|
On February 25 2012 10:05 Full.tilt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 07:09 vVv Brock wrote:
Most rationally thinking people would believe a scientist if they were to say that they discovered a new planet light years away because these scientists have been right so many times before This thread continues to provide entertainment, I've completely lost interest in the topic because it's so minor, straightforward and relatively inconsequential. However, what you are saying is completely ridiculous, science is based on fact and proof.
Maybe I wasn't exactly clear. I'm saying that if a scientist that has been right numerous times before says something that's related to science, you'll probably believe him without even seeing his proof because he been right so many times before and hasn't lied. If a scientist goes 5 straight years with a great résumé and always proved what he said and does a lot for the scientific community, I'll probably believe something that he says even before seeing the proof. I'm not saying science isn't based on fact and proof, and I really don't know how you got that from my analogy.
Fine, different analogy. Mark Zuckerberg is a pretty smart guy, right? If he's giving a speech on how to create a great website that will eventually become extremely profitable, you would probably believe pretty much whatever he says, correct? This is because he's proven himself in that industry. He's proven multiple times that he knows what he's talking about, so if he says something about an industry of which you may not know a great amount, are you going to say, "Oh yeah? Prove it! I won't believe you until you prove everything you said!" Would you say that? Probably not. You'll probably believe him without needed exact proof. I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to know the exact source, but revealing it now would only make the sources that LordJerith has never tell him information again. Again, like I said in my previous post, he doesn't have a single reason to lie. We have no players at this event, and we don't benefit financial or in any other way from people buying the PPV pass. He wants eSports to grow and disagrees with TL's decision. That's it. Hopefully that cleared everything up.
|
Edit: According to Torte De Lini he was banned for posting a meme image. In the post as it stands no such picture exists, but I'd trust Torte De Lini as a source so adding this edit in. Either way, the discussion that followed was about the post as it stands without an image, regardless of the actual ban reason.
I didn't see any meme in his last post and i was f5'ing around the time he got banned
|
|
|
On February 25 2012 13:16 vVv Brock wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 10:05 Full.tilt wrote:On February 25 2012 07:09 vVv Brock wrote:
Most rationally thinking people would believe a scientist if they were to say that they discovered a new planet light years away because these scientists have been right so many times before This thread continues to provide entertainment, I've completely lost interest in the topic because it's so minor, straightforward and relatively inconsequential. However, what you are saying is completely ridiculous, science is based on fact and proof. Maybe I wasn't exactly clear. I'm saying that if a scientist that has been right numerous times before says something that's related to science, you'll probably believe him without even seeing his proof because he been right so many times before and hasn't lied. If a scientist goes 5 straight years with a great résumé and always proved what he said and does a lot for the scientific community, I'll probably believe something that he says even before seeing the proof. I'm not saying science isn't based on fact and proof, and I really don't know how you got that from my analogy.
If that scientist doesn't produce a good journal/writeup with his findings then whatever he says doesn't matter. He can claim whatever he likes even if he has proven things in the past if he doesn't put it down on paper properly then you don't believe anything he says. Maybe a common person does but no way in hell anyone within the field believes anything just because someone said it.
The reason for this is well just stating conclusions doesn't really help anyone. Without having the raw data and methodology of the individual/experiment you can't determine if the conclusions he/she has come up with are in fact in line with what the data is telling you.
I think you should just stop trying to make analogies from fields you don't seem to be involved with.
|
this is why tl is so much better than other forums.
Good and smart decision, kinda sad that it won't affect mlg at all because there are like 10 threads all over teamliquid about the mlg.
|
On February 25 2012 21:36 Numy wrote:The reason for this is well just stating conclusions doesn't really help anyone. Without having the raw data and methodology of the individual/experiment you can't determine if the conclusions he/she has come up with are in fact in line with what the data is telling you.
I think you should just stop trying to make analogies from fields you don't seem to be involved with.
I'm not saying that it isn't proof without the data. Fine last analogy, this time from a field I'm very involved with that you may not be.
Guitar Hero. I've been a major part of the community for five years, have gotten some of the highest scores on many songs, have competed in and placed well in many tournaments, know a lot about the game's engine, and have provided numerous methods on hitting certain sections and the perfect places to use star power to get the maximum score possible. Just like with the astronomy, you probably don't know too much in this field, but I know more than most about this game series. If I were to tell you that a score of over 992,000 is theoretically possible on Through the Fire and Flames on Guitar Hero 3, would you flat-out tell me that you'll never believe me unless I provide every single piece of evidence that went into this calculation? Or would you probably believe me considering the fact that I've been right many times before and am rarely wrong? This isn't me trying to prove the Earth is flat, this is a fairly reasonable claim, one very similar to claims I've made in the past that I've proven before. You'll probably believe me in the same way that we would probably both believe something that Stephen Hawking said regarding physics and cosmology.
