We don't have any perfect casters. The interesting thing is that I've been paying a lot more attention to commentators in traditional sports and they also tend to make similar blunders. Maybe I just don't frequent the right forums to hear the feedback about them, but it seems that "we" complain a lot more. I think there's too much of an emphasis on the casters - some of it put there by themselves trying to hard to entertain. I hope eventually there will be less importance placed on personalities and we can see some things change. (It's also important to note that some of this has to do with the target demographic compared to traditional sports.)
As a hobby caster I'd love constructive criticism (just don't forget that constructive usually means you're pointing out more of "what you would like me to do" instead of "what you don't like").
On September 23 2014 13:24 ninazerg wrote: The word you're looking for is "Recalcitrant".
"Phaenomal" is missing an entire syllable. The word is Phen-om-min-al, not Phen-no-mal.
I feel like what is most ironicalized about this debachle are how aggressivized your postdefense is rather than confessionating that yourself may be wrong. The problemicity in Englishspeak is that you can't simply inventicate new words out of nowhere. If you're going to pick on casters for small nuances you see as flaws in their casting, don't get all defensive when someone picks out the small critical nuances that you exhibit.
On September 23 2014 16:15 lichter wrote: Recalcitrate is a word, yes, but you still used it wrong. You stated that
"This whole "There's not a chance this attack will be held." or "Not a chance he will hold the third." before the attack even starts start to recalcitrate upon me because every time it happens you know it's like 50% chance. "
Let's condense it to make it less difficult to read:
"This whole predictions before the attack even starts start to recalcitrate upon me because every time it happens you know it's like 50% chance."
Recalcitrate is a verb, either transitive or intransitive, that means "to kick back/out/against", usually to suggest opposition.
Let's look at your sentence without modifying it to what I think it means. You are saying that the predictions start to kick out or oppose 'upon' you. I'm not even sure what you want to mean. Not only do you use an odd preposition in "upon", you are saying that the predictions are against you, as a person, instead of your own predictions. Perhaps the predictions are against your own thoughts and predictions, or are in opposition to what actually happens. However, for the latter case, the word still doesn't make sense unless you mean the casters are obstinately defending such a prediction despite the outcome. While a prediction can arguably be recalcitrant towards a prevailing thought or expectation, a prediction cannot recalcitrate an outcome since the outcome is undetermined. However, that's not what you meant. You are saying that the predictions somehow oppose upon you. Even as metaphorical language it doesn't fit in your sentence. Perhaps you meant that the predictions upset, repulse, or annoy you.
Using the same word in a similar context, the sentence could have been: "The outcome of games often recalcitrate against the casters predictions."
However, changing to a more appropriate word allows you to mean what you actually want to mean: "This whole tendency to make predictions before the fight even begins starts to repulse me because they only get it right 50% of the time."
Since we're being nitpicky, might as well mention that the preposition should be against not upon, your S-V agreement between "whole" and "start" is questionable, and your use of the word 'start' twice is unfortunate. Also, it's usually correct to use more + adverb, instead of adding +er.
While literally in Latin "recalcitrate" means "kick back" and you sometimes get that when you look it up. In practice to recalcitrate pretty much means "to disagree in an aggressive manner.
Honestly, the way you people speak about the word makes it seem to me you never seen nor used it and go by a dictionary definition too much. If something is recalcitrant it in practice just means you find it very annoying. Most typically said of noise or odours. "My god, the smell in your bathroom is recalcitrant, do you ever clean it?"
However "x recalcitrates upon y" just means "y is annoyed/offended by x", that's different from "x recalcitrates y." As in "this habit starts to have an effect of recalcitration upon me."
On September 23 2014 21:08 RenSC2 wrote: Foreigner bias... who cares? The English casters are catering to an English audience where the foreigners are usually the fan favorites. The hometown casting duo for a baseball game are biased too, but that's almost a part of the job description.
If only they didn't again come with metagame BS expecting the audience to swallow it.
Metagaming Bullshit Don't ever watch a business channel on TV try to explain why stocks/commodities went up or down. These experts will tell you why stocks went up one day. The next day they'll give you the exact same reason for why stocks went down. Why did Reason X make the stocks go up today, but made it go down yesterday? Because they're trying to kill time.
Yap, I know virtually nothing of management and even I picked up "My god, these people just make up reasons as they go along don't they?"
