A Rational Take on the Naniwa Situation - Page 12

On December 14 2011 01:44 CosmicSpiral wrote:
Crashburn, I regret to inform you that your entire argument rests upon a personal peeve of mine: the common mistake of confusing a disparity in goal-oriented philosophies with a disparity between logic and emotion. The truth is the OP is not rational in the slightest. It does not even attempt to be rational in the proper sense of "rational" i.e. arriving at a conclusion based on certain premises that themselves are established via some type of reasoning. You simply state facts and assume that some mystic property from one fact carries over to the other, and thus it leads to another conclusion that ultimately supports your own position on the topic.

I always have fun discussing arguments I do not agree with, so let's start from the beginning.



Batting averages, names, etc. etc.

Astros management is certainly aware that fielding a sub-par lineup increases the chances of losing the game, but as you've said winning the game is no longer their main priority. However, the difference between Naniwa and Astros management is that the latter uses the game to advance other agendas. Fielding B-teamers allows them to play games that are technically "major league" but have nothing at stake in terms of making the playoffs. Those players have the opportunity to gain experience as well as win games. Subsequently their performance on the field can be evaluated and judged for future reference.

Meanwhile Naniwa chose to do a probe rush because he did not want to play the game, and the reason for that is obvious. But he did not use the opportunity to test anything, to confirm a strategy, to blow off steam. Why did he even play the game if he had no intentions of winning and no other intentions altogether? Naniwa could have forfeited the match in a way that both expressed his dislike at the system yet was respectful towards GOM, Quantic, and Nestea. But he chose to do a strategy that, no matter what semantics you try to use, was expected to fail. .

In short, this part of the OP is simply wrong because it confuses intentions. Naniwa threw his game because there was nothing at stake FOR HIM (which must be stated in big letters before its importance gets obscured), the Astros risk losing more games to evaluate their opportunities for future success.

You've confusing two senses of "wrong", one associated with "legality" and the other with "immorality". Nothing Naniwa did was technically against the rules and I doubt anyone could build a case that a probe rush is expressly forbidden in a GSL game. Yet this doesn't answer the question of whether it was justified in the first place, such behavior should be imitated in similar future scenarios, and other players should do the same thing if so inclined. Watching pornography all day isn't against the law, but I would never do it simply because it was legal.



Completely pointless paragraph.

I don't like BO1s. I don't like group stages where players have to play games that mean nothing towards their advancement in a tournament. I don't like watching sloppy play from people who are supposed to be the best in the world. I don't like smelly people, rude girls, blisters on my feet, finishing art projects in the dead of night, missing out on drunken parties, washing my sheets. Yet I will inevitably be in less-than-ideal scenarios, faced with rules I don't agree with, doing necessary things I loathe, stuck in places that I have no control over. What matters is how I compose myself in them and the decisions I make.

Being a pro gamer is difficult. 99% of all jobs are difficult. HuK is a notable exception in terms of travel, so I don't see your point.

I understand you empathize with Naniwa, but in no way does empathy somehow translate into an excuse for his behavior. I endured physical and mental abuse as a child, does that absolve me if I abuse my own children? Causation does not equal justification in any circumstance, whatever your judgement may be.



It is not a high-percentage strategy or a middle-percentage strategy or a low-percentage strategy. It can be described as a "you would probably be struck by lightning twice before this works" strategy. It has no advantage over any builds.

Any strategy has a non-zero chance at success, which makes your distinction between "valid" and "invalid" worthless. There is also a non-zero probability that I can phase through a wall by running into it, guess the winner of GSL 2032, and win games by making only one marine every 10 minutes. Yet no one would do these strategies and if they did do them they would attempt to micro while doing them.



The comparison to the NFL and NBA doesn't work for the most obvious reason of all: the tradition of throwing games to get better draft picks is not officially sanctioned or even recognized by the NFL itself. It's a deliberately dirty tactic that sharp minds can easily identify, one that unfortunately clashes with the image Goodell and the owners project and what fans want to believe about their team. It doesn't get punished because it's nearly impossible to prove and acknowledging it would raise an absolute shitstorm among the many interest groups involved. The public accepts it as a reality that cannot be controlled, not as a positive aspect of the game.



I agree that Naniwa should not have to play simply because of peer pressure. But this simply brings us back to why he even played it in the first place. He could have forfeited and made it clear that he did not want to play a game that personally meant nothing to him. Alternatively he could have sucked it up, played a normal game, won/lost and left. One of the reasons people are annoyed is because he neither stuck to a set of principles nor accepted an undesirable situation with any measure of grace. His decision was judged as childish and amplified by his previous attempts to become more respectable within the community. The haters will crow and feverishly point this out as the "real" Naniwa, the fans will attempt to pass it off as "funny" or "not serious" and other euphemisms that ignore Naniwa's history and what that means for his future.

GOM did not make him do a probe rush.

Once again, what is legal =/= what is right or desirable.



Classic example of missing the forest for the trees. You've gotten so focused on finding analogies and examples that mirror Naniwa's decision that you don't even understand why people are angry in the first place. It is certainly not rational to ignore the fans' reasons for feeling pissed before judging them as irrational.