That's all I'm saying. You have someone in some particular field/industry that has proven themselves time and time again that you'll probably believe what they say based on their near-perfect reputation. I wouldn't make a claim about Guitar Hero unless I was sure it was true in the same way that Stephen Hawking wouldn't make a claim about his fields in science unless he was sure it was true in the same way that LordJerith wouldn't make a claim about the competitive gaming industry and the business of competitive gaming unless he was sure it was true. That's all. Again, I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice for him to just reveal his source to everyone to finally silence everyone, but for obvious reasons he can't do that. I'm hoping this is the last analogy I have to make because I really don't know how much clearer I can make this.
|
On February 25 2012 23:16 vVv Brock wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 21:36 Numy wrote:The reason for this is well just stating conclusions doesn't really help anyone. Without having the raw data and methodology of the individual/experiment you can't determine if the conclusions he/she has come up with are in fact in line with what the data is telling you.
I think you should just stop trying to make analogies from fields you don't seem to be involved with. I'm not saying that it isn't proof without the data. Fine last analogy, this time from a field I'm very involved with that you may not be. Guitar Hero. I've been a major part of the community for five years, have gotten some of the highest scores on many songs, have competed in and placed well in many tournaments, know a lot about the game's engine, and have provided numerous methods on hitting certain sections and the perfect places to use star power to get the maximum score possible. Just like with the astronomy, you probably don't know too much in this field, but I know more than most about this game series. If I were to tell you that a score of over 992,000 is theoretically possible on Through the Fire and Flames on Guitar Hero 3, would you flat-out tell me that you'll never believe me unless I provide every single piece of evidence that went into this calculation? Or would you probably believe me considering the fact that I've been right many times before and am rarely wrong? This isn't me trying to prove the Earth is flat, this is a fairly reasonable claim, one very similar to claims I've made in the past that I've proven before. You'll probably believe me in the same way that we would probably both believe something that Stephen Hawking said regarding physics and cosmology. That's all I'm saying. You have someone in some particular field/industry that has proven themselves time and time again that you'll probably believe what they say based on their near-perfect reputation. I wouldn't make a claim about Guitar Hero unless I was sure it was true in the same way that Stephen Hawking wouldn't make a claim about his fields in science unless he was sure it was true in the same way that LordJerith wouldn't make a claim about the competitive gaming industry and the business of competitive gaming unless he was sure it was true. That's all. Again, I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice for him to just reveal his source to everyone to finally silence everyone, but for obvious reasons he can't do that. I'm hoping this is the last analogy I have to make because I really don't know how much clearer I can make this.
I'm sorry, you lost me at guitar hero, does people compete in that?
anyway, vVv and are insects compared to TL, and if you did a bit of research about TL, you would know why.
|
On February 25 2012 23:50 MaYuu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 23:16 vVv Brock wrote:On February 25 2012 21:36 Numy wrote:The reason for this is well just stating conclusions doesn't really help anyone. Without having the raw data and methodology of the individual/experiment you can't determine if the conclusions he/she has come up with are in fact in line with what the data is telling you.
I think you should just stop trying to make analogies from fields you don't seem to be involved with. I'm not saying that it isn't proof without the data. Fine last analogy, this time from a field I'm very involved with that you may not be. Guitar Hero. I've been a major part of the community for five years, have gotten some of the highest scores on many songs, have competed in and placed well in many tournaments, know a lot about the game's engine, and have provided numerous methods on hitting certain sections and the perfect places to use star power to get the maximum score possible. Just like with the astronomy, you probably don't know too much in this field, but I know more than most about this game series. If I were to tell you that a score of over 992,000 is theoretically possible on Through the Fire and Flames on Guitar Hero 3, would you flat-out tell me that you'll never believe me unless I provide every single piece of evidence that went into this calculation? Or would you probably believe me considering the fact that I've been right many times before and am rarely wrong? This isn't me trying to prove the Earth is flat, this is a fairly reasonable claim, one very similar to claims I've made in the past that I've proven before. You'll probably believe me in the same way that we would probably both believe something that Stephen Hawking said regarding physics and cosmology. That's all I'm saying. You have someone in some particular field/industry that has proven themselves time and time again that you'll probably believe what they say based on their near-perfect reputation. I wouldn't make a claim about Guitar Hero unless I was sure it was true in the same way that Stephen Hawking wouldn't make a claim about his fields in science unless he was sure it was true in the same way that LordJerith wouldn't make a claim about the competitive gaming industry and the business of competitive gaming unless he was sure it was true. That's all. Again, I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice for him to just reveal his source to everyone to finally silence everyone, but for obvious reasons he can't do that. I'm hoping this is the last analogy I have to make because I really don't know how much clearer I can make this. I'm sorry, you lost me at guitar hero, does people compete in that? anyway, vVv and are insects compared to TL, and if you did a bit of research about TL, you would know why.
