|
On October 29 2013 05:27 Aeceus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 05:21 niteReloaded wrote:
Diego Costa.... top 5 strikers in Europe right now. Just no....
I rate him highly, and he's the leading scorer of La Liga with 11 goals this season.
Top 5 or not is not easily decidable, but I don't get how you can so easily discard him.
|
On October 29 2013 05:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 05:46 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:33 awesomoecalypse wrote:On October 29 2013 05:30 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 05:23 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:16 awesomoecalypse wrote:revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason. Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing. my response this argument in a previous post: no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives. i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way. and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time. He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival. No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance. except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters? And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters. if you read my posts then surely you can point to a more specific part of my argument you don't understand. saying "i don't get it" doesn't help me. what do you want me to do? re-write everything i already wrote? speak a different language?
not trying to be rude but i don't understand how to reply to posts where people basically say things like "no. you're wrong and dumb. you're trolling. you must hate naniwa". what does a guy have to do to get the benefit of the doubt around here?
edit: on a side note, i don't know whether to be impressed or embarrassed with myself for the fact that my posts are so substantive people who come into this thread think i'm not the only one arguing my position. lol
|
Huge LOL at all the people who complain about it.
Way to go Naniwa !!!
|
On October 29 2013 05:43 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:
To be clear, I think you and I are having a fine conversation about an interesting topic, and I hope this experience is as positive for you as it is for me. by all means i think you're far and away the most respectful and pleasant person i'm talking to in this thread Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:I think the mafia example is just fine as an example, I just don't believe it shows what you want it to. I take your point to be that some kinds of motivating other players should just be off the table and unacceptable. I agree; doing things that would be, independently of the circumstance and structure, unacceptable would still be unacceptable ways of motivating opponents. That's what happening in the mafia example; they're doing a bad thing, and that thing is still bad when it's used to motivate players. It's not bad because it's being used to motivate players; motivating players is entirely independent of why it's bad. well, of course. that's what it comes down to. my value judgments of what's "bad" against yours. i've been trying to lay out why i think it's bad in a few different ways. i think it makes the tournament less interesting because it's no longer about passion for competing at a skillful pursuit. some people think this is more interesting - i don't quite understand why, but i don't object to their right to feel that way. i also theorized that it's bad for blizzard. a few people have argued against it by saying that it's commonplace in other sports. they may be right or wrong, no one has really given me a good link or source, but even if they did it wouldn't properly be proof because you can succeed based on the popularity of a sport even if "bad" things happen. MLB is pretty widely maligned for the way they handle rules and league structuring, but it's still popular because people like baseball. that doesn't mean they're doing everything right. but i digress Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:This is a case where Naniwa is paying somebody. Naniwa has legitimately won a lot of money, and looks to win more; his paying people is totally fine. He's not undercutting the sport or making the game worse for the viewers by promising to pay somebody.
I would think that the way to maintain the primacy of the talent, skill and performance of the players is to have maximally motivated players. Blizz is in kind of a bad spot with respect to WCS; they want to change things but that will screw up the structure already in place. It would be better if challenger league participants had more motivation than they currently do. Naniwa, for self-interested reasons, is giving some of those participants more motivation. Yay, I say. The games will be better for it. i just think that if there really is an issue with player motivation (and i don't necessarily think there is), it's blizzard's responsibility, not naniwa's. naniwa has a clear personal interest in what he's doing, otherwise he would just be offering money to challenger players regardless of how it affects him. probably the biggest reason i take issue with the "it's increasing motivation" argument is because naniwa offering money to people who beat his rivals isn't a consistent or reliable source of motivation. naniwa is doing it for naniwa. in the future, if he has nothing to gain, the status quo returns. so even if it were ethically/professionally acceptable, it's not a solution to anything, and i don't think it benefits anyone but naniwa (and his co-conspirator)
Sure, it would be better if it were reliable and consistent. I definitely agree with that. But the reason it'd be good if it were reliable and consistent is that it would increase a lot of players' motivation. Unfortunately, the world is not so great. It's still a little great, though, in that he's doing it in this one spot.
