|
Bring me solo and the wookie
|
On October 29 2013 06:07 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 06:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 29 2013 06:01 Waise wrote: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. it matters to my personal subjective valuation of their scruples and worthiness of trust and friendship. it's a subjective valuation, just like my subjective valuation of what's "good" and "bad" for blizzard to accept in their tournaments. that's literally the only point i was making. to be honest i think you're getting a little metaphysical for the scope of this discussion.
It was your example.
You didn't like Joe saving a kids life because he might be paid.
Which is a silly argument since it doesn't matter *why* people save each other's lives.
I countered by saying.
Police are paid to save your life, do you hate them saving lives as well?
To show that just because Joe might get paid for doing something good, it doesn't mean the action isn't good. And if that incentive is what is needed to make people do good things, then that is a good incentive.
You are literally arguing that since Joe likes money he shouldn't save the child because saving children/good things is less important to you than Joe's intentions.
|
On October 29 2013 06:25 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 06:22 AlternativeEgo wrote:On October 28 2013 08:08 Waise wrote:
i would pay $5,000 to see Naniwa BM and ragequit at the global grand finals Hehe  (from the recent WCS finals thread) How deliciously ironic
haha, that is pretty hilarious. i forgot i had posted that joke
but yeah, doesn't really affect the debate outside of being ironic and funny
|
On October 29 2013 06:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
You didn't like Joe saving a kids life because he might be paid.
i didn't say this. i said i wouldn't respect a person who saved a life which he would not have otherwise saved if there were no financial incentive
that's probably the source of your confusion
|
On October 29 2013 06:26 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 06:22 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 06:17 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 06:07 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 06:03 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:57 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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 I read your posts and they were not clear enough for me to get a good idea why this would be bad. I need you to nail it down for me. How will the offer of $500 going to negatively impact Revivals matchs? How is it a bad thing? I need clear reasons, not analogies. i have this feeling that you're eventually going to say something along the lines of "oh - you're just posting your own personal opinions, that doesn't count for anything". because you seem to be going in this weird direction of asking me for scientific or objective "proof" of thinking a thing is bad. i just think it's bad. i posted the reasons why i don't like it and why it rubs me the wrong way and why i prefer for it to be different. if you're OK with them being my ~personal subjective opinions~ then after this post i will make another effort at explaining myself, even though i'm honestly going to be re-typing things i already typed. if you're looking for something other than my feelings and opinions, you can just drop it, because that's the basis of the discussion So you have no reason to believe that this will have any negative impact on the matches or players? You just don't like it personally for no real reason beyond the fact that it runs you the wrong way? Just because you think it's "wrong"? yep. have a problem with that? don't reply  it's a negative impact in my opinion because i think it makes the tournament less credible, less interesting and less fun. if you disagree, good for you. i will not stand in your way for disagreeing, and you can post any counter-arguments you wish. but if you don't like the fact that i'm posting my subjective opinions in a thread about the subject, i suggest you cope.
But what is unfun about players possibly playing better?
How is credibility lost when the prizepool increases by $500?
No one is being asked to do something they aren't already doing. The prizepool for some players are simply $500 higher than normal--that's it. How is it less legitimate? How is it less credible? You haven't answered any of those questions other than because you yourself deem it so.
|
On October 29 2013 06:24 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 06:18 InvictusRage wrote:On October 29 2013 06:12 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 06:06 InvictusRage wrote:On October 29 2013 06:01 Waise wrote: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. we're getting really abstract here. you're talking about the "good" value of any player being more motivated to play at a high level, but i'm weighing that against the "bad" value i see in the competitive system being corrupted by financial backdealing. that was where i was going with the mafia analogy. the "good" value is there, but it's separate from what i'm taking issue with. i don't agree with allowing players to financially incentivize each other, i think it's a form of bribery. even if a player gets motivated because of bribery and that's "good," it doesn't whitewash the other details of the situation for me and for clarity, i don't think naniwa is "doing a bad thing." i think he's doing a selfish and morally neutral thing, and it would be bad for blizzard to tolerate it. Well, I tend to deal in the abstract a lot. I guess I don't agree that this kind of financial dealing is problematic. Lots of financial backdealings are problematic, but this isn't one of them. I see that you do think it's problematic, but I don't know why you think it's problematic. I distinguish which ones are good from which ones are bad by looking at what they'll do, whether they'll incentivize players to try harder (good!), whether they'll incentivize players to explicitly cheat by maphacking, etc (bad!). How do you tell what kinds of financial dealings are bad? because i think it sets a precedent for competitions of skill to be dictated by cash more than they already are. money already helps people compete in lots of ways - if you can afford good equipment, good education, free time to practice and play, etc., you have an edge in that regard. i think that's unfortunate, but unavoidable. players going in on rogue "alliances" to benefit themselves in exchange for absolutely nothing but hard cash is something i think is completely avoidable. all blizzard has to do is say "no, you can't do that." he could still try to do it secretly, but what are you going to do about that? people overstep boundaries secretly, and you can't stop everyone, but you still at least punish those who are caught or try to prevent them from continuing if you want to make money with your business sense and financial dealings, go into business. start a company. invest in some stocks. i just happen to think a game tournament should be about who's the best at the game. because the less it's about that, the less significance i think the result has. it's subjective and slightly idealistic, but it's my viewpoint
It seems like this is what teams are, though: players getting together to advantage themselves in exchange for cash. Take Root; it's even players owning that one.
