|
On May 10 2012 01:05 Duravi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 01:02 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On May 10 2012 00:56 Duravi wrote:On May 09 2012 20:24 RedBack wrote:On May 09 2012 14:07 Duravi wrote:
I honestly don't understand the whole debate about contacting sponsors. If the recent weeks have shown anything, it is that going straight to the sponsors is the BEST way to get your point across, and most effective way to bring about change. All these points about esports being a fragile industry are completely moot, if you are a consumer and want to get your point across you go to the sponsors. The fact that people in esports want us to contact sponsors about positive things but handle negative things internally, screams of hypocrisy, and ultimately is not what is going to happen. If people don't like something you are doing they will bitch at your sponsors, deal with it, because that is what the reality is. If Incontrol thinks he can convince people to do otherwise, he is dreaming. So your confused as to why they want you to say positive and not negative things to the people providing the money keeping any of this afloat? its not hypocrisy its fucking logic asshat Nowhere did I say it was a good thing, and clearly the teams don't want any negative feedback going to their sponsors. The thing is, they can't control it. So why whine about it? No matter what Incontrol says, people are still going to complain to sponsors if they see something they don't like. Yeah, why try to change the community for the better, right? If you think four guys on a talk show are going to change the attitude of an entire community, the majority of which probably doesn't even watch the show, then I don't know what to tell you.
I'm not just talking about ITG, but also Geoff's other contributions to the debate. I think he was the driving force behind the "don't go direct to the sponsors without giving the team a chance to act first" argument in the thread about Destiny's racial slurs. If you don't think an esports profile like Geoff has an impact on the opinions on such matters I don't know what to tell you (and even if you don't, why complain about a guy trying to change the community for the better?).
And btw:
On May 10 2012 00:56 Duravi wrote:
Nowhere did I say it was a good thing
On May 09 2012 14:07 Duravi wrote:
If the recent weeks have shown anything, it is that going straight to the sponsors is the BEST way to get your point across
|
On May 10 2012 01:27 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 01:05 Duravi wrote:On May 10 2012 01:02 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On May 10 2012 00:56 Duravi wrote:On May 09 2012 20:24 RedBack wrote:On May 09 2012 14:07 Duravi wrote:
I honestly don't understand the whole debate about contacting sponsors. If the recent weeks have shown anything, it is that going straight to the sponsors is the BEST way to get your point across, and most effective way to bring about change. All these points about esports being a fragile industry are completely moot, if you are a consumer and want to get your point across you go to the sponsors. The fact that people in esports want us to contact sponsors about positive things but handle negative things internally, screams of hypocrisy, and ultimately is not what is going to happen. If people don't like something you are doing they will bitch at your sponsors, deal with it, because that is what the reality is. If Incontrol thinks he can convince people to do otherwise, he is dreaming. So your confused as to why they want you to say positive and not negative things to the people providing the money keeping any of this afloat? its not hypocrisy its fucking logic asshat Nowhere did I say it was a good thing, and clearly the teams don't want any negative feedback going to their sponsors. The thing is, they can't control it. So why whine about it? No matter what Incontrol says, people are still going to complain to sponsors if they see something they don't like. Yeah, why try to change the community for the better, right? If you think four guys on a talk show are going to change the attitude of an entire community, the majority of which probably doesn't even watch the show, then I don't know what to tell you. I'm not just talking about ITG, but also Geoff's other contributions to the debate. I think he was the driving force behind the "don't go direct to the sponsors without giving the team a chance to act first" argument in the thread about Destiny's racial slurs. If you don't think an esports profile like Geoff has an impact on the opinions on such matters I don't know what to tell you (and even if you don't, why complain about a guy trying to change the community for the better?). And btw: Show nested quote +On May 09 2012 14:07 Duravi wrote:
If the recent weeks have shown anything, it is that going straight to the sponsors is the BEST way to get your point across
It is the best way to get your point across. Does that mean having everyone do that is good? I fail to see how I contradicted myself there.
|
I think everyone agrees that contacting the sponsors is bad for esports, but I think we have to look at WHY they are doing it. As I see it, the figureheads of the community has taught the community to reach out to sponsors because it is a very easy way of showing the sponsors that they will get a return on their investment. The problem is, the community is not something that can be controlled or a homogeneous entity - some people will not care about what's good for the community. Bad example, but It's like teaching your pet some cute trick that is really fun at first, but then gets super annoying when they do it all the time because they don't see difference between when it's appropriate or not.
