On November 26 2012 02:41 LuckoftheIrish wrote: [quote]
No. Do your own damn work.
Except the claim wasn't made by him...
If he cares enough to want an analysis, then he's more than welcome to it.
sure, but it's your work since you brought it up. You're the one being lazy.
Just because there's not a quote in my post doesn't mean I wasn't responding to folks.
And frankly, I've got nothing invested in that statement and I intend to keep it that way. This isn't science or maths. It's the internet, and I'm not required to show my work.
This is teamliquid, where posters in general are expect to maintain certain standards. That means backing up a claim with abit of evidence. If people could post whatever they're thinking without some proof behind it, well this site would be as bad as reddit, which it isn't, because people here engage in more intellectual discussions.
This entire discussion has been nothing but a series of short posts, started by a fairly simple and obtuse characterization of Inside the Game. There aren't any groundbreaking moments here. There are some attempts to read meaning into other people's words, if you're interested in those. Other than that, there's really nothing backing anything at all up. One guy thinks it's bad that a player says things about another player. Another guy doesn't. And that's really all there is to see. If someone is interested enough in the statistical probability of that one guy's assertions being truthful to ask for an analysis, he should pick up Matlab and do it himself.
It's funny that an endless amount of unsupported claims can be made without anybody caring until someone makes a claim which has an obvious line of investigation and then all of the sudden that investigation must be done or else that claim ought to be thrown out and the author ought to be ashamed. Claims that are investigatable ought to be respected more even if the investigation hasn't been done yet. Most of the things I read on TL.net, I can only respond "yeah, well, that's just like your opinion, man." If someone really cares about what they're discussing, they should be happy to discover an investigation they can do to benefit the discussion. Calling out someone else for not having done it yet is only discouraging people with good ideas (but not enough time to support them) from saying anything at all.
Hmm, it is interesting that you look at it this way. I think it is much worse to present an opinion as something that is based on false/non-existent/biased facts than to present your opinion just as it is, an opinion. It is also something that politicians like to abuse to get horrible things done. The poster presented his opinion as something based on facts, yet it was damn clear that it was his opinion clearly based on...nothing. Claims like his have nothing to do with falsifiablitity, and have no value at all.
It's based on his knowledge and memory and ability to see patterns. It is reasonable for us to not put much value in that because we have no way to judge how valuable those skills of his are. But it's also reasonable for him to not investigate further if he himself is comfortable and confident with his judgment. If his life was on the line, I'm sure he'd investigate and present everything he found but his life isn't on the line and he's allowed to commit however little he wants to as long as he isn't hurting anyone. His post still has value because, like I said, it can spark an investigation if someone deems it a hypothesis worth the time and it can also spark readers to reference their own knowledge and memory and make their own judgment. That is, instead of experimenting and researching, you could search your feelings and know it to be true! Or not. But still it's a valuable contribution and I'm laughing at the fact that this particular type of contribution, even though it's valuable, is scorned because it's not valuable enough, while other types of posts are less valuable and do not rile anyone.
Quite a thoughtful discussion. I agree with your general sentiment regarding the worthiness of verifiable statements (even if those statements aren't backed up by evidence).
Unfortunately, for all intents and purposes, LuckoftheIrish's statement isn't verifiable. Regarding Idra he said, "The thing is that he's tended to be right more often than not. Generally the sequence has gone: Idra makes a controversial prediction or statement -> it doesn't happen -> everyone LOLs -> it happens -> everyone has already forgotten."
How would you prove this to be true or false? Idra has talked about Starcraft for hundreds of hours. Is someone supposed to collate all the recordings, listen to them, write down every statement Idra has made, then tally them up to find out whether he's been right more often than not?
As for what LuckoftheIrish actually said, I don't see the pattern he does. I remember him saying MarineKingPrime wouldn't last because he was gimmicky and that Stephano's IPL victory was primarly because of his new style and not his skill. As I remember it, Idra has been VERY hit and miss.