I do know why, and it's certainly not because of your insightful posts.
|
On February 25 2012 23:16 vVv Brock wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 21:36 Numy wrote:The reason for this is well just stating conclusions doesn't really help anyone. Without having the raw data and methodology of the individual/experiment you can't determine if the conclusions he/she has come up with are in fact in line with what the data is telling you.
I think you should just stop trying to make analogies from fields you don't seem to be involved with. I'm not saying that it isn't proof without the data. Fine last analogy, this time from a field I'm very involved with that you may not be. [.....]
I will respect, that you try to defend a teammate/friend, but mate.. You are just wrong. Im not going into Guitar Hero and stuff like that (because its different - you can prove it just by doing math, which you can not in case of Jerith), but i want to remind you when the "general theory of relativity" or "Allgemeine Relativitätstheorie" (dont know if the english wording is correct, im german) was actually was considered true.
It was considered "true", after it was "proven" due to experiments. In the beginning, famous physic-nerds like Lorentz, Poincaré or even Michelson (experimental physicist!) did not believe Einstein.
I remember in the last 2-3 month there was a thread, made by Rekrul. In which he claimed a lot of stuff, and everyone who said "i dont believe that" was smashed with the comment "its Rekrul, he has NEVER been wrong, its the guy with the betting-scandal, blablabla, most reliable source in eSport, yaddayadda" - and iirc, he was not entirely right. He blamed someone who was innocent (well, at least in that special point).
So, if you cant prove that your source is right, stop acting like he is. You dont KNOW it. Im not saying he is lying, he could just very well be wrong. Would not be the first time (-> famous OPERA-Neutrino-Anomaly, which seemed to prove faster-than-light movement), and for sure not the last time.
edit: and btw, its healthy to stay sceptical unless you see proof. Especially if a complete stranger claims something, so whatever reputation you have in GH, i would not believe you. I would (if i actually could be bothered) check your statement, do the math, and then support it - but just based on a statement? Nah.
|
Korea (South)1897 Posts
On February 25 2012 23:16 vVv Brock wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 21:36 Numy wrote:The reason for this is well just stating conclusions doesn't really help anyone. Without having the raw data and methodology of the individual/experiment you can't determine if the conclusions he/she has come up with are in fact in line with what the data is telling you.
I think you should just stop trying to make analogies from fields you don't seem to be involved with. I'm not saying that it isn't proof without the data. Fine last analogy, this time from a field I'm very involved with that you may not be. Guitar Hero. I've been a major part of the community for five years, have gotten some of the highest scores on many songs, have competed in and placed well in many tournaments, know a lot about the game's engine, and have provided numerous methods on hitting certain sections and the perfect places to use star power to get the maximum score possible. Just like with the astronomy, you probably don't know too much in this field, but I know more than most about this game series. If I were to tell you that a score of over 992,000 is theoretically possible on Through the Fire and Flames on Guitar Hero 3, would you flat-out tell me that you'll never believe me unless I provide every single piece of evidence that went into this calculation? Or would you probably believe me considering the fact that I've been right many times before and am rarely wrong? This isn't me trying to prove the Earth is flat, this is a fairly reasonable claim, one very similar to claims I've made in the past that I've proven before. You'll probably believe me in the same way that we would probably both believe something that Stephen Hawking said regarding physics and cosmology. That's all I'm saying. You have someone in some particular field/industry that has proven themselves time and time again that you'll probably believe what they say based on their near-perfect reputation. I wouldn't make a claim about Guitar Hero unless I was sure it was true in the same way that Stephen Hawking wouldn't make a claim about his fields in science unless he was sure it was true in the same way that LordJerith wouldn't make a claim about the competitive gaming industry and the business of competitive gaming unless he was sure it was true. That's all. Again, I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice for him to just reveal his source to everyone to finally silence everyone, but for obvious reasons he can't do that. I'm hoping this is the last analogy I have to make because I really don't know how much clearer I can make this.
I think you could have made it clearer by not trying to associate someone's good reputation that you have found to be quite reliable through your experience and their actions to that of a scientist who actually has based their work on other such work that has gone through a great deal of rigorous testing/confirmation. These are two entirely different types of approaches for different purposes.
The simple point is that you trust this guy, he has a great reputation, hasn't let you down and you know him as a stand up guy. For you, his word is like fact. So you have no reason to believe he would lie or that he would be dumb enough to think that he was lied to or pass on information that he thought was false. And you base that on that he hasn't done it in the past, he has always been on the mark, and he has earned your trust. But you really can't take that justification farther than just yourself.
I mean Aristotle has such a great reputation that most of the western world took his word on most things including that of his understanding of motion (feather/rock different dropping speeds). But of course, the methodology in science disproved that observation.