It's similar to the "Grubby situation" in that the same reason it was good for SteelSeries to sponsor Grubby became liability when they wanted to end it. The intimate relationship the community has with sponsors is something that is both positive and negative and maybe we just have to live with that for now. As (if) the esports scene grows to be more mainstream, these problems will go away. I don't wan to be all negative though and I think that a big part of the community will listen and try to do good for the community if pushed and nudged in that direction by prominent figures.
|
On May 10 2012 01:30 Duravi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 01:27 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On May 10 2012 01:05 Duravi wrote:On May 10 2012 01:02 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On May 10 2012 00:56 Duravi wrote:On May 09 2012 20:24 RedBack wrote:On May 09 2012 14:07 Duravi wrote:
I honestly don't understand the whole debate about contacting sponsors. If the recent weeks have shown anything, it is that going straight to the sponsors is the BEST way to get your point across, and most effective way to bring about change. All these points about esports being a fragile industry are completely moot, if you are a consumer and want to get your point across you go to the sponsors. The fact that people in esports want us to contact sponsors about positive things but handle negative things internally, screams of hypocrisy, and ultimately is not what is going to happen. If people don't like something you are doing they will bitch at your sponsors, deal with it, because that is what the reality is. If Incontrol thinks he can convince people to do otherwise, he is dreaming. So your confused as to why they want you to say positive and not negative things to the people providing the money keeping any of this afloat? its not hypocrisy its fucking logic asshat Nowhere did I say it was a good thing, and clearly the teams don't want any negative feedback going to their sponsors. The thing is, they can't control it. So why whine about it? No matter what Incontrol says, people are still going to complain to sponsors if they see something they don't like. Yeah, why try to change the community for the better, right? If you think four guys on a talk show are going to change the attitude of an entire community, the majority of which probably doesn't even watch the show, then I don't know what to tell you. I'm not just talking about ITG, but also Geoff's other contributions to the debate. I think he was the driving force behind the "don't go direct to the sponsors without giving the team a chance to act first" argument in the thread about Destiny's racial slurs. If you don't think an esports profile like Geoff has an impact on the opinions on such matters I don't know what to tell you (and even if you don't, why complain about a guy trying to change the community for the better?). And btw: On May 10 2012 00:56 Duravi wrote:
Nowhere did I say it was a good thing On May 09 2012 14:07 Duravi wrote:
If the recent weeks have shown anything, it is that going straight to the sponsors is the BEST way to get your point across It is the best way to get your point across. Does that mean having everyone do that is good? I fail to see how I contradicted myself there.
If it hurts the team and all its players, without giving the team a chance to react, how is it be the "BEST" way to get your points across? If your aim of giving criticism is to cause a massive shitstorm and hurt all parties involved then yes, going directly to sponsors is the best way. If your aim is to get an adequate response and punishment of the player in question, it is not.