If LuckoftheIrish wanted to convince others that the pattern he saw existed, he should have paraphrased Idra's statements on Inori, Hongun, and Fruitdealer (or whatever else Idra had said that led him to see the pattern referenced). This would've given everyone an opportunity to examine and criticize him, and bring up predictions Idra got wrong. Instead, he makes himself invulnerable (and ends the discussion) by asking the forum to count the grains of sand on a beach. I don't blame other posters for being annoyed with him.
On November 26 2012 08:29 kckkryptonite wrote: [quote] Except the claim wasn't made by him...
If he cares enough to want an analysis, then he's more than welcome to it.
sure, but it's your work since you brought it up. You're the one being lazy.
Just because there's not a quote in my post doesn't mean I wasn't responding to folks.
And frankly, I've got nothing invested in that statement and I intend to keep it that way. This isn't science or maths. It's the internet, and I'm not required to show my work.
This is teamliquid, where posters in general are expect to maintain certain standards. That means backing up a claim with abit of evidence. If people could post whatever they're thinking without some proof behind it, well this site would be as bad as reddit, which it isn't, because people here engage in more intellectual discussions.
This entire discussion has been nothing but a series of short posts, started by a fairly simple and obtuse characterization of Inside the Game. There aren't any groundbreaking moments here. There are some attempts to read meaning into other people's words, if you're interested in those. Other than that, there's really nothing backing anything at all up. One guy thinks it's bad that a player says things about another player. Another guy doesn't. And that's really all there is to see. If someone is interested enough in the statistical probability of that one guy's assertions being truthful to ask for an analysis, he should pick up Matlab and do it himself.
It's funny that an endless amount of unsupported claims can be made without anybody caring until someone makes a claim which has an obvious line of investigation and then all of the sudden that investigation must be done or else that claim ought to be thrown out and the author ought to be ashamed. Claims that are investigatable ought to be respected more even if the investigation hasn't been done yet. Most of the things I read on TL.net, I can only respond "yeah, well, that's just like your opinion, man." If someone really cares about what they're discussing, they should be happy to discover an investigation they can do to benefit the discussion. Calling out someone else for not having done it yet is only discouraging people with good ideas (but not enough time to support them) from saying anything at all.
Hmm, it is interesting that you look at it this way. I think it is much worse to present an opinion as something that is based on false/non-existent/biased facts than to present your opinion just as it is, an opinion. It is also something that politicians like to abuse to get horrible things done. The poster presented his opinion as something based on facts, yet it was damn clear that it was his opinion clearly based on...nothing. Claims like his have nothing to do with falsifiablitity, and have no value at all.
It's based on his knowledge and memory and ability to see patterns. It is reasonable for us to not put much value in that because we have no way to judge how valuable those skills of his are. But it's also reasonable for him to not investigate further if he himself is comfortable and confident with his judgment. If his life was on the line, I'm sure he'd investigate and present everything he found but his life isn't on the line and he's allowed to commit however little he wants to as long as he isn't hurting anyone. His post still has value because, like I said, it can spark an investigation if someone deems it a hypothesis worth the time and it can also spark readers to reference their own knowledge and memory and make their own judgment. That is, instead of experimenting and researching, you could search your feelings and know it to be true! Or not. But still it's a valuable contribution and I'm laughing at the fact that this particular type of contribution, even though it's valuable, is scorned because it's not valuable enough, while other types of posts are less valuable and do not rile anyone.
Quite a thoughtful discussion. I agree with your general sentiment regarding the worthiness of verifiable statements (even if those statements aren't backed up by evidence).
Unfortunately, for all intents and purposes, LuckoftheIrish's statement isn't verifiable. Regarding Idra he said, "The thing is that he's tended to be right more often than not. Generally the sequence has gone: Idra makes a controversial prediction or statement -> it doesn't happen -> everyone LOLs -> it happens -> everyone has already forgotten."
How would you prove this to be true or false? Idra has talked about Starcraft for hundreds of hours. Is someone supposed to collate all the recordings, listen to them, write down every statement Idra has made, then tally them up to find out whether he's been right more often than not?
As for what LuckoftheIrish actually said, I don't see the pattern he does. I remember him saying MarineKingPrime wouldn't last because he was gimmicky and that Stephano's IPL victory was primarly because of his new style and not his skill. As I remember it, Idra has been VERY hit and miss.