Where the lack of clarity kicks in is that you are trying to justify your position has more weight and significance more than just a personal testimony.
You don't need to 'clarify further', we get it, you think the world of this guy and he's never let you down. But you're fine not knowing his sources,even justifying his actions, and you're fine to accept his word as just his word, and that is great that you have such faith in your friend, but when you boil it down, it simply is just another opinion in this context.
|
If you look in the tv guide there is no difference between how ppv or f2a (free to air) channels are handled by the magazine. The tl calender is the counterpart to a tv guide so i see no difference why ppv should be treated differently. So TL is going against scheduled tv tradition.
|
On February 26 2012 00:06 natebreen wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 25 2012 23:50 MaYuu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 23:16 vVv Brock wrote:On February 25 2012 21:36 Numy wrote:The reason for this is well just stating conclusions doesn't really help anyone. Without having the raw data and methodology of the individual/experiment you can't determine if the conclusions he/she has come up with are in fact in line with what the data is telling you.
I think you should just stop trying to make analogies from fields you don't seem to be involved with. I'm not saying that it isn't proof without the data. Fine last analogy, this time from a field I'm very involved with that you may not be. Guitar Hero. I've been a major part of the community for five years, have gotten some of the highest scores on many songs, have competed in and placed well in many tournaments, know a lot about the game's engine, and have provided numerous methods on hitting certain sections and the perfect places to use star power to get the maximum score possible. Just like with the astronomy, you probably don't know too much in this field, but I know more than most about this game series. If I were to tell you that a score of over 992,000 is theoretically possible on Through the Fire and Flames on Guitar Hero 3, would you flat-out tell me that you'll never believe me unless I provide every single piece of evidence that went into this calculation? Or would you probably believe me considering the fact that I've been right many times before and am rarely wrong? This isn't me trying to prove the Earth is flat, this is a fairly reasonable claim, one very similar to claims I've made in the past that I've proven before. You'll probably believe me in the same way that we would probably both believe something that Stephen Hawking said regarding physics and cosmology. That's all I'm saying. You have someone in some particular field/industry that has proven themselves time and time again that you'll probably believe what they say based on their near-perfect reputation. I wouldn't make a claim about Guitar Hero unless I was sure it was true in the same way that Stephen Hawking wouldn't make a claim about his fields in science unless he was sure it was true in the same way that LordJerith wouldn't make a claim about the competitive gaming industry and the business of competitive gaming unless he was sure it was true. That's all. Again, I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice for him to just reveal his source to everyone to finally silence everyone, but for obvious reasons he can't do that. I'm hoping this is the last analogy I have to make because I really don't know how much clearer I can make this. I'm sorry, you lost me at guitar hero, does people compete in that? anyway, vVv and are insects compared to TL, and if you did a bit of research about TL, you would know why. I do know why, and it's certainly not because of your insightful posts.
I never stated that I was the top of the crop here at TL, but even so, it's easy to spot.
|
|
|
I think this is very sensible and approve wholeheartedly. Nice one TL.
|
TL could actualy do something about these massive amount of MLG promotion threads
|
Sorry I think there is some great misunderstanding. I didn't pay, did noting and I can watch everything what is streamed on Arena Central stream, yesterday and today. And that was bunch of good games, pretty much like watching free stream on any GSL event, even better I have 720p and I will be able to watch vods within week, so why it wasn't featured on TL?
|
On February 27 2012 08:51 Delial wrote:
Sorry I think there is some great misunderstanding. I didn't pay, did noting and I can watch everything what is streamed on Arena Central stream, yesterday and today. And that was bunch of good games, pretty much like watching free stream on any GSL event, even better I have 720p and I will be able to watch vods within week, so why it wasn't featured on TL?
Gz. I paid and didn't get to watch. The stream, when it was 'working' was choppy. The only one of the 4 that actually worked was DRG's POV for the last 60+ minutes.
|
Oh just checked bank account. No recorded transaction for last night, so I suppose I got ~5 hours, plus the finals from DRG POV for free. I can not fathom what happened. I watched for free for a time, then it shut down, then I paid the 20 $ and then went on watching for several hours. Tonight things were all choppy and wonky, and then my bank account doesn't have a record of payment. WTF.
|
I support TL's decision cause the PPV motion but after hearing all this talk about TL asking for a huge amount of money I'd like to hear some more information from TL.
|
On February 27 2012 10:23 Kontys wrote:
Oh just checked bank account. No recorded transaction for last night, so I suppose I got ~5 hours, plus the finals from DRG POV for free. I can not fathom what happened. I watched for free for a time, then it shut down, then I paid the 20 $ and then went on watching for several hours. Tonight things were all choppy and wonky, and then my bank account doesn't have a record of payment. WTF.
Check your email. If they charged you then you would have been sent an invoice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
