"As a big scary White guy, you will always -- until you're sixty -- have to walk a fine line between being satirical and being perceived as a redneck-jock-asshole."
"This is primarily because you're a huge and scary looking man."
"Unfortunately, when you do it, it makes you look like Fred Durst."
This is exactly why it's so goddamn hilarious. Personally your letter only caused more appreciation for Geoff's outstanding humor.
I'm not entirely sure if you're being serious or not, but if you are being serious: I disagree.
I'm being half-serious. I mean, it all depends on what InControl is going for. I'm one of those people that thought Fred Durst was a douchebag. Perhaps InControl is pretending to be a douchebag for ironic reasons. If he is that's way too meta for me or he has to be way more obvious about it, for the reasons stated above: big scary white guy.
He should be going for a Rob Riggle-level of fake-douchery.
Ahhh, comedy is a nuanced art, isn't it?
Don't get me wrong, most of the time I think he's hilarious.
Defacer, did you read wheats blog? I'm sorry to be blunt but your judgement of his character/personality couldn't be more wrong. I could go on and on about your comments but just one thing.. "What is up bitches?!" is just a tag line, he says it at the start of every show, every week, how could you possibly construe that as an insult to the audience??
Day9 is also right but he is commenting on a different thing than Tyler (of course no real life tournament structure can give 100% accurate ranking)
What Tyler is essentially saying is that a best of 7 is a more accurate way of determening which of these two players is the better player than a best of 3.
More games equals a more accurate result. So using all the games that A and B have played against each other in the tournament to determine the better player is of course better than just ignoring half of the games they have played against each other in that tournament.
What Tyler is essentially saying is that a best of 7 is a more accurate way of determening which of these two players is the better player than a best of 3.
Neither two best of 3s and an extended series is better, they both have their own flaws. The extended series errors on leaving no debate which won the "day" as someone needed to win 4 games to move on. This really lends itself to what I remember of Halo players back in the day and would appease them. In the end, it is the decision of MLG to decided which way they want to go with. I feel confident that they will listen to and understand the concerns of the community to what happens in the future. Once they decide though, I hope they are able to explain their stances and view on what they move forward with.
What Tyler is essentially saying is that a best of 7 is a more accurate way of determening which of these two players is the better player than a best of 3.
Neither two best of 3s and an extended series is better, they both have their own flaws. The extended series errors on leaving no debate which won the "day" as someone needed to win 4 games to move on. This really lends itself to what I remember of Halo players back in the day and would appease them. In the end, it is the decision of MLG to decided which way they want to go with. I feel confident that they will listen to and understand the concerns of the community to what happens in the future. Once they decide though, I hope they are able to explain their stances and view on what they move forward with.
Sorry but a bo7 is more accurate than 2 bo3s, you can not say someone going 3-2 vs someone and being elim'd by that person is more accurate. Which is a possible result in 2 bo3s in double elim.
In extended series the person that won more consistently out of a 7 game match advances.
On November 11 2010 14:00 okuraku wrote: Defacer, did you read wheats blog? I'm sorry to be blunt but your judgement of his character/personality couldn't be more wrong. I could go on and on about your comments but just one thing.. "What is up bitches?!" is just a tag line, he says it at the start of every show, every week, how could you possibly construe that as an insult to the audience??
No.
Also, I was mostly referring to Slasher. That guy seems like a spaz. I don't follow DJ Wheat, but I thought he did a great job during MLG.
To be fair, I'm new to the scene. I discovered Team Liquid through HD's casts, and State of the Game through Day 9's casts. Now I have a subscription to GSL. I only have so much time in a week to follow e-sports. So I'm forced to be more discriminating.
OF COURSE Wheat and Slasher don't mean to insult anyone. They're just trying to be badass. But to me, it's a slippery slope.
I would hate to see e-sport degenerate into something as fake-badass and lame as this:
On November 11 2010 14:13 aNDRoM wrote: Hey, isn't "Defacer" one of the smurf/alternate names (if you had a gun pointed at your head forcing you to change) for one of the 4 pillars?
On November 11 2010 14:00 okuraku wrote: Defacer, did you read wheats blog? I'm sorry to be blunt but your judgement of his character/personality couldn't be more wrong. I could go on and on about your comments but just one thing.. "What is up bitches?!" is just a tag line, he says it at the start of every show, every week, how could you possibly construe that as an insult to the audience??
No.
Also, I was mostly referring to Slasher. That guy seems like a spaz. I don't follow DJ Wheat, but I thought he did a great job during MLG.
To be fair, I'm new to the scene. I discovered Team Liquid through HD's casts, and State of the Game through Day 9's casts. Now I have a subscription to GSL. I only have so much time in a week to follow e-sports. So I'm forced to be more discriminating.
OF COURSE Wheat and Slasher don't mean to insult anyone. They're just trying to be badass. But to me, it's a slippery slope.
I would hate to see e-sport degenerate into something as fake-badass and lame as this:
Unfortunately that isn't the direction the world is headed. American Idol gets top viewership, while eli stone gets canceled.
People think MLG should only worry about viewership, I disagree, I think they should not jeopardize the integrity of their tournaments just to get a little bit more people viewing them.
There has to be balance between providing good spectating as well as legitimate competition.
If MLG was awful at this (which they aren't except in WoW) they would have folded as a league a long time ago, but they are good at it, which is why they didn't end up like CGS/WSVG/CPL.
On November 11 2010 14:00 okuraku wrote: Defacer, did you read wheats blog? I'm sorry to be blunt but your judgement of his character/personality couldn't be more wrong. I could go on and on about your comments but just one thing.. "What is up bitches?!" is just a tag line, he says it at the start of every show, every week, how could you possibly construe that as an insult to the audience??