If Joe saved a kid from drowning because if the kid drowned, all the police would delay him from getting to a meeting, that would be not nearly as good as if Joe did it because saving kids is great. That way, he'd save more kids! this way, he probably won't save more kids.
But he still saved a kid, and that's a good thing. Similarly, Naniwa might not motivate all the challenger players the way that would be best, but he still motivated some of them. It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.
|
To the people saying that as professionals "they should already be trying to beat Revival". Just no. It's pretty basic psychology. Starcraft is a very demanding game to play at the top levels. If there's no real incentive to win there is just no way a human will reach within and bring out everything they've got to perform at their best. It's very exhausting. Even if they consciously say to themselves that they'll do their best. There's no way every part of their subconscious will be.
Also. Will you really be spending hours going through replays of Revival, concocting counter-builds and planning for the games if there's no real inscentive to do so. I wouldn't think so.
|
On October 29 2013 05:53 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 05:51 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 05:46 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:33 awesomoecalypse wrote:On October 29 2013 05:30 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 05:23 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:16 awesomoecalypse wrote:revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason. Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing. my response this argument in a previous post: no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives. i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way. and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time. He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival. No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance. except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters? And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters. if you read my posts then surely you can point to a more specific part of my argument you don't understand. saying "i don't get it" doesn't help me. what do you want me to do? re-write everything i already wrote? speak a different language? not trying to be rude but i don't understand how to reply to posts where people basically say things like "no. you're wrong and dumb. you're trolling. you must hate naniwa". what does a guy have to do to get the benefit of the doubt around here?
No, I think you should answer my questions. Why is this bad? Will it negatively impact the match? How will is cause the match to be unfair? Beyond some weird ethical argument that players shouldn't be offering money to win games, how is this going to make anything worse in any way that is measurable?
|
hahaha cool. But despite how much I like Nani ... I must stick to my blind Revival fangirlism.
|
People who hate on Naniwa for giving Revivals opponents incentive to play their best would probably hate on him if he donated money to cheerity as well. They would complain about him buying himself a better public image and that it's unfair since not everyone got money to do so.
I think this is awesome and really hope and believe Naniwa will stick to his offer if someone actually beats Revival. If he doesn't then people can hate on him for a good reason.
|
naniwa gets it. Naniwa for life <3
|
we should do a fundraiser to increase the bounty
|
|
|
On October 29 2013 05:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 05:53 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:51 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 05:46 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:33 awesomoecalypse wrote:On October 29 2013 05:30 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 05:23 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:16 awesomoecalypse wrote:revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason. Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing. my response this argument in a previous post: no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives. i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way. and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time. He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival. No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance. except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters? And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters. if you read my posts then surely you can point to a more specific part of my argument you don't understand. saying "i don't get it" doesn't help me. what do you want me to do? re-write everything i already wrote? speak a different language? not trying to be rude but i don't understand how to reply to posts where people basically say things like "no. you're wrong and dumb. you're trolling. you must hate naniwa". what does a guy have to do to get the benefit of the doubt around here? No, I think you should answer my questions. Why is this bad? Will it negatively impact the match? How will is cause the match to be unfair? Beyond some weird ethical argument that players shouldn't be offering money to win games, how is this going to make anything worse in any way that is measurable?
