One more point I'd like to make is that, if anyone was gonna jump into this topic, it'd be incontrol. He wasn't with us for this episode, so we missed his unique presence and contribution. I think what normally would have happened is Geoff would have had a little back and forth with JP and then we'd all kinda get dragged into commenting on things too, or making jokes, or whatever. And we love having incontrol on the show so that he can do his thing. None of us changed our behavior because of his absence, so whatever unique things he adds to the show simply weren't there. And that's probably what felt off about the whole thing to a lot of regular SOTG viewers.
Well, what's good about InControl is he is the type of person that has an opinion about everything. Which is useful on a show that revolves entirely around opinion.
Imagine watching an episode of Politically InCorrect and the entire panel sat there saying, "Not all the facts are out about Obama's agenda. Let's wait until closer to the next election so we can judge his performance in a diplomatic, non-insightful, non-partisan way."
On November 12 2011 10:39 Qibla wrote: I love Tyler, but i think it was a bit arrogant of him to say it's not as important as other issues, even though this issue has sprouted 4 threads which have dominated the forum his team runs for the past week. They've literally been the top 4 most read and replied to threads everyday. How can this be overlooked?
First thing you should keep in mind is that it doesn't matter how important the subject of a talk is. What matters is how important the contribution you are going to make by talking about it is. So if we have nothing unique to say, or we don't have a particular opinion that we think needs our weight behind it, then we simply don't say anything. Or one of us will say the obvious thing and others will say "I agree with what he said" and that's that.
Second thing is that it doesn't matter how much a topic makes people want to post on a forum. You judge its importance by its ability to compel forum members to publicly say something about it. Keeping in mind the first thing, this doesn't really amount to much. There are really only two kinds of people that matter. The first kind is the person who has evidence that hasn't come to light. All the evidence should come out so these people need to reveal the facts and give some proof of the facts if they're not reputable people. The second kind of person who matters is someone with some kind of power over something or someone affected by what happened, so that now they have to do something because of what happened. Examples include the folks at IPL, anyone who may have worked with Gus in the future, anyone who was a victim, etc.
The second group of people is actually going to be doing things in reaction to what happened. They gotta figure out what happened and they gotta figure out a wise response. They can read strangers' opinions on forums to help them figure out what to do. Gauging the general reaction of the community can also be helpful. They can look to pillars in the community and consider their opinions. In some cases, an issue will be so complex that one of these resources can end up being really useful. In most cases, these opinions don't matter. People keep private counsel and it's very often sufficient.
So what do all those posts and opinions matter? Almost nothing. It's mostly people who simply like talking about things related to their interest, the SC2 pro scene. They aren't actually making a difference. They post for fun. They hit f5 for fun. They must consume every morsel leaked and then proclaim their judgement. That's fine. I've done it a ton in the past and I still do it here and there. But that activity does not affect what I say on SOTG.
From the little I've read about the issues, they're very black and white. There's really nothing that's not obvious to say about them. All the facts weren't immediately obvious but the way to respond to the facts, as more and more info leaked out, was always obvious. So why should I care? I'm not involved and I trust the people who are involved can figure things out for themselves and public opinion will pretty much be correct so I don't need to tell people what to think. I just figured that when it's all over, I'll read some nice summary of everything that happened and how everything turned out, just so I can be informed and entertained. But I'm not gonna follow it as it happens because that's a huge waste of time (if you don't enjoy it). No such summary came to my attention before the show and so I didn't even know everything that happened, but I knew enough to know that I wasn't gonna have anything useful to say about it.
I still think that Artosis's contribution was the only good one we could make because it seemed to me that the goodness in that scene was being overlooked by all the bad things that happened. I thought about scolding IPL a little bit for not having a fail-safe but I thought that was a bit feeble and I knew that IPL didn't need to hear that.
If there was some hot debate that I missed or no one knew what to think, then I apologize for misjudging the situation. Otherwise, I have no regret. But even then I wouldn't have much regret because I really strongly prefer talking about things we're directly involved in or passionate about, or talking about games and strategies. I rate this kind of thing very low on priority for our show. It's very high priority on Slasher's show but not SOTG imo!
Look, I completely agree with what you've said here, and I've stated that many times throughout this thread.
I respect that you and the other SOTG pillars decided to not comment on the specifics because you felt you didn't have enough information. Or that any comment you would make would be useful, and that would be a fair point, if it was left at that.
But it wasn't. The thing that irritated me was the blase attitude that was given to the issue, and that the guys said it was all too much hype over not much. And your own comment in this thread that it was not important at all.