But also, I don't see how it's setting a precedent for competitions of skill to be dictated by cash more than they already are. Rather: how has Naniwa's actions decreased the amount that challenger league group is about the skill of the competitors? If Revival is better than his opponents, he will beat them anyway. The only way this changes things is if Revival would lose if his opponents had a good reason to practice, but would win if his opponents had no reason. But that situation sucks! If the situation really is that JonSnow (say) would beat Revival if he had a good reason to, and it just so happens that things are currently constructed so that he has no good reason, why do we want to keep that current situation?
|
United States23455 Posts
I realize that Naniwa is probably joking, but it is a little sketchy to do that haha. Plus, if I was playing Revival I would know Naniwa gets 5k with no wins if I beat Revival and I'd ask for a bit more  .
All joking aside, I don't really like this.
|
On October 29 2013 06:31 Darkhoarse wrote:I realize that Naniwa is probably joking, but it is a little sketchy to do that haha. Plus, if I was playing Revival I would know Naniwa gets 5k with no wins if I beat Revival and I'd ask for a bit more . All joking aside, I don't really like this.
Why? Giving players additional incentive to play good is not so bad, is it?
If he would pay Revival to lose though, that's another matter.
|
On October 29 2013 06:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 06:26 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 06:22 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 06:17 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 06:07 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 06:03 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:57 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 05:53 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:51 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 05:46 Waise wrote:
[quote]
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 I read your posts and they were not clear enough for me to get a good idea why this would be bad. I need you to nail it down for me. How will the offer of $500 going to negatively impact Revivals matchs? How is it a bad thing? I need clear reasons, not analogies. i have this feeling that you're eventually going to say something along the lines of "oh - you're just posting your own personal opinions, that doesn't count for anything". because you seem to be going in this weird direction of asking me for scientific or objective "proof" of thinking a thing is bad. i just think it's bad. i posted the reasons why i don't like it and why it rubs me the wrong way and why i prefer for it to be different. if you're OK with them being my ~personal subjective opinions~ then after this post i will make another effort at explaining myself, even though i'm honestly going to be re-typing things i already typed. if you're looking for something other than my feelings and opinions, you can just drop it, because that's the basis of the discussion So you have no reason to believe that this will have any negative impact on the matches or players? You just don't like it personally for no real reason beyond the fact that it runs you the wrong way? Just because you think it's "wrong"? yep. have a problem with that? don't reply it's a negative impact in my opinion because i think it makes the tournament less credible, less interesting and less fun. if you disagree, good for you. i will not stand in your way for disagreeing, and you can post any counter-arguments you wish. but if you don't like the fact that i'm posting my subjective opinions in a thread about the subject, i suggest you cope. But what is unfun about players possibly playing better? How is credibility lost when the prizepool increases by $500? No one is being asked to do something they aren't already doing. The prizepool for some players are simply $500 higher than normal--that's it. How is it less legitimate? How is it less credible? You haven't answered any of those questions other than because you yourself deem it so.
it's unfun because i no longer identify with the players' drive to succeed and show high performance for the sake of good-spirited competition. in that scenario i see the players "motivation"/performance as a result of a cash agreement, nothing more. that doesn't excite me. someone winning at SC2 because they like gaming and they want to be the best is exciting.
and yeah. i have answered those questions. and i have posted this exact point before.
one more time for good measure:
i think all measures possible should be taken to maximize the effect of a player's skill, talent and dedication to the sport and minimize all other effects. naniwa injecting cash is an effect which has nothing to do with any other player's skill or desire to win, therefore it's something i don't think belongs in a proper competitive setting
(have already posted this multiple times. probably will have to again)
|
Everyone (well, nearly everyone) agrees that the WCS system as it stands is broken; instead of groups where every player is motivated to try hard, you have Revival, who has *every* reason to play his heart out (the chance at the big stage and big cash) with other players who not only DO NOT have a reason to play hard, but are actually disincentivized/discouraged from doing so.
