can play their MBS game, but not detract from the competative side.
|
On October 18 2007 16:10 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
There absolutely should be an expected standard in opinions. Opinions posted on this site should be well-informed and well thought out.
You are contradicting yourself right here. Opinions are opinions, not facts. Opinions you don't agree with can be supported using facts you accept and can be well thought out.
You are making the assumption that all well-informed and well thought out opinions are all basically the same.
Right here we don't have the same opinion. Using your logic either your or my opinion is not well informed or well thought out.
This means that every time people disagree one of them deserves to be banned.
|
On October 18 2007 17:06 BlackStar wrote:
You are contradicting yourself right here. Opinions are opinions, not facts. Opinions you don't agree with can be supported using facts you accept and can be well thought out.
Absolutely, the point is not to enforce a monopoly on opinion, but to make sure that an opinion posted is one that is reasoned and well-articulated.
The way I see it "I liked the movie because the lead actors were strong, the plot was well developed and the director had a consistent vision, demonstrated with his use of time as a motif" is a much better opinion then "I just liked it, okay"
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
OKAY RETARD HERE WE GO!!!!!
On October 18 2007 17:06 BlackStar wrote:
You are contradicting yourself right here. Opinions are opinions, not facts. Opinions you don't agree with can be supported using facts you accept and can be well thought out.
I didn't fucking contradict myself. I said that in order for an opinion to pass the grade around here, it has to be well-informed and well thought out. I didn't say that someone's opinion has to jive with mine. There are arguments to be made on both sides, but if someone developed their standpoint before thinking it through or figuring out the details, they sure as fuck better not post it amidst a discussion full of people on either side who have done so. We have a standard at this website which requires people to THINK BEFORE THEY POST. The only difference in opinion here is whether or not mensrea is fit to make decisions about a poster's thought process, and you are certainly unqualified to judge mensrea's capabilities. As long as a post is sensible there is absolutely no reason a moderator would take issue with it.
You are making the assumption that all well-informed and well thought out opinions are all basically the same.
What on earth is this 2+2=5 bullshit? I made a post that could have been used as an example in fucking Neutrality 101. People have to think about things before they post; which side of the fence they're on does not matter to the moderators.
Right here we don't have the same opinion. Using your logic either your or my opinion is not well informed or well thought out.
If your 'opinion' is that I contradicted myself by stating "we have standards" and then clearly outlining those standards, then your 'opinion' is fucking stupid. On this subject, my opinion IS well thought out and well-informed, because I've been at this site for four fucking years. I know what's expected here.
This means that every time people disagree one of them deserves to be banned.
Again, more 2+2=5 nonsense.
Here's the bottom line: People are entitled to their opinions, but people shouldn't post in discussion topics without understanding the things being discussed.
Care to argue this further?
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
For those of you wondering why that post is a little over the top:
Here I am making a point about the posting standards we have at TL (specifically, read before you post), and the response I get is a bunch of nonsense that takes what I said and makes it something completely different. This is a problem.
|
You are either misunderstanding, or equivocating, what mensrea meant by 'expected standard' of opinions.
The issue was not the quality of the posts in which opinions are expressed, but how far an opinion is removed from the norm.
I don't understand why your post has to go with so much verbal violence. Again, 'practice what you preach', otherwise it will only be counter productive.
|
Blackstar, you are treading on some thin ice. TL.net's administrative system isn't legalistic - its based upon established community and common sense. Ignore that at your own peril.
The rest of the newer posters should seriously try to understand this too.
|
Well, if I change my opinion to agree with FakeSteve because otherwise I will be banned I don't think the basic for my opinion meets his standards.
It wouldn't meet my standards.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On October 18 2007 18:31 BlackStar wrote:
Well, if I change my opinion to agree with FakeSteve because otherwise I will be banned I don't think the basic of my opinion meets his standards.
There is no opinion.
We have a different definition of 'well thought out and well-informed', but my definition is what flies at this site.
And nobody will ban just you for arguing with me
I don't get 'this post sucks' and 'i disagree with this post' confused.
|
On October 18 2007 16:10 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
Opinions posted on this site should be well-informed and well thought out.
