|
On August 24 2014 22:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2014 04:10 CosmicSpiral wrote:On August 24 2014 03:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Imperative. I don't think it means what you think it means. Thesaurus much? Imperative - expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation. The word is fine. Ok then as you say; An "expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation" feeling to legitimise esports. Yeah, somehow I don't think whatever intention he had, if he had any, had been expressed in the title by your own interpretation. Anyhow, I thought it was pretty clear to anybody that ready the post that the whole post was just a meandering pile of undistinct and vague sentences one after the other, where nothing is defined, and everything is written in the manner of an overblown movie. There no information, no ideas, no argument to express or exchange, it's just mostly pomposity bereft of substance, as if like that was the purpose of the post. Mostly, the extravagant language are being used to hide the nature of the vacuous post. I thought my comment was rather apt as it rather neatly wraps up the article and my thoughts in one brief statement. Rather telling that it will be two other posters with a pen and paper icon defending his choice of title. Perhaps you two are sponsoring him or something in gaining these icons; I have no idea how these status symbols are given on TL.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah your "criticism" is just so exaggerated as to render it worthless.
|
Then again~ considering almost the majority of the articles he has posted have created less than 3 pages or less worth of discussion.... maybe this title and style are his greatest stroke of genius yet. We are on page 4!!! Congrats Torte!
+ Show Spoiler +edited for the sake of truth! Thanks for pointing it out Torte!! But, I think you messed up your quote.... that one is 3 pages, not 15!! =P
|
United States15275 Posts
On August 24 2014 22:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Ok then as you say; An "expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation" feeling to legitimise esports
Yeah, somehow I don't think whatever intention he had, if he had any, had been expressed in the title by your own interpretation.
"The hot plate fell on the floor"
"The [having a high degree of heat or a high temperature] plate fell on the floor"
"The plate, which was [having a high degree of heat or a high temperature], fell on the floor."
"The plate was [having a high degree of heat or a high temperature] and it fell on the floor."
"[having a high degree of heat or a high temperature], the plate fell on the floor."
According to your idea of 1:1 substitution, we can never use "hot" in a sentence except when completely isolated from a clause. Similarly, any use of "imperative" with that specific definition would have to be put after its subject lest the sentence becomes grammatically incorrect. Direct word -> definition substitution does not work in all cases for English, or any other language known to man.
I explained the actual issue with the title two pages back:
The problem is that "feeling" is a non-intentional gerund (intentional = directed towards some object or state of affairs) here, so it makes the title incoherent. Things like "playing to win" and "aiming to correct past wrongs" are sensible English. "The Feeling to Legitimize eSports" doesn't work, no matter what definition we use. Only something like "I feel for her" works when taking about emotions, and "feel" in that case is a metonymy. The problem is not with "imperative" but with the word it's trying to accentuate.
On August 24 2014 22:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Anyhow, I thought it was pretty clear to anybody that ready the post that the whole post was just a meandering pile of undistinct and vague sentences one after the other, where nothing is defined, and everything is written in the manner of an overblown movie. There no information, no ideas, no argument to express or exchange, it's just mostly pomposity bereft of substance, as if like that was the purpose of the post. Mostly, the extravagant language are being used to hide the nature of the vacuous post. I thought my comment was rather apt as it rather neatly wraps up the article and my thoughts in one brief statement. Rather telling that it will be two other posters with a pen and paper icon defending his choice of title. Perhaps you two are sponsoring him or something in gaining these icons; I have no idea how these status symbols are given on TL.
The pot should not call the kettle black.
I'm a writer. I got this icon because I understand English and how to use it.
|
On August 25 2014 11:05 Joedaddy wrote:
Then again~ considering almost every article he has posted has created less than 3 pages worth of discussion.... maybe this title and style are his greatest stroke of genius yet. We are on page 4!!! Congrats Torte!
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/383060-the-other-gaming-gender-armchair-athleticism (3 pages)
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/391553-balance-between-professionalism-and-personality-aa (15 pages)
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/392251-e-sports-is-not-a-sport-armchair-athleticism (5 pages)
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/396194-minor-tournaments-a-progamers-résumé-aa (4 pages)
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/406143-what-blizzards-wcs-means-and-entails-armchair-a (3 pages)
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/427926-filtered-growth-and-resulted-decline-of-sc2-arm-a (5 pages)
Not to mention that readership is very steady and good across the board.
I think every time you interact with me, you have managed to not only be condescending, but rather obtuse and personal. For the past 2 years you have always been both rude and insensitive towards me for a variety of reasons ranging from getting a casual stream removed because it portrayed something unprofessional to just personal dislike. Nothing is more aggravating than a tiny tick who just leeches off any personal interest a person has just to be a nuissance and fat up his passive-aggressive testicles.
That's all I'm going to say about it.
On August 25 2014 03:31 NonY wrote:
Being legitimate doesn't have anything to do with respecting mainstream values or winning public approval.