Imagine that you just made a breakthrough in micro, or came up with a new build order. Perhaps you just really studied your opponent and found a flaw in their play-style. You can either reveal these tricks in a match that CANNOT lead to money (and give you opponents time to analyze it and come up with counters and adaptations), or you can hold it as a trump card for an "important" match.
At the moment, since revival is the only one fighting for something, it's simple game theory that the other players may well hold back their "best game."
This is a major flaw in the current system. Naniwa is not "bribing" anyone, as these players would simply be living up to what the community and their teams ostensibly expect them to do (try their best). Additionally, while you can "choose" to lose (throw a game), you cannot "choose" to win; merely to play your best and hope it's enough. Revival still has a say in it : )
Incentive should be at the heart of EVERY game, for EVERY player. That it is not is the great tragedy of WCS. Naniwa should not be the one providing the incentive, but it is a good thing that SOMEONE is, because it can only lead to BETTER games, and that is good for all of e-sports.
|
14 pages because of a tweet?
It's offical: Naniwa is the new IdrA
|
On October 29 2013 06:33 SmoKim wrote:
14 pages because of a tweet?
It's offical: Naniwa is the new IdrA
It's 14 pages because of Waise, really.
|
I'm gonna go to Korea and get his head!
|
On October 29 2013 06:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 06:03 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:57 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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 I read your posts and they were not clear enough for me to get a good idea why this would be bad. I need you to nail it down for me. How will the offer of $500 going to negatively impact Revivals matchs? How is it a bad thing? I need clear reasons, not analogies.
His opponents were maybe training against opponents A, B and C. Improving their vT, vZ and vP matchup on all maps. Now they might consider training specific against revival, maybe even inventing specific cheese strategies and ignoring the other matches.
In general, beating revival might be of more importance to them then showing a good performance / trying to win the tournament for no other reason but naniwa.
Of course, if it would be a showmatch (1v1) or the finals then it would not matter.
Btw., i don't mind what Naniwa was doing (as long as it is not the norm) - i like the entertainment factor here. Just wanted to explain this, since Waise kinda drifts in weird maphack arguments and stuff...
|
lol you guys are fucking ridiculous. 14 pages over a twitterjoke, and not one single coherent argument as to why this would be a bad thing.
jesus.
|
On October 29 2013 06:30 InvictusRage wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 06:24 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 06:18 InvictusRage wrote:On October 29 2013 06:12 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 06:06 InvictusRage wrote:On October 29 2013 06:01 Waise wrote: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. we're getting really abstract here. you're talking about the "good" value of any player being more motivated to play at a high level, but i'm weighing that against the "bad" value i see in the competitive system being corrupted by financial backdealing. that was where i was going with the mafia analogy. the "good" value is there, but it's separate from what i'm taking issue with. i don't agree with allowing players to financially incentivize each other, i think it's a form of bribery. even if a player gets motivated because of bribery and that's "good," it doesn't whitewash the other details of the situation for me and for clarity, i don't think naniwa is "doing a bad thing." i think he's doing a selfish and morally neutral thing, and it would be bad for blizzard to tolerate it. Well, I tend to deal in the abstract a lot. I guess I don't agree that this kind of financial dealing is problematic. Lots of financial backdealings are problematic, but this isn't one of them. I see that you do think it's problematic, but I don't know why you think it's problematic. I distinguish which ones are good from which ones are bad by looking at what they'll do, whether they'll incentivize players to try harder (good!), whether they'll incentivize players to explicitly cheat by maphacking, etc (bad!). How do you tell what kinds of financial dealings are bad? because i think it sets a precedent for competitions of skill to be dictated by cash more than they already are. money already helps people compete in lots of ways - if you can afford good equipment, good education, free time to practice and play, etc., you have an edge in that regard. i think that's unfortunate, but unavoidable. players going in on rogue "alliances" to benefit themselves in exchange for absolutely nothing but hard cash is something i think is completely avoidable. all blizzard has to do is say "no, you can't do that." he could still try to do it secretly, but what are you going to do about that? people overstep boundaries secretly, and you can't stop everyone, but you still at least punish those who are caught or try to prevent them from continuing if you want to make money with your business sense and financial dealings, go into business. start a company. invest in some stocks. i just happen to think a game tournament should be about who's the best at the game. because the less it's about that, the less significance i think the result has. it's subjective and slightly idealistic, but it's my viewpoint It seems like this is what teams are, though: players getting together to advantage themselves in exchange for cash. Take Root; it's even players owning that one. But also, I don't see how it's setting a precedent for competitions of skill to be dictated by cash more than they already are. Rather: how has Naniwa's actions decreased the amount that challenger league group is about the skill of the competitors? If Revival is better than his opponents, he will beat them anyway. The only way this changes things is if Revival would lose if his opponents had a good reason to practice, but would win if his opponents had no reason. But that situation sucks! If the situation really is that JonSnow (say) would beat Revival if he had a good reason to, and it just so happens that things are currently constructed so that he has no good reason, why do we want to keep that current situation?