The point is, anyone with a modicum of intelligence sees right through it just walks away and is annoyed. I typically have the stream muted during post-game analysis because the vicarious shame is just too damned high.
The ability to fill dead time with babble is a bonus that creates a friendlier atmosphere between the casters and the audience. For some, like Tastosis, they are good at that babble and people get interested in what they have to say even if they aren't interested in the game.
Especially with Tastetosis the amount of BS is super high. BitterdaM does it better in my opinion, the conversation flows a bit more naturally there. Tastosis is a bit too much of "I didn't actually think your joke was funny, but I'll laugh anyway. To not make it awkward." BitterdaM is like "Okay Kev, I think some-where out there some-one might think that is funny."
Underappreciation of Zerg and Racial Bias I do agree that if you want to cast full-time, you should probably start playing random (or changing your race every day/week/month) so that you can provide insight into every matchup. However, it's quite difficult to play all three races at a high enough level to be able to provide insight into any one of them. Unlike traditional sports, the game is still constantly evolving and Artosis's Zerg knowledge from 2010-2011 is now worthless. Former pro knowledge tends to become worthless in 3 months of dropping out of the competitive scene. Maybe if the game settles into normalcy after 5 years without a patch, then we might be able to get some casters who can really analyze all matchups of the game.
Meh, I'm 3-0 against the [Apollo]Apollo account on EU, which is he because he streams under it in three different matchups. You can manage. Switching to random really isn't that hard. It's just "Are you willing to give up the race you love the most to improve your casting or not."
I don't really gain the impression that Artosis and Tasteless are that interested in putting in the work and research that say Apollo is. It's clear he puts more work and research into his casts
On September 23 2014 16:15 lichter wrote: Recalcitrate is a word, yes, but you still used it wrong. You stated that
"This whole "There's not a chance this attack will be held." or "Not a chance he will hold the third." before the attack even starts start to recalcitrate upon me because every time it happens you know it's like 50% chance. "
Let's condense it to make it less difficult to read:
"This whole predictions before the attack even starts start to recalcitrate upon me because every time it happens you know it's like 50% chance."
Recalcitrate is a verb, either transitive or intransitive, that means "to kick back/out/against", usually to suggest opposition.
Let's look at your sentence without modifying it to what I think it means. You are saying that the predictions start to kick out or oppose 'upon' you. I'm not even sure what you want to mean. Not only do you use an odd preposition in "upon", you are saying that the predictions are against you, as a person, instead of your own predictions. Perhaps the predictions are against your own thoughts and predictions, or are in opposition to what actually happens. However, for the latter case, the word still doesn't make sense unless you mean the casters are obstinately defending such a prediction despite the outcome. While a prediction can arguably be recalcitrant towards a prevailing thought or expectation, a prediction cannot recalcitrate an outcome since the outcome is undetermined. However, that's not what you meant. You are saying that the predictions somehow oppose upon you. Even as metaphorical language it doesn't fit in your sentence. Perhaps you meant that the predictions upset, repulse, or annoy you.
Using the same word in a similar context, the sentence could have been: "The outcome of games often recalcitrate against the casters predictions."
However, changing to a more appropriate word allows you to mean what you actually want to mean: "This whole tendency to make predictions before the fight even begins starts to repulse me because they only get it right 50% of the time."
Since we're being nitpicky, might as well mention that the preposition should be against not upon, your S-V agreement between "whole" and "start" is questionable, and your use of the word 'start' twice is unfortunate. Also, it's usually correct to use more + adverb, instead of adding +er.
While literally in Latin "recalcitrate" means "kick back" and you sometimes get that when you look it up. In practice to recalcitrate pretty much means "to disagree in an aggressive manner.
Honestly, the way you people speak about the word makes it seem to me you never seen nor used it and go by a dictionary definition too much. If something is recalcitrant it in practice just means you find it very annoying. Most typically said of noise or odours. "My god, the smell in your bathroom is recalcitrant, do you ever clean it?"
However "x recalcitrates upon y" just means "y is annoyed/offended by x", that's different from "x recalcitrates y." As in "this habit starts to have an effect of recalcitration upon me."
On September 23 2014 21:08 RenSC2 wrote: Foreigner bias... who cares? The English casters are catering to an English audience where the foreigners are usually the fan favorites. The hometown casting duo for a baseball game are biased too, but that's almost a part of the job description.