I guess our definition of "best" differs. If you got a wasp sitting on your window, is the best response to pull up your shotgun and shoot it in 1 sec or pull up your flap and kill it in 5 secs? I would go for my flap and I guess you'll go for the shotgun.
|
On May 10 2012 01:44 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 01:30 Duravi wrote:On May 10 2012 01:27 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On May 10 2012 01:05 Duravi wrote:On May 10 2012 01:02 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On May 10 2012 00:56 Duravi wrote:On May 09 2012 20:24 RedBack wrote:On May 09 2012 14:07 Duravi wrote:
I honestly don't understand the whole debate about contacting sponsors. If the recent weeks have shown anything, it is that going straight to the sponsors is the BEST way to get your point across, and most effective way to bring about change. All these points about esports being a fragile industry are completely moot, if you are a consumer and want to get your point across you go to the sponsors. The fact that people in esports want us to contact sponsors about positive things but handle negative things internally, screams of hypocrisy, and ultimately is not what is going to happen. If people don't like something you are doing they will bitch at your sponsors, deal with it, because that is what the reality is. If Incontrol thinks he can convince people to do otherwise, he is dreaming. So your confused as to why they want you to say positive and not negative things to the people providing the money keeping any of this afloat? its not hypocrisy its fucking logic asshat Nowhere did I say it was a good thing, and clearly the teams don't want any negative feedback going to their sponsors. The thing is, they can't control it. So why whine about it? No matter what Incontrol says, people are still going to complain to sponsors if they see something they don't like. Yeah, why try to change the community for the better, right? If you think four guys on a talk show are going to change the attitude of an entire community, the majority of which probably doesn't even watch the show, then I don't know what to tell you. I'm not just talking about ITG, but also Geoff's other contributions to the debate. I think he was the driving force behind the "don't go direct to the sponsors without giving the team a chance to act first" argument in the thread about Destiny's racial slurs. If you don't think an esports profile like Geoff has an impact on the opinions on such matters I don't know what to tell you (and even if you don't, why complain about a guy trying to change the community for the better?). And btw: On May 10 2012 00:56 Duravi wrote:
Nowhere did I say it was a good thing On May 09 2012 14:07 Duravi wrote:
If the recent weeks have shown anything, it is that going straight to the sponsors is the BEST way to get your point across It is the best way to get your point across. Does that mean having everyone do that is good? I fail to see how I contradicted myself there. If it hurts the team and all its players, without giving the team a chance to react, how is it be the "BEST" way to get your points across? If your aim of giving criticism is to cause a massive shitstorm and hurt all parties involved then yes, going directly to sponsors is the best way. If your aim is to get an adequate response and punishment of the player in question, it is not. I guess our definition of "best" differs. If you got a wasp sitting on your window, is the best response to pull up your shotgun and shoot it in 1 sec or pull up your flap and kill it in 5 secs? I would go for my flap and I guess you'll go for the shotgun.
To clarify, it is is best for the individual. Going directly to the sponsor gives the highest probability that your voice will have an impact and lead to some desired change. If you wanted Orb to be fired, which has a higher chance of contributing to that end, emailing EG or emailing Monster? It is not best for the community as a whole, I agree with you and Geoff on that. The point was that you are never going to convince a population to go against what they perceive as their own self-interest.
|
On May 10 2012 02:05 Duravi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 01:44 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On May 10 2012 01:30 Duravi wrote:On May 10 2012 01:27 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On May 10 2012 01:05 Duravi wrote:On May 10 2012 01:02 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On May 10 2012 00:56 Duravi wrote:On May 09 2012 20:24 RedBack wrote:On May 09 2012 14:07 Duravi wrote:
I honestly don't understand the whole debate about contacting sponsors. If the recent weeks have shown anything, it is that going straight to the sponsors is the BEST way to get your point across, and most effective way to bring about change. All these points about esports being a fragile industry are completely moot, if you are a consumer and want to get your point across you go to the sponsors. The fact that people in esports want us to contact sponsors about positive things but handle negative things internally, screams of hypocrisy, and ultimately is not what is going to happen. If people don't like something you are doing they will bitch at your sponsors, deal with it, because that is what the reality is. If Incontrol thinks he can convince people to do otherwise, he is dreaming. So your confused as to why they want you to say positive and not negative things to the people providing the money keeping any of this afloat? its not hypocrisy its fucking logic asshat Nowhere did I say it was a good thing, and clearly the teams don't want any negative feedback going to their sponsors. The thing is, they can't control it. So why whine about it? No matter what Incontrol says, people are still going to complain to sponsors if they see something they don't like. Yeah, why try to change the community for the better, right? If you think four guys on a talk show are going to change the attitude of an entire community, the majority of which probably doesn't even watch the show, then I don't know what to tell you. I'm not just talking about ITG, but also Geoff's other contributions to the debate. I think he was the driving force behind the "don't go direct to the sponsors without giving the team a chance to act first" argument in the thread about Destiny's racial slurs. If you don't think an esports profile like Geoff has an impact on the opinions on such matters I don't know what to tell you (and even if you don't, why complain about a guy trying to change the community for the better?). And btw: On May 10 2012 00:56 Duravi wrote:
Nowhere did I say it was a good thing On May 09 2012 14:07 Duravi wrote:
If the recent weeks have shown anything, it is that going straight to the sponsors is the BEST way to get your point across It is the best way to get your point across. Does that mean having everyone do that is good? I fail to see how I contradicted myself there. If it hurts the team and all its players, without giving the team a chance to react, how is it be the "BEST" way to get your points across? If your aim of giving criticism is to cause a massive shitstorm and hurt all parties involved then yes, going directly to sponsors is the best way. If your aim is to get an adequate response and punishment of the player in question, it is not. I guess our definition of "best" differs. If you got a wasp sitting on your window, is the best response to pull up your shotgun and shoot it in 1 sec or pull up your flap and kill it in 5 secs? I would go for my flap and I guess you'll go for the shotgun. To clarify, it is is best for the individual. Going directly to the sponsor gives the highest probability that your voice will have an impact and lead to some desired change. If you wanted Orb to be fired, which has a higher chance of contributing to that end, emailing EG or emailing Monster? It is not best for the community as a whole, I agree with you and Geoff on that. The point was that you are never going to convince a population to go against what they perceive as their own self-interest.
I agree it's best for the individual if said individual cares about getting X fired and not about the other players in the team. There are certainly some people for which this is true, but if that's the case they weren't fans of the team to begin with.
Anyway, getting rid of these kinds of responses would be beneficial for the community. While I'm a big believer in self-interest, it's not the only thing determining how society as well as internet communities work. Together we create social norms on how to react in certain situations. For example, it would be in everyone's self-interest to try to get ahead in line at the supermarket or just not help out when someone asks you for direction. Both saves you time. Still, that's not how most people in society act. It's possible to create such norms, with each individual accepting a small personal loss for the greater good of creating a society more beneficial to everyone. Admittedly, it's more difficult to create such norms in internet communities, but I think TL has come a long way (for example, I would argue that the Scarlett drama was way less severe than what would've been in most other communities). Having people like Geoff and others promoting such norms is a good thing and should be encouraged.
|
On May 10 2012 02:25 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 02:05 Duravi wrote:On May 10 2012 01:44 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On May 10 2012 01:30 Duravi wrote:On May 10 2012 01:27 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On May 10 2012 01:05 Duravi wrote:On May 10 2012 01:02 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On May 10 2012 00:56 Duravi wrote:On May 09 2012 20:24 RedBack wrote:On May 09 2012 14:07 Duravi wrote:
I honestly don't understand the whole debate about contacting sponsors. If the recent weeks have shown anything, it is that going straight to the sponsors is the BEST way to get your point across, and most effective way to bring about change. All these points about esports being a fragile industry are completely moot, if you are a consumer and want to get your point across you go to the sponsors. The fact that people in esports want us to contact sponsors about positive things but handle negative things internally, screams of hypocrisy, and ultimately is not what is going to happen. If people don't like something you are doing they will bitch at your sponsors, deal with it, because that is what the reality is. If Incontrol thinks he can convince people to do otherwise, he is dreaming. So your confused as to why they want you to say positive and not negative things to the people providing the money keeping any of this afloat? its not hypocrisy its fucking logic asshat Nowhere did I say it was a good thing, and clearly the teams don't want any negative feedback going to their sponsors. The thing is, they can't control it. So why whine about it? No matter what Incontrol says, people are still going to complain to sponsors if they see something they don't like. Yeah, why try to change the community for the better, right? If you think four guys on a talk show are going to change the attitude of an entire community, the majority of which probably doesn't even watch the show, then I don't know what to tell you. I'm not just talking about ITG, but also Geoff's other contributions to the debate. I think he was the driving force behind the "don't go direct to the sponsors without giving the team a chance to act first" argument in the thread about Destiny's racial slurs. If you don't think an esports profile like Geoff has an impact on the opinions on such matters I don't know what to tell you (and even if you don't, why complain about a guy trying to change the community for the better?). And btw: On May 10 2012 00:56 Duravi wrote:
Nowhere did I say it was a good thing On May 09 2012 14:07 Duravi wrote:
If the recent weeks have shown anything, it is that going straight to the sponsors is the BEST way to get your point across It is the best way to get your point across. Does that mean having everyone do that is good? I fail to see how I contradicted myself there. If it hurts the team and all its players, without giving the team a chance to react, how is it be the "BEST" way to get your points across? If your aim of giving criticism is to cause a massive shitstorm and hurt all parties involved then yes, going directly to sponsors is the best way. If your aim is to get an adequate response and punishment of the player in question, it is not. I guess our definition of "best" differs. If you got a wasp sitting on your window, is the best response to pull up your shotgun and shoot it in 1 sec or pull up your flap and kill it in 5 secs? I would go for my flap and I guess you'll go for the shotgun. To clarify, it is is best for the individual. Going directly to the sponsor gives the highest probability that your voice will have an impact and lead to some desired change. If you wanted Orb to be fired, which has a higher chance of contributing to that end, emailing EG or emailing Monster? It is not best for the community as a whole, I agree with you and Geoff on that. The point was that you are never going to convince a population to go against what they perceive as their own self-interest. I agree it's best for the individual if said individual cares about getting X fired and not about the other players in the team. My suspicion, however, is that most of the ones sending e-mails to the sponsors didn't really care about the team in the first place and just wanted to act out on their hate. Getting rid of this hate would be beneficial to the community. While I'm a big believer in self-interest, it's not the only thing determining how society as well as internet communities work. Together we create social norms on how to react in certain situations. For example, it would be in everyone's best self-interest to try to get ahead in the line at the supermarket or just not help out when someone asks you for direction. Both saves you time. Still, that's not how most people in society acts. It's possible to create such norms, with each individual accepting a small personal loss for the greater good of creating a society more beneficial to everyone. Admittedly, it's more difficult to create such norms in internet communities, but I think TL has come a long way (for example, I would argue that the Scarlett drama was way less severe than what would've been in most other communities). Having people like Geoff and others promoting such norms is a good thing and should be encouraged.
In something like your supermarket example there are consequences to being unruly and shoving your way ahead in line that outweight the slight inconvenience of waiting your turn. You kind of bring this point up when you said it is difficult to create this in an internet community. There is no penalty for harassing a sponsor or exaggerating claims to them. Contact with sponsors is completely unfiltered, for good or bad, and that is just the reality of it. I guess where I differ from you is that I'm not optimistic enough to think that these community figures will have any measurable impact on how the SC2 populace as a whole behaves in this regard. In my opinion they would be better served by just accepting that people are going to directly complain to sponsors (and modifying their actions with regard to that), just like they do in professional sports, and this is just a natural part of the evolution of this industry.
|
On May 09 2012 17:13 Terranist wrote:hashbaz hashbaz hashbaz!