The first time he answered this he talked about maphacking. I can't wait for his next response to this question 
|
On October 29 2013 05:56 InvictusRage wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 05:43 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:
To be clear, I think you and I are having a fine conversation about an interesting topic, and I hope this experience is as positive for you as it is for me. by all means i think you're far and away the most respectful and pleasant person i'm talking to in this thread On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:I think the mafia example is just fine as an example, I just don't believe it shows what you want it to. I take your point to be that some kinds of motivating other players should just be off the table and unacceptable. I agree; doing things that would be, independently of the circumstance and structure, unacceptable would still be unacceptable ways of motivating opponents. That's what happening in the mafia example; they're doing a bad thing, and that thing is still bad when it's used to motivate players. It's not bad because it's being used to motivate players; motivating players is entirely independent of why it's bad. well, of course. that's what it comes down to. my value judgments of what's "bad" against yours. i've been trying to lay out why i think it's bad in a few different ways. i think it makes the tournament less interesting because it's no longer about passion for competing at a skillful pursuit. some people think this is more interesting - i don't quite understand why, but i don't object to their right to feel that way. i also theorized that it's bad for blizzard. a few people have argued against it by saying that it's commonplace in other sports. they may be right or wrong, no one has really given me a good link or source, but even if they did it wouldn't properly be proof because you can succeed based on the popularity of a sport even if "bad" things happen. MLB is pretty widely maligned for the way they handle rules and league structuring, but it's still popular because people like baseball. that doesn't mean they're doing everything right. but i digress On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:This is a case where Naniwa is paying somebody. Naniwa has legitimately won a lot of money, and looks to win more; his paying people is totally fine. He's not undercutting the sport or making the game worse for the viewers by promising to pay somebody.
I would think that the way to maintain the primacy of the talent, skill and performance of the players is to have maximally motivated players. Blizz is in kind of a bad spot with respect to WCS; they want to change things but that will screw up the structure already in place. It would be better if challenger league participants had more motivation than they currently do. Naniwa, for self-interested reasons, is giving some of those participants more motivation. Yay, I say. The games will be better for it. i just think that if there really is an issue with player motivation (and i don't necessarily think there is), it's blizzard's responsibility, not naniwa's. naniwa has a clear personal interest in what he's doing, otherwise he would just be offering money to challenger players regardless of how it affects him. probably the biggest reason i take issue with the "it's increasing motivation" argument is because naniwa offering money to people who beat his rivals isn't a consistent or reliable source of motivation. naniwa is doing it for naniwa. in the future, if he has nothing to gain, the status quo returns. so even if it were ethically/professionally acceptable, it's not a solution to anything, and i don't think it benefits anyone but naniwa (and his co-conspirator) Sure, it would be better if it were reliable and consistent. I definitely agree with that. But the reason it'd be good if it were reliable and consistent is that it would increase a lot of players' motivation. Unfortunately, the world is not so great. It's still a little great, though, in that he's doing it in this one spot. If Joe saved a kid from drowning because if the kid drowned, all the police would delay him from getting to a meeting, that would be not nearly as good as if Joe did it because saving kids is great. That way, he'd save more kids! this way, he probably won't save more kids. But he still saved a kid, and that's a good thing. Similarly, Naniwa might not motivate all the challenger players the way that would be best, but he still motivated some of them. It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative. i don't think you can discount his motivation. yes, joe saved the kid, but if you know the only reason he did was because the kid had rich parents who would reward him, and that he WOULDN'T save a kid without rich parents you would (i hope) still react to that with disgust. i would say "gee, i don't want to be joe's friend. i sure wouldn't trust joe." and in this situation i would be saying "gee, i don't like the way naniwa is gaming the system. i don't respect this tournament or find it exciting anymore"
i'm having fun with the analogy game btw!
|
On October 29 2013 05:53 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 05:51 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 05:46 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:33 awesomoecalypse wrote:On October 29 2013 05:30 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 05:23 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:16 awesomoecalypse wrote:revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason. Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing. my response this argument in a previous post: no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives. i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way. and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time. He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival. No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance. except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters? And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters. if you read my posts then surely you can point to a more specific part of my argument you don't understand. saying "i don't get it" doesn't help me. what do you want me to do? re-write everything i already wrote? speak a different language? not trying to be rude but i don't understand how to reply to posts where people basically say things like "no. you're wrong and dumb. you're trolling. you must hate naniwa". what does a guy have to do to get the benefit of the doubt around here?
You're representing a point of view that's not very obvious, and most people aren't interested in true communication.