If only they didn't again come with metagame BS expecting the audience to swallow it.
Metagaming Bullshit Don't ever watch a business channel on TV try to explain why stocks/commodities went up or down. These experts will tell you why stocks went up one day. The next day they'll give you the exact same reason for why stocks went down. Why did Reason X make the stocks go up today, but made it go down yesterday? Because they're trying to kill time.
Yap, I know virtually nothing of management and even I picked up "My god, these people just make up reasons as they go along don't they?"
The point is, anyone with a modicum of intelligence sees right through it just walks away and is annoyed. I typically have the stream muted during post-game analysis because the vicarious shame is just too damned high.
The ability to fill dead time with babble is a bonus that creates a friendlier atmosphere between the casters and the audience. For some, like Tastosis, they are good at that babble and people get interested in what they have to say even if they aren't interested in the game.
Especially with Tastetosis the amount of BS is super high. BitterdaM does it better in my opinion, the conversation flows a bit more naturally there. Tastosis is a bit too much of "I didn't actually think your joke was funny, but I'll laugh anyway. To not make it awkward." BitterdaM is like "Okay Kev, I think some-where out there some-one might think that is funny."
Underappreciation of Zerg and Racial Bias I do agree that if you want to cast full-time, you should probably start playing random (or changing your race every day/week/month) so that you can provide insight into every matchup. However, it's quite difficult to play all three races at a high enough level to be able to provide insight into any one of them. Unlike traditional sports, the game is still constantly evolving and Artosis's Zerg knowledge from 2010-2011 is now worthless. Former pro knowledge tends to become worthless in 3 months of dropping out of the competitive scene. Maybe if the game settles into normalcy after 5 years without a patch, then we might be able to get some casters who can really analyze all matchups of the game.
Meh, I'm 3-0 against the [Apollo]Apollo account on EU, which is he because he streams under it in three different matchups. You can manage. Switching to random really isn't that hard. It's just "Are you willing to give up the race you love the most to improve your casting or not."
I don't really gain the impression that Artosis and Tasteless are that interested in putting in the work and research that say Apollo is. It's clear he puts more work and research into his casts
So you admit to stream-sniping Apollo? This brings great shame upon your family, friends and your cat, and not just vicarious shame.
On September 23 2014 16:15 lichter wrote: Recalcitrate is a word, yes, but you still used it wrong. You stated that
"This whole "There's not a chance this attack will be held." or "Not a chance he will hold the third." before the attack even starts start to recalcitrate upon me because every time it happens you know it's like 50% chance. "
Let's condense it to make it less difficult to read:
"This whole predictions before the attack even starts start to recalcitrate upon me because every time it happens you know it's like 50% chance."
Recalcitrate is a verb, either transitive or intransitive, that means "to kick back/out/against", usually to suggest opposition.
Let's look at your sentence without modifying it to what I think it means. You are saying that the predictions start to kick out or oppose 'upon' you. I'm not even sure what you want to mean. Not only do you use an odd preposition in "upon", you are saying that the predictions are against you, as a person, instead of your own predictions. Perhaps the predictions are against your own thoughts and predictions, or are in opposition to what actually happens. However, for the latter case, the word still doesn't make sense unless you mean the casters are obstinately defending such a prediction despite the outcome. While a prediction can arguably be recalcitrant towards a prevailing thought or expectation, a prediction cannot recalcitrate an outcome since the outcome is undetermined. However, that's not what you meant. You are saying that the predictions somehow oppose upon you. Even as metaphorical language it doesn't fit in your sentence. Perhaps you meant that the predictions upset, repulse, or annoy you.
Using the same word in a similar context, the sentence could have been: "The outcome of games often recalcitrate against the casters predictions."
However, changing to a more appropriate word allows you to mean what you actually want to mean: "This whole tendency to make predictions before the fight even begins starts to repulse me because they only get it right 50% of the time."
Since we're being nitpicky, might as well mention that the preposition should be against not upon, your S-V agreement between "whole" and "start" is questionable, and your use of the word 'start' twice is unfortunate. Also, it's usually correct to use more + adverb, instead of adding +er.
While literally in Latin "recalcitrate" means "kick back" and you sometimes get that when you look it up. In practice to recalcitrate pretty much means "to disagree in an aggressive manner.