♥ Thank you as always hashbaz ! ♥
|
On May 10 2012 02:30 Duravi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 02:25 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On May 10 2012 02:05 Duravi wrote:On May 10 2012 01:44 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On May 10 2012 01:30 Duravi wrote:On May 10 2012 01:27 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On May 10 2012 01:05 Duravi wrote:On May 10 2012 01:02 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On May 10 2012 00:56 Duravi wrote:On May 09 2012 20:24 RedBack wrote:
[quote]
So your confused as to why they want you to say positive and not negative things to the people providing the money keeping any of this afloat?
its not hypocrisy its fucking logic asshat Nowhere did I say it was a good thing, and clearly the teams don't want any negative feedback going to their sponsors. The thing is, they can't control it. So why whine about it? No matter what Incontrol says, people are still going to complain to sponsors if they see something they don't like. Yeah, why try to change the community for the better, right? If you think four guys on a talk show are going to change the attitude of an entire community, the majority of which probably doesn't even watch the show, then I don't know what to tell you. I'm not just talking about ITG, but also Geoff's other contributions to the debate. I think he was the driving force behind the "don't go direct to the sponsors without giving the team a chance to act first" argument in the thread about Destiny's racial slurs. If you don't think an esports profile like Geoff has an impact on the opinions on such matters I don't know what to tell you (and even if you don't, why complain about a guy trying to change the community for the better?). And btw: On May 10 2012 00:56 Duravi wrote:
Nowhere did I say it was a good thing On May 09 2012 14:07 Duravi wrote:
If the recent weeks have shown anything, it is that going straight to the sponsors is the BEST way to get your point across It is the best way to get your point across. Does that mean having everyone do that is good? I fail to see how I contradicted myself there. If it hurts the team and all its players, without giving the team a chance to react, how is it be the "BEST" way to get your points across? If your aim of giving criticism is to cause a massive shitstorm and hurt all parties involved then yes, going directly to sponsors is the best way. If your aim is to get an adequate response and punishment of the player in question, it is not. I guess our definition of "best" differs. If you got a wasp sitting on your window, is the best response to pull up your shotgun and shoot it in 1 sec or pull up your flap and kill it in 5 secs? I would go for my flap and I guess you'll go for the shotgun. To clarify, it is is best for the individual. Going directly to the sponsor gives the highest probability that your voice will have an impact and lead to some desired change. If you wanted Orb to be fired, which has a higher chance of contributing to that end, emailing EG or emailing Monster? It is not best for the community as a whole, I agree with you and Geoff on that. The point was that you are never going to convince a population to go against what they perceive as their own self-interest. I agree it's best for the individual if said individual cares about getting X fired and not about the other players in the team. My suspicion, however, is that most of the ones sending e-mails to the sponsors didn't really care about the team in the first place and just wanted to act out on their hate. Getting rid of this hate would be beneficial to the community. While I'm a big believer in self-interest, it's not the only thing determining how society as well as internet communities work. Together we create social norms on how to react in certain situations. For example, it would be in everyone's best self-interest to try to get ahead in the line at the supermarket or just not help out when someone asks you for direction. Both saves you time. Still, that's not how most people in society acts. It's possible to create such norms, with each individual accepting a small personal loss for the greater good of creating a society more beneficial to everyone. Admittedly, it's more difficult to create such norms in internet communities, but I think TL has come a long way (for example, I would argue that the Scarlett drama was way less severe than what would've been in most other communities). Having people like Geoff and others promoting such norms is a good thing and should be encouraged. In something like your supermarket example there are consequences to being unruly and shoving your way ahead in line that outweight the slight inconvenience of waiting your turn. You kind of bring this point up when you said it is difficult to create this in an internet community. There is no penalty for harassing a sponsor or exaggerating claims to them. Contact with sponsors is completely unfiltered, for good or bad, and that is just the reality of it. I guess where I differ from you is that I'm not optimistic enough to think that these community figures will have any measurable impact on how the SC2 populace as a whole behaves in this regard. In my opinion they would be better served by just accepting that people are going to directly complain to sponsors (and modifying their actions with regard to that), just like they do in professional sports, and this is just a natural part of the evolution of this industry.