If you expect everyone to understand you, you'll get disappointed.
|
I only like it if he delivers. If not it's just mediocre joke.
|
On October 29 2013 05:53 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 05:51 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 05:46 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:33 awesomoecalypse wrote:On October 29 2013 05:30 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 05:23 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:16 awesomoecalypse wrote:revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason. Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing. my response this argument in a previous post: no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives. i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way. and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time. He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival. No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance. except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters? And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters. if you read my posts then surely you can point to a more specific part of my argument you don't understand. saying "i don't get it" doesn't help me. what do you want me to do? re-write everything i already wrote? speak a different language? not trying to be rude but i don't understand how to reply to posts where people basically say things like "no. you're wrong and dumb. you're trolling. you must hate naniwa". what does a guy have to do to get the benefit of the doubt around here? edit: on a side note, i don't know whether to be impressed or embarrassed with myself for the fact that my posts are so substantive people who come into this thread think i'm not the only one arguing my position. lol
Because your posts make no sense.
If I am arguing that earth is round and you come and say : roses are blue. What can I say to that other than : Your argument makes no sense.
|
On October 29 2013 05:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 05:53 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:51 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 05:46 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:33 awesomoecalypse wrote:On October 29 2013 05:30 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 05:23 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:16 awesomoecalypse wrote:revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason. Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing. my response this argument in a previous post: no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives. i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way. and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time. He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival. No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance. except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters? And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters. if you read my posts then surely you can point to a more specific part of my argument you don't understand. saying "i don't get it" doesn't help me. what do you want me to do? re-write everything i already wrote? speak a different language? not trying to be rude but i don't understand how to reply to posts where people basically say things like "no. you're wrong and dumb. you're trolling. you must hate naniwa". what does a guy have to do to get the benefit of the doubt around here? No, I think you should answer my questions. Why is this bad? Will it negatively impact the match? How will is cause the match to be unfair? Beyond some weird ethical argument that players shouldn't be offering money to win games, how is this going to make anything worse in any way that is measurable?
i have made multiple posts which directly address your questions. i would go back and re-quote them if not for the fact that you specifically claimed to have read all of them.
i mean, come on, man. people have asked me questions more specific than yours and i gave them detailed answers. tell me what's wrong with my answers or i don't see why i owe you any better ones
|
On October 29 2013 06:01 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 05:56 InvictusRage wrote:On October 29 2013 05:43 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:
To be clear, I think you and I are having a fine conversation about an interesting topic, and I hope this experience is as positive for you as it is for me. by all means i think you're far and away the most respectful and pleasant person i'm talking to in this thread On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:I think the mafia example is just fine as an example, I just don't believe it shows what you want it to. I take your point to be that some kinds of motivating other players should just be off the table and unacceptable. I agree; doing things that would be, independently of the circumstance and structure, unacceptable would still be unacceptable ways of motivating opponents. That's what happening in the mafia example; they're doing a bad thing, and that thing is still bad when it's used to motivate players. It's not bad because it's being used to motivate players; motivating players is entirely independent of why it's bad. well, of course. that's what it comes down to. my value judgments of what's "bad" against yours. i've been trying to lay out why i think it's bad in a few different ways. i think it makes the tournament less interesting because it's no longer about passion for competing at a skillful pursuit. some people think this is more interesting - i don't quite understand why, but i don't object to their right to feel that way. i also theorized that it's bad for blizzard. a few people have argued against it by saying that it's commonplace in other sports. they may be right or wrong, no one has really given me a good link or source, but even if they did it wouldn't properly be proof because you can succeed based on the popularity of a sport even if "bad" things happen. MLB is pretty widely maligned for the way they handle rules and league structuring, but it's still popular because people like baseball. that doesn't mean they're doing everything right. but i digress On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:This is a case where Naniwa is paying somebody. Naniwa has legitimately won a lot of money, and looks to win more; his paying people is totally fine. He's not undercutting the sport or making the game worse for the viewers by promising to pay somebody.