I agree that there are a number of comments going around that are way over the top and would be categorised as sensationalist, but that doesn't mean the topic or issue should carry any less weight.
It actually is very important, for a number of reasons which are pretty obvious. I also happen to know someone that was a victim of this event in a fairly significant way. I'm aware that I however am a scrub nobody, and that my comments carry less than 0 weight. And I also do not have all the facts at hand.
I would expect though that yourself and the other members of the SOTG crew would not make light of something when you yourself admit you don't really know much about. That is all.
Still have love for you and the other guys, and think you all do an amazing job. Just using the chance that this awesome format of entertainment provides, to communicate my opinions directly to you guys. How awesome is that :D
The thing is that this has turned into a boy who cried wolf scenario for the people on this show. There's so much useless bitching and witch hunts that happen that they've just dismissed this as the same because without reading too deep it looks the same.
One more point I'd like to make is that, if anyone was gonna jump into this topic, it'd be incontrol. He wasn't with us for this episode, so we missed his unique presence and contribution. I think what normally would have happened is Geoff would have had a little back and forth with JP and then we'd all kinda get dragged into commenting on things too, or making jokes, or whatever. And we love having incontrol on the show so that he can do his thing. None of us changed our behavior because of his absence, so whatever unique things he adds to the show simply weren't there. And that's probably what felt off about the whole thing to a lot of regular SOTG viewers.
Well, what's good about InControl is he is the type of person that has an opinion about everything. Which is useful on a show that revolves entirely around opinion.
Imagine watching an episode of Politically InCorrect and the entire panel sat there saying, "Not all the facts are out about Obama's agenda. Let's wait until closer to the next election so we can judge his performance in a diplomatic, non-insightful, non-partisan way."
imagine a show where they waited for all the relevant facts, instead of spouting out passionate opinions based on hearsay? that would be AWESOME
One more point I'd like to make is that, if anyone was gonna jump into this topic, it'd be incontrol. He wasn't with us for this episode, so we missed his unique presence and contribution. I think what normally would have happened is Geoff would have had a little back and forth with JP and then we'd all kinda get dragged into commenting on things too, or making jokes, or whatever. And we love having incontrol on the show so that he can do his thing. None of us changed our behavior because of his absence, so whatever unique things he adds to the show simply weren't there. And that's probably what felt off about the whole thing to a lot of regular SOTG viewers.
Well, what's good about InControl is he is the type of person that has an opinion about everything. Which is useful on a show that revolves entirely around opinion.
Imagine watching an episode of Politically InCorrect and the entire panel sat there saying, "Not all the facts are out about Obama's agenda. Let's wait until closer to the next election so we can judge his performance in a diplomatic, non-insightful, non-partisan way."
imagine a show where they waited for all the relevant facts, instead of spouting out passionate opinions based on hearsay? that would be AWESOME
People are expected to have opinions and make decisions with imperfect information all the time. It's probably one of the defining characteristics of leadership.
One more point I'd like to make is that, if anyone was gonna jump into this topic, it'd be incontrol. He wasn't with us for this episode, so we missed his unique presence and contribution. I think what normally would have happened is Geoff would have had a little back and forth with JP and then we'd all kinda get dragged into commenting on things too, or making jokes, or whatever. And we love having incontrol on the show so that he can do his thing. None of us changed our behavior because of his absence, so whatever unique things he adds to the show simply weren't there. And that's probably what felt off about the whole thing to a lot of regular SOTG viewers.
Well, what's good about InControl is he is the type of person that has an opinion about everything. Which is useful on a show that revolves entirely around opinion.
Imagine watching an episode of Politically InCorrect and the entire panel sat there saying, "Not all the facts are out about Obama's agenda. Let's wait until closer to the next election so we can judge his performance in a diplomatic, non-insightful, non-partisan way."
imagine a show where they waited for all the relevant facts, instead of spouting out passionate opinions based on hearsay? that would be AWESOME
People are expected to have opinions and make decisions with imperfect information all the time. It's probably one of the defining characteristics of leadership.
That's when taking decisions. When speaking to a huge audience, it is probably one of the defining characteristics of spewing idiocy.
One more point I'd like to make is that, if anyone was gonna jump into this topic, it'd be incontrol. He wasn't with us for this episode, so we missed his unique presence and contribution. I think what normally would have happened is Geoff would have had a little back and forth with JP and then we'd all kinda get dragged into commenting on things too, or making jokes, or whatever. And we love having incontrol on the show so that he can do his thing. None of us changed our behavior because of his absence, so whatever unique things he adds to the show simply weren't there. And that's probably what felt off about the whole thing to a lot of regular SOTG viewers.
