EPTBanned for an opinion? - Page 2
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
JohnChoi
1773 Posts
| ||
|
achristes
Norway653 Posts
On October 20 2012 01:40 tofucake wrote: also fyi you have no freedom of speech on TL This And it's only 2 days, why are you complaining? | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On October 20 2012 01:53 bailando wrote: sadly i can only sign that statement. thats basically on what TL-forum is build on. oh well People who post like this don't typically understand what a "political right" is, and how that differs from one's rights in a private community. Take for instance, the US Constitution and its amendments; the rights and liberties granted by these documents apply only to an individual's or group's interaction with the governments of the United States. Team Liquid is not associated with any government in all the world, and any laws similar to the US Constitution's first amendment don't apply. It would need to specifically state that the law in question applied to private communities, in which case you'd likely have a riot against anti-privacy on your hands. | ||
|
marttorn
Norway5211 Posts
On October 21 2012 06:22 Rebel_lion wrote: The elephant in the room article was what exactly? A well-written, thought-out opinion piece on SC2 and the pro-scene that attracted controversy because of its nature? It's not comparable to nemesis' post. | ||
|
Rebel_lion
United States271 Posts
On October 22 2012 04:49 marttorn wrote: A well-written, thought-out opinion piece on SC2 and the pro-scene that attracted controversy because of its nature? It's not comparable to nemesis' post. Disagreed, it propagated the idea that SC1 players would automatically be better than SC2 players. It was an expansion on the idea that auto-mine, mbs, and other "features" of SC2 made the game easier and thus the pro's less skilled. In my opinion it stoked the flames of this argument if not outright creating it. no game vs game inciting... that is exactly what that post and article were. | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On October 22 2012 07:02 Rebel_lion wrote: + Show Spoiler + On October 22 2012 04:49 marttorn wrote: A well-written, thought-out opinion piece on SC2 and the pro-scene that attracted controversy because of its nature? It's not comparable to nemesis' post. Disagreed, it propagated the idea that SC1 players would automatically be better than SC2 players. It was an expansion on the idea that auto-mine, mbs, and other "features" of SC2 made the game easier and thus the pro's less skilled. In my opinion it stoked the flames of this argument if not outright creating it. no game vs game inciting... that is exactly what that post and article were. It's more about how skill transitions between both games. The SC2 players at the time were worse at BW than the remaining BW players, so it's an obvious question wether the BW players would end up being better than them at SC2 if they transitioned as well. This idea would be equaly valid in the opposite scenario. If A player is better than B player at "low skill game" and B player transitions to another more dificult game and dominates it, would that mean that A player would eventually also be better than B player if he chose to switch? It was always about the players, it said the "competition was a farce", not that the game was a farce. | ||
|
marttorn
Norway5211 Posts
On October 22 2012 07:02 Rebel_lion wrote: + Show Spoiler + On October 22 2012 04:49 marttorn wrote: A well-written, thought-out opinion piece on SC2 and the pro-scene that attracted controversy because of its nature? It's not comparable to nemesis' post. Disagreed, it propagated the idea that SC1 players would automatically be better than SC2 players. It was an expansion on the idea that auto-mine, mbs, and other "features" of SC2 made the game easier and thus the pro's less skilled. In my opinion it stoked the flames of this argument if not outright creating it. no game vs game inciting... that is exactly what that post and article were. If nemesis was: 1) A mod and respected veteran of teamliquid and 2) Wrote up a large, detailed article on how low the skill gap of SC2 is, in respect to BW Would he be banned? How an opinion is expressed is a thing of great importance. While Intrigue's FE article was lengthy and expressed various concerns and backed them up with evidence, nemesis' post was but a one liner that would ultimately only incite pointless game vs game arguments, whereas Intrigue's article was presented in such a way as to incite discussion as well. | ||
|
Heh_
Singapore2712 Posts
On October 22 2012 16:52 marttorn wrote: If nemesis was: 1) A mod and respected veteran of teamliquid and 2) Wrote up a large, detailed article on how low the skill gap of SC2 is, in respect to BW Would he be banned? How an opinion is expressed is a thing of great importance. While Intrigue's FE article was lengthy and expressed various concerns and backed them up with evidence, nemesis' post was but a one liner that would ultimately only incite pointless game vs game arguments, whereas Intrigue's article was presented in such a way as to incite discussion as well. If he followed point 2 without point 1, I'll bet that he won't be banned. If he brings up multiple valid points and ultimately comes to a conclusion that BW involved more skill, the I don't think he should be banned. At worst, the thread might get closed for all flaming and off-topic discussion that game vs game threads tend to inspire. | ||
| ||