Well, if you've been travelling, you'll know that there are a lot of societies where getting ahead in line is sort of a sport. There are no consequences, without social norms it's just the way it works. For a Swede like me, it's frustrating. We love well organized lines :p
You need the community to create norms to enforce a behaviour beneficial to everyone. By making rational arguments on forums and on podcasts you can create such norms. By members not acting in the best interest of the community being frowned upon, you can reduce its occurence. After all, most people taking part of a community wants to be a respected member. I have no delusions it'll be possible to "convert" everyone, but if the general opinion is that it is ok to go straight to sponsors with complaints, it will be a lot more common.
I think we've both got our opinions across though, so I will not derail this thread any further.
|
where can I watch the latest episode? I checked onemoregame.net and it was outdated, also checked blip.tv and only found episode 36, any help would be appreciated
|
On May 10 2012 02:51 Chickenlegs wrote:
where can I watch the latest episode? I checked onemoregame.net and it was outdated, also checked blip.tv and only found episode 36, any help would be appreciated
http://www.twitch.tv/onemoregametv/b/317580070
|
Thing about contacting sponsors is that it's not only affecting specific cases, for example if you contact sponsor and say how you appreciate them sponsoring 1 team, they might start sponsoring some other tournaments and stuff. If you tell them how you hate something, they might stop sponsoring everything. That's why you shouldn't contact sponsors directly if it's something negative because you're hurting other people, and not just "getting your voice heard over 1 specific problem"
Teams and viewers are close and they should deal with problems on their own. Sponsors are 3rd party here and we should encourage them to invest into e-sports, and not go running to them every time we have a problem. They wanna be our rich uncle, not our mom.
|
|
|
On May 09 2012 14:07 Duravi wrote:
I honestly don't understand the whole debate about contacting sponsors. If the recent weeks have shown anything, it is that going straight to the sponsors is the BEST way to get your point across, and most effective way to bring about change. All these points about esports being a fragile industry are completely moot, if you are a consumer and want to get your point across you go to the sponsors. The fact that people in esports want us to contact sponsors about positive things but handle negative things internally, screams of hypocrisy, and ultimately is not what is going to happen. If people don't like something you are doing they will bitch at your sponsors, deal with it, because that is what the reality is. If Incontrol thinks he can convince people to do otherwise, he is dreaming.
the WWE/WWF/WWWF has been pushing the borders of political incorrectness since "junior" took the company over from his pa. Did this stop sponsors from flocking to a "fringe sport" like pro wrestling. No it did not. if you have marketing and promotion geniuses like Vince Mcmahon at the helm they can take a negative and turn it into a positive.
The only negative a good marketing guy can't camouflage is lack of viewership. If eSports "flounders" its because it does not attract enough viewers.
The WWE/WWF/WWWF was far more fragile than the current eSports industry is today. Did it survive Randy "Macho Man" Savage "bitch slapping" Miss Elizabeth? ya, it did... in fact it flourished and the "Macho Man" became their #1 heel.
|
I just started watching the old Inside the game #33 where they were talking about the micro map trainers and I strangely have to say I pretty much disagree with what Incontrol was saying there and completely agree with Painuser and Machine. And that's a very interesting topic by the way. And I think there's an interesting difference in the different ways and mindsets of approaching practice in general when it comes to training for some specific skill.
I used to play the piano as a kid quite a lot and in the training our teachers would have us play these very very simple things in a specific way over and over and over again simply to force that specific thing into our spine or muscle memory or whatever you want to call it. And then, afterwards it would come automatically to us and we could actually use that skill automatically and even unconsciously whenever we would need it in any other situation and then in those situations we would just have that skill and it would come naturally to us simply because of the repetitive practice we had had. And yes, it actually worked. And probably has for other people as well for hundreds of years. 