If LuckoftheIrish wanted to convince others that the pattern he saw existed, he should have paraphrased Idra's statements on Inori, Hongun, and Fruitdealer (or whatever else Idra had said that led him to see the pattern referenced). This would've given everyone an opportunity to examine and criticize him, and bring up predictions Idra got wrong. Instead, he makes himself invulnerable (and ends the discussion) by asking the forum to count the grains of sand on a beach. I don't blame other posters for being annoyed with him.
Wait a moment. Let's go back a moment here.
If I'd brought up HongUn, Inori and Fruitdealer (and Cruncher), yeah, that's evidence in my favor. It's also selective, and I haven't the time or interest to look through every player he's spoken about, mostly because I don't know all of them. The seven I can think of completely offhand are Cruncher, HongUn, Inori, Fruitdealer, Stephano, MKP and MC. Four of those I'd say are successful to some degree, two are clearly incorrect and MC is neutral - he was figured out and fell to Code B, reinvented himself and was newly successful. But how do we determine that? You suggest:
How would you prove this to be true or false? Idra has talked about Starcraft for hundreds of hours. Is someone supposed to collate all the recordings, listen to them, write down every statement Idra has made, then tally them up to find out whether he's been right more often than not?
I feel like that's an outrageous amount of work. You, clearly, do as well. I'm not interested in doing it, and you aren't either. So how is it that I'm under fire for refusing a demand - and let's be clear about the tone of the original request - to do that work? How frequently are posts on this site held to that standard? I submit, respectfully, that very few if any posts made here are subject to any evidentiary standards whatsoever. This very thread provides hundreds if not thousands of examples.
And let's go back to the original post.
Here's how Inside the Game usually goes: ... IdrA: "Xy (insert one of the ~500 people who are currently better than him) is vastly overrated."
My interpretation of that is: Idra makes frequent and incorrect statements about player skill. Let's subject that post to some scrutiny, shall we? Let's ask that guy to step forward and show his work.
On December 03 2012 11:38 Chriscras wrote: So Geoff is on his honeymoon I think until January. Does that mean no end of the year drunk Christmas episode that was promised?
Make it happen JP! Last year's episode was entertaining as hell and flat out hilarious. I've rewatched it many times and a tradition like this cant fade away so easily
JP, Can you plz just ONE TIME..... get the whole old crew back to do a show.---- Tyler , Incontrol, day9 , Artosis. Just one last good bye show or something, everyone deserves it. I wanna hear about geoffs wedding , what tylers been up to, day9s future plans , same with artosis.
I don't think Geoff would be needed for next SOTG even if Geoff would be participating in Christmas SOTG. It's still early December so there should be at least one more before the Christmas SOTG.
Didn't take JP long to go back to his old ways, was hoping for consistent shows weekly shows but obviously that was setting the bar way too high. No good reason why either, just he's tired and playing games no doubt.
QXC at WCG, Apollo casting tournaments. It's a good portion of the show not available, most possible replacements are at the events. In the last 2 weeks we had like 7 tournaments, there was a lot of stuff going on.
Well at least next episode they are going to have a ton to talk about; new patch for WoL, quantic disbanding and tons of tourney results like IPL and ect. I hope we get another show before too long and it has some of the old cast as well as some of the new.
Would be great if we got at least one more show before the end of the year, but understand if it's not possible. So many people are travelling atm combined with the holiday season coming up, and i'm sure some of these guys may want a break from the scene before hots ramps up in the new year.
Here's how Inside the Game usually goes: ... IdrA: "Xy (insert one of the ~500 people who are currently better than him) is vastly overrated."
My interpretation of that is: Idra makes frequent and incorrect statements about player skill. Let's subject that post to some scrutiny, shall we? Let's ask that guy to step forward and show his work.
I interpreted that as a joke. Your statement didn't bother me though, but I'm glad it bothered some others a bit.
Quick update: confirmed with Tyler and Geoff that they'll be able to attend the annual drunk State of the Game. Still deciding time / day, but it'll be in the 17-19th of December range. Will update when I know more!
EPT