Honestly, the way you people speak about the word makes it seem to me you never seen nor used it and go by a dictionary definition too much. If something is recalcitrant it in practice just means you find it very annoying. Most typically said of noise or odours. "My god, the smell in your bathroom is recalcitrant, do you ever clean it?"
However "x recalcitrates upon y" just means "y is annoyed/offended by x", that's different from "x recalcitrates y." As in "this habit starts to have an effect of recalcitration upon me."
On September 23 2014 21:08 RenSC2 wrote: Foreigner bias... who cares? The English casters are catering to an English audience where the foreigners are usually the fan favorites. The hometown casting duo for a baseball game are biased too, but that's almost a part of the job description.
If only they didn't again come with metagame BS expecting the audience to swallow it.
Metagaming Bullshit Don't ever watch a business channel on TV try to explain why stocks/commodities went up or down. These experts will tell you why stocks went up one day. The next day they'll give you the exact same reason for why stocks went down. Why did Reason X make the stocks go up today, but made it go down yesterday? Because they're trying to kill time.
Yap, I know virtually nothing of management and even I picked up "My god, these people just make up reasons as they go along don't they?"
The point is, anyone with a modicum of intelligence sees right through it just walks away and is annoyed. I typically have the stream muted during post-game analysis because the vicarious shame is just too damned high.
The ability to fill dead time with babble is a bonus that creates a friendlier atmosphere between the casters and the audience. For some, like Tastosis, they are good at that babble and people get interested in what they have to say even if they aren't interested in the game.
Especially with Tastetosis the amount of BS is super high. BitterdaM does it better in my opinion, the conversation flows a bit more naturally there. Tastosis is a bit too much of "I didn't actually think your joke was funny, but I'll laugh anyway. To not make it awkward." BitterdaM is like "Okay Kev, I think some-where out there some-one might think that is funny."
Underappreciation of Zerg and Racial Bias I do agree that if you want to cast full-time, you should probably start playing random (or changing your race every day/week/month) so that you can provide insight into every matchup. However, it's quite difficult to play all three races at a high enough level to be able to provide insight into any one of them. Unlike traditional sports, the game is still constantly evolving and Artosis's Zerg knowledge from 2010-2011 is now worthless. Former pro knowledge tends to become worthless in 3 months of dropping out of the competitive scene. Maybe if the game settles into normalcy after 5 years without a patch, then we might be able to get some casters who can really analyze all matchups of the game.
Meh, I'm 3-0 against the [Apollo]Apollo account on EU, which is he because he streams under it in three different matchups. You can manage. Switching to random really isn't that hard. It's just "Are you willing to give up the race you love the most to improve your casting or not."
I don't really gain the impression that Artosis and Tasteless are that interested in putting in the work and research that say Apollo is. It's clear he puts more work and research into his casts
So you admit to stream-sniping Apollo? This brings great shame upon your family, friends and your cat, and not just vicarious shame.
Ehh, no?
I just know he streams under that account and I ran into him on the ladder three times and won all three. Long time ago though. This was with Alterzim still in the pool. Worsening of my motor control due to a condition has basically given me almost diamond MMR at this point.
I haven't watched SCII casting in a while but I remember always enjoying what I saw. Having a bit of analysis and some shoutcasting is fine and good. The only thing that I hated was when shoutcasting went over the top like that Husky game of Polt vs Life 1-2 years back.
It was a bo5 towards the end of the night, think like midnight or 1am and Husky was literally shouting the whole time and wouldn't knock it off or turn it down. I had no issues with him prior to that but once I saw that much shouting, I started disliking his future casts lol.
I do think you are being a bit too critical here though. Yes, the casting can always be better. More analysis, less bias etc... but I doubt you'll ever get 100% perfect casting and I'm sure more people than not enjoy things as they are. Last thing I noticed, you're really trying hard to write complex sentences, aren't you? XD There are so many places that it would've been easier to avoid mistakes like some of what was pointed out had you just phrased things better instead of using complex language but hey, to each their own
Second definition is obviously the one I'm going at, also see the "out of date" part, one assumes the meaning of the word shifted in the last hundred years from literally meaning "to kick against" to now meaning "to express repugnance.".