I would think that the way to maintain the primacy of the talent, skill and performance of the players is to have maximally motivated players. Blizz is in kind of a bad spot with respect to WCS; they want to change things but that will screw up the structure already in place. It would be better if challenger league participants had more motivation than they currently do. Naniwa, for self-interested reasons, is giving some of those participants more motivation. Yay, I say. The games will be better for it. i just think that if there really is an issue with player motivation (and i don't necessarily think there is), it's blizzard's responsibility, not naniwa's. naniwa has a clear personal interest in what he's doing, otherwise he would just be offering money to challenger players regardless of how it affects him. probably the biggest reason i take issue with the "it's increasing motivation" argument is because naniwa offering money to people who beat his rivals isn't a consistent or reliable source of motivation. naniwa is doing it for naniwa. in the future, if he has nothing to gain, the status quo returns. so even if it were ethically/professionally acceptable, it's not a solution to anything, and i don't think it benefits anyone but naniwa (and his co-conspirator) Sure, it would be better if it were reliable and consistent. I definitely agree with that. But the reason it'd be good if it were reliable and consistent is that it would increase a lot of players' motivation. Unfortunately, the world is not so great. It's still a little great, though, in that he's doing it in this one spot. If Joe saved a kid from drowning because if the kid drowned, all the police would delay him from getting to a meeting, that would be not nearly as good as if Joe did it because saving kids is great. That way, he'd save more kids! this way, he probably won't save more kids. But he still saved a kid, and that's a good thing. Similarly, Naniwa might not motivate all the challenger players the way that would be best, but he still motivated some of them. It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative. i don't think you can discount his motivation. yes, joe saved the kid, but if you know the only reason he did was because the kid had rich parents who would reward him, and that he WOULDN'T save a kid without rich parents you would (i hope) still react to that with disgust. i would say "gee, i don't want to be joe's friend. i sure wouldn't trust joe." and in this situation i would be saying "gee, i don't like the way naniwa is gaming the system. i don't respect this tournament or find it exciting anymore" i'm having fun with the analogy game btw!
You don't like people saving kids is all I read from that.
People save others for all sorts of reasons. Moral obligation, they know the person, they know people similar to that person, there is physical rewards, there are spiritual rewards, there are intellectual rewards.
If a cop saves your life, is it because he's paid to save your life or because he wants to save your life--or maybe it doesn't matter? Maybe what matters is that at the moment of danger, someone out there was willing to save your life and trying to place qualitative distinctions in actions that produce equal results simply reveals who you are as a person and not who those people are for being life savers.
|
On October 29 2013 06:01 niteReloaded wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 05:53 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:51 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 05:46 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:33 awesomoecalypse wrote:On October 29 2013 05:30 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 05:23 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:16 awesomoecalypse wrote:revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason. Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing. my response this argument in a previous post: no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives. i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way. and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time. He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival. No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance. except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters? And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters. if you read my posts then surely you can point to a more specific part of my argument you don't understand. saying "i don't get it" doesn't help me. what do you want me to do? re-write everything i already wrote? speak a different language? not trying to be rude but i don't understand how to reply to posts where people basically say things like "no. you're wrong and dumb. you're trolling. you must hate naniwa". what does a guy have to do to get the benefit of the doubt around here? You're representing a point of view that's not very obvious, and most people aren't interested in true communication. If you expect everyone to understand you, you'll get disappointed.
well, yes. i do realize that. it's not that i expect people to understand me right away, but i do expect people to at least try to listen to me if they want me to chat with them.
On October 29 2013 06:03 mcc wrote:
Because your posts make no sense.
If I am arguing that earth is round and you come and say : roses are blue. What can I say to that other than : Your argument makes no sense.