Well, what's good about InControl is he is the type of person that has an opinion about everything. Which is useful on a show that revolves entirely around opinion.
Imagine watching an episode of Politically InCorrect and the entire panel sat there saying, "Not all the facts are out about Obama's agenda. Let's wait until closer to the next election so we can judge his performance in a diplomatic, non-insightful, non-partisan way."
imagine a show where they waited for all the relevant facts, instead of spouting out passionate opinions based on hearsay? that would be AWESOME
People are expected to have opinions and make decisions with imperfect information all the time. It's probably one of the defining characteristics of leadership.
That's when taking decisions. When speaking to a huge audience, it is probably one of the defining characteristics of spewing idiocy.
Yeah I 100% agree. the sooner StoG can get to this the better!
One more point I'd like to make is that, if anyone was gonna jump into this topic, it'd be incontrol. He wasn't with us for this episode, so we missed his unique presence and contribution. I think what normally would have happened is Geoff would have had a little back and forth with JP and then we'd all kinda get dragged into commenting on things too, or making jokes, or whatever. And we love having incontrol on the show so that he can do his thing. None of us changed our behavior because of his absence, so whatever unique things he adds to the show simply weren't there. And that's probably what felt off about the whole thing to a lot of regular SOTG viewers.
Well, what's good about InControl is he is the type of person that has an opinion about everything. Which is useful on a show that revolves entirely around opinion.
Imagine watching an episode of Politically InCorrect and the entire panel sat there saying, "Not all the facts are out about Obama's agenda. Let's wait until closer to the next election so we can judge his performance in a diplomatic, non-insightful, non-partisan way."
imagine a show where they waited for all the relevant facts, instead of spouting out passionate opinions based on hearsay? that would be AWESOME
People are expected to have opinions and make decisions with imperfect information all the time. It's probably one of the defining characteristics of leadership.
That's when taking decisions. When speaking to a huge audience, it is probably one of the defining characteristics of spewing idiocy.
Hey, if you're not going to go on a limb and put yourself out there, you probably shouldn't be a guest on talk show. Or be a consultant. Or manage other people.
You can have limited information and still have an interesting position or perspective on a subject. It's not that hard to qualify your statements. Or you can, y'know -- actually attempt to educate yourself until you feel comfortable talking about something.
I'm not advocating idiocy or histrionics, but I personally don't indulge the fallacy that even with perfect information, people judge things objectively or are unbiased. Or that somehow, a show revolving around a panel of impotent, objective, fact-based robotic entities translates into rip-roaring entertainment.
In short, when the hell has State of the Game ever been about 'facts?' I don't listen to SOTG for 'news' or journalistic integrity. It's always been about pro-gamers and casters speculating about players, strategies, tournaments, the meta game, game design, talking miscellaneous shit, etc.
On November 12 2011 14:59 Liquid`Tyler wrote: There are really only two kinds of people that matter. The first kind is the person who has evidence that hasn't come to light. All the evidence should come out so these people need to reveal the facts and give some proof of the facts if they're not reputable people. The second kind of person who matters is someone with some kind of power over something or someone affected by what happened
According to that logic, you guys discussed a lot of topics although you were either of these.
And besides that, I could not disagree more. With this kind of attitude, we would not have any welfare organisations, no greenpeace, no whatever. People get involved because they care about something, because they want to help others and because they want to change something. Saying a topic like PPSL is "not important at all" is mocking everyone that has worked there, not getting paid and the people that spent money for the event and are now in debt ( f.e. for the flights ).
On November 12 2011 14:59 Liquid`Tyler wrote: There are really only two kinds of people that matter. The first kind is the person who has evidence that hasn't come to light. All the evidence should come out so these people need to reveal the facts and give some proof of the facts if they're not reputable people. The second kind of person who matters is someone with some kind of power over something or someone affected by what happened
According to that logic, you guys discussed a lot of topics although you were either of these.
And besides that, I could not disagree more. With this kind of attitude, we would not have any welfare organisations, no greenpeace, no whatever. People get involved because they care about something, because they want to help others and because they want to change something. Saying a topic like PPSL is "not important at all" is mocking everyone that has worked there, not getting paid and the people that spent money for the event and are now in debt ( f.e. for the flights ).
With that I'll leave it to you.
Gunrun has said that he will share his experience when the dust has settled.. Perhaps when that happens, everyone will be a little more smarter and able to comment on it
From this point on though, this discussion is irrelevant and is getting to a level where it makes no sense at all in the original context (Greenpeace, welfare etc.)