I see two ways to be legitimate: (1) be an independent and stable business and (2) respect the values of your field. eSports can be legitimate business-wise by being a good participant in the economy and it can be legitimate ethically by being true to its values.
eSports fails on (1) very often. Most events happen at a loss for the investors, by piggybacking off of some other event or by a lot of "volunteer" work (from people who are aspiring to forge a career and would rather be fairly compensated).
I thought it was funny to see so many eSports fans get excited by the prospect of working with ESPN. ESPN is successful and profitable as hell but isn't seen as legitimate itself by a lot of hardcore sports fans because they don't respect the values of their field. Working with ESPN could certainly help eSports achieve (1) but it would almost certainly involve sacrificing (2).
Evaluating legitimacy of (2) becomes trickier when things transform into something else. Does ESPN practice legitimate journalism and reporting of the news? No. But are they sports journalists and sports news reporters? Arguably no, so we shouldn't judge them by those values anymore. They're more like sports news entertainment. eSports could become some kind of "video game entertainment" that appeals to the masses and makes more money but doesn't respect the competitive values it currently holds dear. Its values would change and so it could still be seen as legitimate but it would have transformed into something else without changing its name.
What companies do you considered legitimate by point #2. To note that they must be a service, not a product.
On August 25 2014 07:16 shell wrote:
I think it's better to grow it steady with the help of the gamers because in some years everybody will be a gamer much like almost all of us like sports and movies etc..
some will always like more some or the others but it's almost a given that the next generations will put games together with sports, fitness, action sports etc.
Keep it with the community and we will grown slowly but honest and legitimate, it's better if we love it then trying to go to far and messing what they allready have
I think in many ways, people already game, especially with the prevalent technology of cellphones. I think, ultimately, that will probably be the case as eSports touches down with media outlets from time to time, will just grow slowly but steadily.
On August 25 2014 10:30 jubil wrote:For what it's worth, I completely agree with the underlying point; I get excited when I see some new (positive) coverage, new mainstream company sponsorships (Visine, anyone?), and new celebrity enthusiasts. In addition, increased legitimization in the form of professional, legal contracts can help protect players, teams, and organizations from shady and unscrupulous behavior. Increased legitimization through more notable companies' sponsorships circulates more money into the scene, allowing more players to follow their dreams. Finally, increased legitimization through mainstream media coverage brings new players, giving rise to a more vibrant scene and higher general social acceptance. Regarding the piece itself, I do think it could have made its point even more strongly by properly addressing the other side of the debate. It's very thorough in explaining the benefits of legitimizing eSports, but I don't think you can be fully persuasive without explaining why these benefits outweigh the downsides - that eSports might become overly sanitized, overly commercialized, or even overtly ridiculed (as in Xiphos's story). The diehard "anti-legitimist" might very well read all your points about increasing cultural awareness, business contacts, marketing, and outreach to mainstream consumers yet reply with "I don't want or need all that". I also have some grammar/usage nitpicks, but perhaps those are best addressed via PM 
In the end, my view is that higher exposure will offer a better sustainability in the career of a pro gamer (something I still wouldn't advise anyone to go after at the moment) as well as better coverage of their needs. Yes. exactly about shady company sponsorships or teams (Eclypsia anyone)? It's about bringing eSports beyond the consideration of these desperate forms of support but I don't think that will fully go away no matter how far we go, it'll just become less and less valued or considered.
You're right I could have flipped the table and made points from another's point-of-view, I could have dug up ESGN, the past organizations who maybe pushed too hard during their team and set the scene back. It might have been perhaps too convincing though as well
Go for the grammar/usage fixes. I will fix it so long as I understand the changes! Thanks a lot :D
|
However the public attitude as to whether there is an imperative need to focus on legitimizing eSports is opinionated without taking into consideration of companies already trying to legitimize it and have been for many years.
I don't understand this sentence at all.. also the first sentence ends with an adverb which is a cardinal sin!
I think there are some neat ideas in here, but the language is excessively verbose. The paragraphs are too long, sentences don't flow into each other. Ideas are jumbled and the piece lacks focus.
I'd recommend getting a merciless proof reader and reading the whole piece out loud - there are many missing words, jarring word choices and it really garbles the message you're trying to convey.
|
On August 25 2014 19:31 deth wrote:Show nested quote +However the public attitude as to whether there is an imperative need to focus on legitimizing eSports is opinionated without taking into consideration of companies already trying to legitimize it and have been for many years. I don't understand this sentence at all.. also the first sentence ends with an adverb which is a cardinal sin! I think there are some neat ideas in here, but the language is excessively verbose. The paragraphs are too long, sentences don't flow into each other. Ideas are jumbled and the piece lacks focus. I'd recommend getting a merciless proof reader and reading the whole piece out loud - there are many missing words, jarring word choices and it really garbles the message you're trying to convey.
I touched it up only a little bit yesterday. As for the style of writing, it is unfortunate that that is my style for many years so it's something needing continuous work. I think even my last article is written in a similar fashion.
|
8751 Posts
On August 25 2014 18:57 Torte de Lini wrote:
What companies do you considered legitimate by point #2. To note that they must be a service, not a product.