No.
Also, I was mostly referring to Slasher. That guy seems like a spaz. I don't follow DJ Wheat, but I thought he did a great job during MLG.
To be fair, I'm new to the scene. I discovered Team Liquid through HD's casts, and State of the Game through Day 9's casts. Now I have a subscription to GSL. I only have so much time in a week to follow e-sports. So I'm forced to be more discriminating.
OF COURSE Wheat and Slasher don't mean to insult anyone. They're just trying to be badass. But to me, it's a slippery slope.
I would hate to see e-sport degenerate into something as fake-badass and lame as this:
Unfortunately that isn't the direction the world is headed. American Idol gets top viewership, while eli stone gets canceled.
People think MLG should only worry about viewership, I disagree, I think they should not jeopardize the integrity of their tournaments just to get a little bit more people viewing them.
There has to be balance between providing good spectating as well as legitimate competition.
If MLG was awful at this (which they aren't except in WoW) they would have folded as a league a long time ago, but they are good at it, which is why they didn't end up like CGS/WSVG/CPL.
I agree.
What's exciting about SC2 is it's potential as a e-sport. It's harder than most 'games', and has smarter, more interesting, more charismatic players than other e-sports.
It's funny to hear people compare SC2 to the popularity and success of Halo, because I honestly think it has way more potential than that.
I don't want to watch SC2 players yelling and whooping it up on a stream like Halo players. I want to watch SC2 after the World Series of Poker on ESPN2. It's a cerebral game that takes an insane amount of discipline and talent to master.
IdrA seemed to be the only person on the podcast that actually 'gets it' with regard to the extended series.
The whole point of double elim is to give everyone two lives. The people who have to play an extended series from behind essentially only get one life, they lose one best of 7 and they're out of the whole tournament.
Tylers point about being 2-2 against someone on aggregate but still getting put out of the tournament is completely invalid, because the guy is out because he lost twice not because he's better or worse than the other player. The other player is still in the tournament because he only lost once.
Extended series is not a Bo7, there are several key differences - maps wise is particular is important - it's possible for this "Bo7" to be played on a total of 2 maps. The fact they could be played up to two days apart - really a Bo7 with a 2 day break?
Even then I am not disagreeing that a Bo7 or even an Extended series is a better way to determine the "better" player.
What I am saying is.
It's not ethical/fair/logical to have people compete under different rules because of chance/luck. A tournament needs strict and consistent rules because otherwise it's lost it's not fair to the rest of the players. Does it make sense that players can advance rounds under different situations, a player could get so the same position as another player has by winning two Bo7 or 4 Bo3s.
We have made quite clear there is a different between them so - is it ok for players to have different conditions to advance?
The point I'm trying to make is that to be fair to all players, the tournament format needs to be consistent and standard, not have any arbitrary advantages given to players on debatable reasons/beliefs.
On November 11 2010 14:49 StUfF wrote: Let me make the point again.
Extended series is not a Bo7, there are several key differences - maps wise is particular is important - it's possible for this "Bo7" to be played on a total of 2 maps. The fact they could be played up to two days apart - really a Bo7 with a 2 day break?
Even then I am not disagreeing that a Bo7 or even an Extended series is a better way to determine the "better" player.
What I am saying is.
It's not ethical/fair/logical to have people compete under different rules because of chance/luck. A tournament needs strict and consistent rules because otherwise it's lost it's not fair to the rest of the players. Does it make sense that players can advance rounds under different situations, a player could get so the same position as another player has by winning two Bo7 or 4 Bo3s.
We have made quite clear there is a different between them so - is it ok for players to have different conditions to advance?
The point I'm trying to make is that to be fair to all players, the tournament format needs to be consistent and standard, not have any arbitrary advantages given to players on debatable reasons/beliefs.
Ok but seeding is unfair, brackets can be unfair randomly... extended series is more accurate for which of two players is better than 2 bo3s would be. That is why it is used.
Seeding is suppose to be unfair, that's the point of seeding, that's a whole another argument though - seeding based on 1 or 2 tournaments is pretty stupid in itself.
That line of argument is what I'm trying to eliminate, extended series is better ok? So is round-robin format. Bo9 is better than two bo3s. I don't care what's better, I care about whats consistent and fair.
On November 11 2010 14:55 StUfF wrote: Seeding is suppose to be unfair, that's the point of seeding, that's a whole another argument though - seeding based on 1 or 2 tournaments is pretty stupid in itself.
That line of argument is what I'm trying to eliminate, extended series is better ok? So is round-robin format. Bo9 is better than two bo3s. I don't care what's better, I care about whats consistent and fair.
Ok but extended series has benefits that have been deemed worthwhile by mlg (at least so far) that outweigh the "flaws" of it.
The objective is to get as accurate results as they can in the timeframe of their tournaments... extended series helps towards that objective more than 2 bo3s do.
I thought Tylers argument be it for the extended series or even just his explaining it in a better manner was excellent, I'm a fairly stubborn chap and up until his wonderful explanation of the benefits FOR it, I could see no use for the chaos. It was a well put out argument that was eloquently spoken and was very wonderfully put forward. the argument the other way by the other guys was there.. but it turned into more a LOL @ WHAT NONY THINKS IS RIGHT is wrong.
Ugh. Can't read this thread. It's just going to be 20 pages of argument over tourney types for the next 20 pages when that is only a small part of what the podcast was about..
Is it just me or did Tyler namedrop achewood character Roast Beef when asked what he would change his name to? If so I just became that much more of a fan of his.
EPT