I've never seen anyone use "to recalcitrate" to literally mean to kick against something. In practice it just means "I vehemently disagree with this horseshit."
On September 24 2014 10:29 SiskosGoatee wrote: I've never seen anyone use "to recalcitrate" to literally mean to kick against something. In practice it just means
On September 24 2014 10:29 SiskosGoatee wrote: I've never seen anyone use "to recalcitrate" to literally mean to kick against something. In practice it just means
but that guy isn't even good in Taekwondo, his technique is really sloppy. )= To the point: It doesn't matter if you did use "recalcitrate" correct or not. You criticized Casters for very small, nuanced details in their casting and promoted these points as "flaws", when in reality they express just your notion on the subject. A common reaction to beeing overly critical towards a certain item or person is often, that your very criticism will be reviewed very harsh too. That's a known phenomenon in sociology.
Now: in the light of reason, it does make no sense to degrade the accuracy of your statements by your poor spelling standards, that is true. i think your fellow Users just wanted to remind you, that your adamant opinion on the qualities of some Casters appears arrogant and your spelling is an obvious point of leverage.
On September 24 2014 10:29 SiskosGoatee wrote: I've never seen anyone use "to recalcitrate" to literally mean to kick against something. In practice it just means
but that guy isn't even good in Taekwondo, his technique is really sloppy. )= To the point: It doesn't matter if you did use "recalcitrate" correct or not. You criticized Casters for very small, nuanced details in their casting and promoted these points as "flaws", when in reality they express just your notion on the subject. A common reaction to beeing overly critical towards a certain item or person is often, that your very criticism will be reviewed very harsh too. That's a known phenomenon in sociology.
Now: in the light of reason, it does make no sense to degrade the accuracy of your statements by your poor spelling standards, that is true. i think your fellow Users just wanted to remind you, that your adamant opinion on the qualities of some Casters appears arrogant and your spelling is an obvious point of leverage.
Meh, I'm not a caster myself so I see no hypocrisy in this. I'll freely admit I'll be a terrible caster because I have a pretty awful and mumbly voice.
About the TK guy, not a TK expert here, did some martial arts though and though his technique looks a bit of balance, though truth be told all TK looks off balance to me, I don't get that focus on kicking. Standing on both feet rules. The things he says sort of make sense. He spends more time on common pitfalls and misconceptions than a lot of other martial arts videos at least.
Seriously, I have never watched any martial arts video without some crazy debate in the comment section and someone going "This guy isn't that good, he's doing it wrong."
On September 24 2014 12:59 SiskosGoatee wrote: About the TK guy, not a TK expert here, did some martial arts though and though his technique looks a bit of balance, though truth be told all TK looks off balance to me, I don't get that focus on kicking. Standing on both feet rules. The things he says sort of make sense. He spends more time on common pitfalls and misconceptions than a lot of other martial arts videos at least.
Yeah, he slides the grounded foot after the kick every time. I'm not really sure this 'hurts' the technique much, though, since he gives himself slightly more effective range by doing so. Personally, if I tried to do that, it'd mess with my kick because I've practiced having the non-kicking leg planted for over a decade. Everyone is a bit different though, so if it works for him, then it's fine.
Shouldn't you comment that it should be "off balance" pumpkin? Two f's.
But seriously, I don't get Tae Kwon Do or any art that focusses so much on kicking. If you kick you stand on one feet. What happens if you kick and someone just intercepts the kick and fends it to the side. Even if you don't just fall over then, you're not exactly standing in a position that doesn't leave you open.
Kicks land pretty hard compared to punches I guess, the all in of martial arts.
About the foreigner bias: You should always ry to find the storyline within a series and more often than not, when a foreigner goes up against a Korean, the storyline is that of an underdog story. I heard on the Korean Starcraft show that even they, when they casted foreigners in Korean leagues, they were rooting for the foreigner.
On September 24 2014 17:46 ejozl wrote: About the foreigner bias: You should always ry to find the storyline within a series and more often than not, when a foreigner goes up against a Korean, the storyline is that of an underdog story. I heard on the Korean Starcraft show that even they, when they casted foreigners in Korean leagues, they were rooting for the foreigner.
That's just admitting your audience is either not that smart or wishful thinking that they buy into it though.
Hell, even when I want someone to win, please don't come with bullshit over-hyping that person's chance, it'll just make me feel patronized.