OK.
|
On October 29 2013 06:01 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 05:56 InvictusRage wrote:On October 29 2013 05:43 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:
To be clear, I think you and I are having a fine conversation about an interesting topic, and I hope this experience is as positive for you as it is for me. by all means i think you're far and away the most respectful and pleasant person i'm talking to in this thread On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:I think the mafia example is just fine as an example, I just don't believe it shows what you want it to. I take your point to be that some kinds of motivating other players should just be off the table and unacceptable. I agree; doing things that would be, independently of the circumstance and structure, unacceptable would still be unacceptable ways of motivating opponents. That's what happening in the mafia example; they're doing a bad thing, and that thing is still bad when it's used to motivate players. It's not bad because it's being used to motivate players; motivating players is entirely independent of why it's bad. well, of course. that's what it comes down to. my value judgments of what's "bad" against yours. i've been trying to lay out why i think it's bad in a few different ways. i think it makes the tournament less interesting because it's no longer about passion for competing at a skillful pursuit. some people think this is more interesting - i don't quite understand why, but i don't object to their right to feel that way. i also theorized that it's bad for blizzard. a few people have argued against it by saying that it's commonplace in other sports. they may be right or wrong, no one has really given me a good link or source, but even if they did it wouldn't properly be proof because you can succeed based on the popularity of a sport even if "bad" things happen. MLB is pretty widely maligned for the way they handle rules and league structuring, but it's still popular because people like baseball. that doesn't mean they're doing everything right. but i digress On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:This is a case where Naniwa is paying somebody. Naniwa has legitimately won a lot of money, and looks to win more; his paying people is totally fine. He's not undercutting the sport or making the game worse for the viewers by promising to pay somebody.
I would think that the way to maintain the primacy of the talent, skill and performance of the players is to have maximally motivated players. Blizz is in kind of a bad spot with respect to WCS; they want to change things but that will screw up the structure already in place. It would be better if challenger league participants had more motivation than they currently do. Naniwa, for self-interested reasons, is giving some of those participants more motivation. Yay, I say. The games will be better for it. i just think that if there really is an issue with player motivation (and i don't necessarily think there is), it's blizzard's responsibility, not naniwa's. naniwa has a clear personal interest in what he's doing, otherwise he would just be offering money to challenger players regardless of how it affects him. probably the biggest reason i take issue with the "it's increasing motivation" argument is because naniwa offering money to people who beat his rivals isn't a consistent or reliable source of motivation. naniwa is doing it for naniwa. in the future, if he has nothing to gain, the status quo returns. so even if it were ethically/professionally acceptable, it's not a solution to anything, and i don't think it benefits anyone but naniwa (and his co-conspirator) Sure, it would be better if it were reliable and consistent. I definitely agree with that. But the reason it'd be good if it were reliable and consistent is that it would increase a lot of players' motivation. Unfortunately, the world is not so great. It's still a little great, though, in that he's doing it in this one spot. If Joe saved a kid from drowning because if the kid drowned, all the police would delay him from getting to a meeting, that would be not nearly as good as if Joe did it because saving kids is great. That way, he'd save more kids! this way, he probably won't save more kids. But he still saved a kid, and that's a good thing. Similarly, Naniwa might not motivate all the challenger players the way that would be best, but he still motivated some of them. It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative. i don't think you can discount his motivation. yes, joe saved the kid, but if you know the only reason he did was because the kid had rich parents who would reward him, and that he WOULDN'T save a kid without rich parents you would (i hope) still react to that with disgust. i would say "gee, i don't want to be joe's friend. i sure wouldn't trust joe." and in this situation i would be saying "gee, i don't like the way naniwa is gaming the system. i don't respect this tournament or find it exciting anymore" i'm having fun with the analogy game btw!
Right! you'd say "I dunno, guys, Joe might be an awful person," but you wouldn't say that he'd done something bad, or that people shouldn't do what he did, or that there should be a rule against saving kids. I might react with disgust to the person, but the action is pretty awesome (he saved a kid!).
I don't know why you move from 'I wouldn't trust Joe' to 'Naniwa is gaming the system'. The second one seems to be a claim that Naniwa did a bad thing, whereas the first one says that Joe is a bad person.
And if you're willing to grant that Naniwa did a good thing for bad reasons, then I'm perfectly happy with the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