I think the thing was that when i state my oppinions i back them up, i dont fling out personal attacks, sure i can argue a bit harshly sometimes when people keeps repeating themselves or when they come with very flawed arguments but ive never come with gibberish arguments and if im prooved wrong in a heated discussion i apologise.
Look at my posting history, ive taken much shit on this site for my oppinions, and i havent attacked other peoples oppinions at all just their reasoning. If someone cant defend their reasoning then their oppinions dont meet any standard at all imo, and if they cant take that their reasoning is being questioned they shouldnt step into the argumentation since then they clearly dont want to argue.
And lately i barely post in these mbs argumentation threads beacuse they dont lead anywere, i just go in here and there to take out very flawed points since i am a bit sensitive to bad arguing. Sure, sometimes i make flawed arguments too, but then its always against someone else making flawed arguments and its to proove a point that flawed arguments are really useless since in effect they dont lead anywere they are just hard and annoying to argue against.
And for mensrea, as long as i dont get banned for thinking that in the end mbs will be good for the game im happy. Sure you/he might have a grudge on me for being on the opposite side of the argument, but as long as he acts proffesionally as a moderator i wont mind.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
Hey man, I'm not commenting on your posts one way or another
I'm just telling BlackStar the business
|
On October 18 2007 20:23 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
Hey man, I'm not commenting on your posts one way or another
I'm just telling BlackStar the business
Yeah, but mensrea was commenting on my stuff, then blackstar was commenting on mensrea, so that was like the base of the whole argument i thought.
But i think that we all can agree that posts with "Bad oppinions" as in "Oppinions that dont have any roots in reality and dont intend to ever have" are what you can be banned for. However a mod shouldnt ban someone for having a different valid oppinion, the hard thing is to see if someones oppinion is valid if it isnt the same as yours though.
|
Norway10161 Posts
On October 18 2007 20:47 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2007 20:23 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
Hey man, I'm not commenting on your posts one way or another
I'm just telling BlackStar the business Yeah, but mensrea was commenting on my stuff, then blackstar was commenting on mensrea, so that was like the base of the whole argument i thought. But i think that we all can agree that posts with "Bad oppinions" as in "Oppinions that dont have any roots in reality and dont intend to ever have" are what you can be banned for. However a mod shouldnt ban someone for having a different valid oppinion, the hard thing is to see if someones oppinion is valid if it isnt the same as yours though.
We don't ban users for having different opinions. You can have whatever opinion you want on this site, with the exception of racism and similar topics. I would however ban a troll pretty quick. To use mbs as an example - we all want the best sc2 possible, so we want to bring out all the valid arguments both for and against.
But! If someone wants to engage in a meaningfull discussion they have an obligation to educate themselves on the existing facts. They should also be able to voice their opinion in a credible way, showing that they in fact have enough knowledge of the deeper parts of starcraft gameplay to make an informed decition about the subject. If you fail to do either of these and just rambles on on your own, you are what is usually refered to as a troll. Plenty of sc forums have tons of these, but we usually keep them away here.
I don't think that casual players are a less important user base than the avid progamers - in fact, the majority of the userbase are casual players - but I think that they don't know enough to make an informed decition in many cases, and I think mbs or sbs won't change their game experience much anyway.
|
On October 18 2007 21:24 ToKoreaWithLove wrote:
But! If someone wants to engage in a meaningfull discussion they have an obligation to educate themselves on the existing facts. They should also be able to voice their opinion in a credible way, showing that they in fact have enough knowledge of the deeper parts of starcraft gameplay to make an informed decition about the subject. If you fail to do either of these and just rambles on on your own, you are what is usually refered to as a troll. Plenty of sc forums have tons of these, but we usually keep them away here.
And here, ive read every mbs topic, every post. I know all the arguments of both sides, i know what sepparates fros from each other, i know what makes the current pro community thrive and why it evolved like it did.
Mbs will stir things up, thats for sure, the question is if the result when things settles will be better or worse than before. That is impossible to know, and even progamers cant know much about that since the changes to the game are to many and to large for anyone to make a clear picture on how it will play out when 2 competetive players try to overcome each other.