So if you're talking about a specific thing like splitting your marines, then simply spending some time in a simulator that is focused on improving that specific skill will actually make you do that specific skill better. And after that, whenever you are in a real game and you are in the situation where splitting your marines matters (almost every game TvX?), you are suddenly much better at it than before simply because you trained that specific mechanical skill so much in that simulator. So the hours you spent there will make you much better in those specific situations where you actually need that skill. Painuser actually made a very good comparison with Marineking and everyone else regarding this and I think there is much truth to that.
Incontrol's approach where you simply play great amounts of normal SC2 games to get better overall is of course good in general but if you're trying to improve a specific mechanical skill like marine splitting it would be hugely slower and more inefficient simply because you are not in those marine split situation nearly as often. But if you spend the hours in the micro trainer map that is designed to improve that specific marine splitting skill and you become a beast at splitting your marines you would actually benefit from that in every single game you play after that and you would gain better results in tournaments simply because you master this one skill so much better than you did before. Yes, I know it's very focused practice but there is a place for that as well.
Eventhough it is incredibly boring, you should never dismiss the usefulness of repetitive mechanical practice when you are trying to improve or perfect some specific skill.
|
On May 10 2012 03:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2012 14:07 Duravi wrote:
I honestly don't understand the whole debate about contacting sponsors. If the recent weeks have shown anything, it is that going straight to the sponsors is the BEST way to get your point across, and most effective way to bring about change. All these points about esports being a fragile industry are completely moot, if you are a consumer and want to get your point across you go to the sponsors. The fact that people in esports want us to contact sponsors about positive things but handle negative things internally, screams of hypocrisy, and ultimately is not what is going to happen. If people don't like something you are doing they will bitch at your sponsors, deal with it, because that is what the reality is. If Incontrol thinks he can convince people to do otherwise, he is dreaming. the WWE/WWF/WWWF has been pushing the borders of political incorrectness since "junior" took the company over from his pa. Did this stop sponsors from flocking to a "fringe sport" like pro wrestling. No it did not. if you have marketing and promotion geniuses like Vince Mcmahon at the helm they can take a negative and turn it into a positive. The only negative a good marketing guy can't camouflage is lack of viewership. If eSports "flounders" its because it does not attract enough viewers. The WWE/WWF/WWWF was far more fragile than the current eSports industry is today. Did it survive Randy "Macho Man" Savage "bitch slapping" Miss Elizabeth? ya, it did... in fact it flourished and the "Macho Man" became their #1 heel.
hihi, you seem like a wrestling fan who is up on his stuff, so it's conspicuous you didn't mention the quarterly shareholder's conference call from just last week, wherein vince reiterated YET AGAIN how the WWE has no plans to revert from the PG content rating they've held since 2008, because... wait for it... sponsors. as for fragility, the nadir of the wrestling business was the 93-94 Zahorian steroids trial (no clue what point you are trying to make re: macho man and elizabeth). even then, you're talking about an established cultural institution with a 100+ year history and market capitalization in the hundreds of millions of dollars, vs. an emerging, community driven niche is-it-really-sport. at no point has the WWE ever been more fragile, LOL.
|
Hi all, I was looking for the latest episodes of itg, on itunes and onemoregame.tv but I can only find old ones from march. Is there no shows lately?
|
On May 10 2012 15:54 Syloc wrote:
Hi all, I was looking for the latest episodes of itg, on itunes and onemoregame.tv but I can only find old ones from march. Is there no shows lately?
The VODs are up at http://www.twitch.tv/onemoregametv
|
I really wish they updated thier audio feed, I always like to download these episodes to my mp3 player and listen to them on my drive to work. :<
nvm, thanks hashbaz, the torrent works just fine! ^_^
|
On May 11 2012 01:48 TheRhox wrote:
I really wish they updated thier audio feed, I always like to download these episodes to my mp3 player and listen to them on my drive to work. :<
nvm, thanks hashbaz, the torrent works just fine! ^_^
If you have an Iphone and the instacast app, you can set it up to pull the files directly from a drop box account. After it is set up, you can just put the file in the drop box folder and download it to your Iphone anywhere. It is a bit of work to set up, but almost no effort after that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