On November 12 2011 13:32 Elefanto wrote: Just wanted to say that i found it hilarious how Artosis immediately shut down idra whenever he attempted to whine about Protoss lol
On November 12 2011 14:59 Liquid`Tyler wrote: There are really only two kinds of people that matter. The first kind is the person who has evidence that hasn't come to light. All the evidence should come out so these people need to reveal the facts and give some proof of the facts if they're not reputable people. The second kind of person who matters is someone with some kind of power over something or someone affected by what happened
According to that logic, you guys discussed a lot of topics although you were either of these.
And besides that, I could not disagree more. With this kind of attitude, we would not have any welfare organisations, no greenpeace, no whatever. People get involved because they care about something, because they want to help others and because they want to change something. Saying a topic like PPSL is "not important at all" is mocking everyone that has worked there, not getting paid and the people that spent money for the event and are now in debt ( f.e. for the flights ).
With that I'll leave it to you.
He didn't say it doesn't matter. He said:
"First thing you should keep in mind is that it doesn't matter how important the subject of a talk is. What matters is how important the contribution you are going to make by talking about it is."
On November 12 2011 14:59 Liquid`Tyler wrote: There are really only two kinds of people that matter. The first kind is the person who has evidence that hasn't come to light. All the evidence should come out so these people need to reveal the facts and give some proof of the facts if they're not reputable people. The second kind of person who matters is someone with some kind of power over something or someone affected by what happened
According to that logic, you guys discussed a lot of topics although you were either of these.
And besides that, I could not disagree more. With this kind of attitude, we would not have any welfare organisations, no greenpeace, no whatever. People get involved because they care about something, because they want to help others and because they want to change something. Saying a topic like PPSL is "not important at all" is mocking everyone that has worked there, not getting paid and the people that spent money for the event and are now in debt ( f.e. for the flights ).
With that I'll leave it to you.
He didn't say it doesn't matter. He said:
"First thing you should keep in mind is that it doesn't matter how important the subject of a talk is. What matters is how important the contribution you are going to make by talking about it is."
See the difference?
Yeah I don't see how people are all up in huff over what they said with regards to the PPSL. They weren't saying that they didn't think it was "not important at all." They were saying that throwing out an opinion on an issue flooded with unverified information and hearsay doesn't help anybody. They might be pro players but with no real evidence to back their opinion they are no different than anybody else on the forum and they know that. That being said however, they're smart enough to know that anything they post will be picked apart by forum goers and taken as near absolute truth.
So to not comment on it really is the right course of action.
On November 12 2011 13:32 Elefanto wrote: Just wanted to say that i found it hilarious how Artosis immediately shut down idra whenever he attempted to whine about Protoss lol
And tyler finished idra in a fatality move :D
I didn't ... I find it annoying actually. One of my favorite parts of the show is balance/strat/design talk... Artosis laughing some1 else off just because he can't respond adequately is boring.
On November 12 2011 14:59 Liquid`Tyler wrote: There are really only two kinds of people that matter. The first kind is the person who has evidence that hasn't come to light. All the evidence should come out so these people need to reveal the facts and give some proof of the facts if they're not reputable people. The second kind of person who matters is someone with some kind of power over something or someone affected by what happened
According to that logic, you guys discussed a lot of topics although you were either of these.
And besides that, I could not disagree more. With this kind of attitude, we would not have any welfare organisations, no greenpeace, no whatever. People get involved because they care about something, because they want to help others and because they want to change something. Saying a topic like PPSL is "not important at all" is mocking everyone that has worked there, not getting paid and the people that spent money for the event and are now in debt ( f.e. for the flights ).
With that I'll leave it to you.
He didn't say it doesn't matter. He said:
"First thing you should keep in mind is that it doesn't matter how important the subject of a talk is. What matters is how important the contribution you are going to make by talking about it is."
See the difference?
Earlier in the thread he said "its not important at all"
"First thing you should keep in mind is that it doesn't matter how important the subject of a talk is. What matters is how important the contribution you are going to make by talking about it is."
See the difference?
he said "It's not important at all. Some guy fucked up running an event... why does that matter?"
in this thread. ignorance is bliss!
edit: i read all his posts, replied earlier. read it and get wiser.
"First thing you should keep in mind is that it doesn't matter how important the subject of a talk is. What matters is how important the contribution you are going to make by talking about it is."
See the difference?
he said "It's not important at all. Some guy fucked up running an event... why does that matter?"
in this thread. ignorance is bliss!
I thought you read his latest replies in full. Guess you didn't.
EPT