All the pro players just see the current way being torned up by all the stirring wich makes them want to preserve what they have, its natural and every community fights change since they are afraid of the unknown.
But really, without change we wouldnt have starcraft and you cant say that starcraft is the ultimate RTS to ever come since then we wouldnt be here discussing this new game wich have the potential to be even better than starcraft.
And ive even said that if mbs turns out to kill the competetiveness of the game (Wich i doubt ofcourse) it should be removed and no doubt Blizzard will remove or change it in such a case. But it should be given a chance before that happens, like play a month with it in a competetive ladder then ask the top 100 what they think about it.(Easy way is to make the beta ladder have some price money)
|
Canada9720 Posts
On October 19 2007 01:12 Klockan3 wrote:
All the pro players just see the current way being torned up by all the stirring wich makes them want to preserve what they have, its natural and every community fights change since they are afraid of the unknown.
this isn't even addressing someone's argument -- it's pyschoanalytical assumption. since you've read every argument, you must know that the reasons seasoned starcraft argue against mbs runs deeper than simply "keeping the ways that enabled us to succeed"
|
On October 19 2007 03:18 CTStalker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2007 01:12 Klockan3 wrote:
All the pro players just see the current way being torned up by all the stirring wich makes them want to preserve what they have, its natural and every community fights change since they are afraid of the unknown.
this isn't even addressing someone's argument -- it's pyschoanalytical assumption. since you've read every argument, you must know that the reasons seasoned starcraft argue against mbs runs deeper than simply "keeping the ways that enabled us to succeed"
I didnt say that theyre trying to keep their ways to success, im saying that theyre happy with what they got now and dont want to risk that losing that feeling with this change.
Like, if you go to a restaurant and get your favorite dish every day. Then one day they decided to ask you if they should change the dish to make it more popular, then you would obviously say no since you love that dish and dont want to risk them ruining it.
To go on with the same example, the customers that dont like the current dish would obviously say yes since they have nothing to lose on the deal and are probably in the majority. Now this isnt a perfect example, and i put it with the advantage towards anti mbs on purpose but it isnt as biased as many other examples.
|
Canada9720 Posts
yo're doing the same thing. you can't infer about a group's motives like that. the anti-mbs argument isn't so easily summed up. i thought about the same thing and mentioned it a dozen pages back or so, but it's just a possibility, certainly nothing to base a counter-argument off of.
|
On October 19 2007 03:31 CTStalker wrote:
yo're doing the same thing. you can't infer about a group's motives like that. the anti-mbs argument isn't so easily summed up. i thought about the same thing and mentioned it a dozen pages back or so, but it's just a possibility, certainly nothing to base a counter-argument off of.
So your saying that im wrong, that people here dont want mbs removed simply beacuse they think that it will hurt the game they like?
I mean, there is no other reason to be anti mbs, if they dont care about the game getting changed then they wouldnt even be here discussing.
|
Frankly I think there is a double standard on this site about posting standards in regards to the MBS debate. I feel like a Pro-MBSer is held to much higher standards in his/her posting. ProMBSers are rightfully flamed / banned when their arguements are weak/shallow/stupid, but Anti-MBS posters are not held to similar standards (I don't really feel like digging up examples of stupid Anti-MBS posts, but I could).
I think Mensrea was probably just in a bad mood, but I got flamed out in what I thought was a reasonable post, and now I'm in his list of "stupid pro-mbsers" which is ironic, because I'm not even proMBS!
|
Canada9720 Posts
On October 19 2007 03:36 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2007 03:31 CTStalker wrote:
yo're doing the same thing. you can't infer about a group's motives like that. the anti-mbs argument isn't so easily summed up. i thought about the same thing and mentioned it a dozen pages back or so, but it's just a possibility, certainly nothing to base a counter-argument off of. I mean, there is no other reason to be anti mbs, if they dont care about the game getting changed then they wouldnt even be here discussing.
well now you've clearly demonstrated that you haven't read all of the anti-MBS arguments, or, if you have, then you understood none of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