teams serve a lot of purposes. to some extent, sponsorship is a necessity for the sport to succeed. i recognize that, and that falls under the "unavoidable" category. if we could have WCS with no sponsors and no advertising, that would be great, but it wouldn't happen.
teams can come together for financial reasons or social reasons, both of which i think are fairly legitimate. it gives me as a fan a way to identify players beyond their tag and their results, and it gives structure to the scene as something more than just a bunch of nerds playing RTS. i don't think players paying each other to perform really provides any of those benefits
|
On October 29 2013 06:28 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 06:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
You didn't like Joe saving a kids life because he might be paid.
i didn't say this. i said i wouldn't respect a person who saved a life which he would not have otherwise saved if there were no financial incentive that's probably the source of your confusion
I know that's what you said. Hence why I brought up the police, who save peoples lives everyday specifically because they are paid to do so.
What you specifically said was " i would say "gee, i don't want to be joe's friend. i sure wouldn't trust joe."" Showing that you don't trust Joe saving a kids life because he's paid to do it.
Do you know what the phrase "because he" means?
When I say "You didn't like Joe saving a kids life because he might be paid" the phrase "because he" means exactly the same as "he would not have otherwise saved if there were no." Why? Because the phrase "because he" means that he is enacting an action for the specific reasons cited and linked to the phrase "because he."
I eat, because I'm hungry.
I'm bored, because I'm not doing anything.
I'm sleepy, because I'm tired.
Joe saved a kids life, because he's might be paid.
Maybe you don't speak english, but your attempt to backpedal by saying the same phrase with different words is not changing your argument.
So there is no confusion in my part. You literally don't like the idea of good things being done because the perpetrator of said good thing is getting paid.
|
On October 29 2013 06:35 Snusmumriken wrote:
lol you guys are fucking ridiculous. 14 pages over a twitterjoke, and not one single coherent argument as to why this would be a bad thing.
jesus.
i believe almost every single post i've made here has been a reply to someone asking me to explain or justify my viewpoint. it's not like i'm spamming. it's 14 pages of people arguing with me; it's not like i'm just starting shit. my first post was literally just saying "this isn't appropriate in my opinion," then it snowballed into a bunch of people being apparently angry that i feel that way. which is fine. and if a mod said "stop arguing about this" i would stop, but then i don't see the point of having a thread
btw i also said i thought naniwa was joking in my first post
On October 29 2013 06:33 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 06:33 SmoKim wrote:
14 pages because of a tweet?
It's offical: Naniwa is the new IdrA It's 14 pages because of Waise, really.
it's 14 pages because multiple people apparently wanted me to continue posting and explaining myself, otherwise no one would be replying to me
|
On October 29 2013 06:35 G-Dy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 06:07 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 06:03 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:57 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
my response this argument in a previous post:
[quote]
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 I read your posts and they were not clear enough for me to get a good idea why this would be bad. I need you to nail it down for me. How will the offer of $500 going to negatively impact Revivals matchs? How is it a bad thing? I need clear reasons, not analogies. His opponents were maybe training against opponents A, B and C. Improving their vT, vZ and vP matchup on all maps. Now they might consider training specific against revival, maybe even inventing specific cheese strategies and ignoring the other matches. In general, beating revival might be of more importance to them then showing a good performance / trying to win the tournament for no other reason but naniwa.Of course, if it would be a showmatch (1v1) or the finals then it would not matter. Btw., i don't mind what Naniwa was doing (as long as it is not the norm) - i like the entertainment factor here. Just wanted to explain this, since Waise kinda drifts in weird maphack arguments and stuff...
Ah. This is a good argument. If Naniwa changes things so that they'd prefer to lose the group but beat Naniwa, that would be bad.
|
it's unfun because i no longer identify with the players' drive to succeed and show high performance for the sake of good-spirited competition. in that scenario i see the players "motivation"/performance as a result of a cash agreement
All prize money is a cash agreement... Unless you're arguing against the existing of money in all competitions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