I don't know what you mean with your second sentence but I'll try to answer the first. I think a good example of a successful company is HBO. Their original content is high quality and mostly respects the wishes of the creators. Their other programming stays true to their purpose. I'd say NPR and PBS have also done a good job. I think grantland.com is pretty great, though it is ironically owned (or just sponsored?) by ESPN and full editorial control is in the hands of Bill Simmons, who was an ESPN columnist when grantland.com was created. They put a passionate writer in charge of the content and let him recruit other passionate writers who just write what they're passionate about.
There are countless restaurants who stay true to their values despite being able to modify their dishes to get more customers. They want to stick to their vision and/or make authentic food. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work.
For eSports, a great example is TL.net itself. Any tournament it runs has the integrity of the competition as a top priority.
Ultimately, as an outsider, it is hard to determine and usually unfair to judge a company on how well it is meeting its own values. Insiders have more information and the people in charge have the right to change their minds. However if they state their values publicly or some values are strongly implied and they fail to meet them, then I think it's fair when they lose legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
I'd add that judging legitimacy based on (2) isn't necessarily a good thing to do. A lot of people just don't care. Let a company do whatever it wants and if you are interested in what they're doing, give them attention and business, otherwise ignore them. I'm much more in that camp myself. The important thing is to not be tricked. Don't let a company's history or their advertising and propaganda affect your evaluation of their current work. Being hypocritical is bad only when both actions are in the present or are ongoing. I think contradicting your past self is harmless or even encouraged since it's often necessary for improvement.
P.S. I'm not a great person to ask. All my examples are from my own little personal experience.
|
I also dont like the way you write, I find it very pretentious. You also do a bad job at delivering your points to the reader. I am honestly put off from reading your topics just because of it. Please accept this as criticism and nothing personal.
|
On August 26 2014 04:16 NukeD wrote:
I also dont like the way you write, I find it very pretentious. You also do a bad job at delivering your points to the reader. I am honestly put off from reading your topics just because of it. Please accept this as criticism and nothing personal.
I'm hoping for more concrete criticism rather than a blanket point as it is difficult to narrow down what needs to be changed and what sort of sentences are accepted.
|
On August 26 2014 03:08 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2014 18:57 Torte de Lini wrote:
What companies do you considered legitimate by point #2. To note that they must be a service, not a product. I don't know what you mean with your second sentence but I'll try to answer the first. I think a good example of a successful company is HBO. Their original content is high quality and mostly respects the wishes of the creators. Their other programming stays true to their purpose. I'd say NPR and PBS have also done a good job. I think grantland.com is pretty great, though it is ironically owned (or just sponsored?) by ESPN and full editorial control is in the hands of Bill Simmons, who was an ESPN columnist when grantland.com was created. They put a passionate writer in charge of the content and let him recruit other passionate writers who just write what they're passionate about. There are countless restaurants who stay true to their values despite being able to modify their dishes to get more customers. They want to stick to their vision and/or make authentic food. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. For eSports, a great example is TL.net itself. Any tournament it runs has the integrity of the competition as a top priority. Ultimately, as an outsider, it is hard to determine and usually unfair to judge a company on how well it is meeting its own values. Insiders have more information and the people in charge have the right to change their minds. However if they state their values publicly or some values are strongly implied and they fail to meet them, then I think it's fair when they lose legitimacy in the eyes of the public. I'd add that judging legitimacy based on (2) isn't necessarily a good thing to do. A lot of people just don't care. Let a company do whatever it wants and if you are interested in what they're doing, give them attention and business, otherwise ignore them. I'm much more in that camp myself. The important thing is to not be tricked. Don't let a company's history or their advertising and propaganda affect your evaluation of their current work. Being hypocritical is bad only when both actions are in the present or are ongoing. I think contradicting your past self is harmless or even encouraged since it's often necessary for improvement. P.S. I'm not a great person to ask. All my examples are from my own little personal experience.
Sorry, my forearm is really cramping from PC use, so my replies are slow!
What I meant was that the company would have to be service-related not product as I consider all these events and eSports companies creating a service more so than a product. What do you think?
I think HBO is a good example to support your point while the rest, though known, aren't as strong in terms of indicators success. I could be wrong as I am not familiar with how successful they are. I see your point in that if eSports were to become a contributor to a channel of sorts, it would exhaust its own audience or break #2. I guess I never considered that.
I think for eSports, periodic events being run on television is not that bad and I can't think of the sacrifices it would need to make for a periodic broadcasted event. Right now, I think creating products that are purely eSports and valued for consumers to let teams turn a profit is still incredibly difficult beyond basic merchandising.
For me personally, at this current moment, I'm okay with what shaky grounds eSports considers if it sees itself gaining from it in the long run. I think once it is established, I would expect some a higher level of standards to be met: better pay for staff, no more volunteers, medical care for players (if not already done so), etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
