| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DAF
Trick Member
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Location: In CP |
120.  Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Would Lil Q beat everyone no bar?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROsfSs4iNnA
I found this video a little odd. I even left a comment on the page. I couldn't tell you if it was because they weren't using the bar or not.
_________________
Drink up baby, stay up all night
With the things you could do
You won't but you might
The potential you'll be that you'll never see
The promises you'll only make |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 121. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Evil_pied wrote: | | novalis wrote: | | I'm not claiming it isn't warranted, |
ty |
Right. I'm not claiming it isn't warranted. I'm also not claiming it IS warranted. I'm claiming it's normative status is ambivalent, because it's arbitrary.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 122. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DAF wrote: | | Would Lil Q beat everyone no bar? |
Yes. There is a video out there of him SDE'ing Monolith no-bar.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DAF
Trick Member
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Location: In CP |
| 123. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Novalis wrote: | | DAF wrote: | | Would Lil Q beat everyone no bar? |
Yes. There is a video out there of him SDE'ing Monolith no-bar. |
Look at the video link I posted. I guess the question is why he did so badly on psmo there?
_________________
Drink up baby, stay up all night
With the things you could do
You won't but you might
The potential you'll be that you'll never see
The promises you'll only make |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 124. Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
That machine was pretty bad. Ryan got 88 on Bag, which he can AAA easily.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DAF
Trick Member
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Location: In CP |
| 125. Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh ok. I already knew Lil Q was better than everyone no bar. The only reason I posted that was to find out why he did badly (comparitively) at that match. I mean...duk failed psmo?
_________________
Drink up baby, stay up all night
With the things you could do
You won't but you might
The potential you'll be that you'll never see
The promises you'll only make |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kilroy(ZTC)
Trick Member
![]()
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
|
| 126. Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, there is a market demand for no-bar play, so I don't see why it would be innappropriate to cater to it, playing method distinction being arbitrary or otherwise. Also, how is the word "normative" being used? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
squirrel_wrangler[spoink]
Trick Member
Joined: 21 May 2002
Location: work |
| 127. Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DAF wrote: | | Novalis wrote: | | DAF wrote: | | Would Lil Q beat everyone no bar? |
Yes. There is a video out there of him SDE'ing Monolith no-bar. |
Look at the video link I posted. I guess the question is why he did so badly on psmo there? |
I think part of it is he is not familiar with the stepchart to play it no bar and still do well. Mike turns the wrong way multiple times throughout the song. This
| Novalis wrote: | | That machine was pretty bad. Ryan got 88 on Bag, which he can AAA easily. |
Ryan can't even pass Mobo Moga.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IHYD.DukAmok
Trick Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Location: Corona, CA |
| 128. Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DAF wrote: | | Oh ok. I already knew Lil Q was better than everyone no bar. The only reason I posted that was to find out why he did badly (comparitively) at that match. I mean...duk failed psmo? |
i had like 10 greats until the run
at which point i remembered i cant read 1x for poopy
so i stopped playing
of course i forgot that winner was determined by perfect count, i couldve won even while failing the song, mike did pretty bad for some reason
_________________
| Sappy_!?! wrote: | | just to answer, if someone who stands next to you watching you play PSMO but you get a D on it, versus somebody who understands perfect attacking and stuff, will think you suck. A player is considered good in my opinion when a player of a higher level comments about you or see's you triple A a song. Or if somebody looks up to you. Hope it clarifies. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
squirrel_wrangler[spoink]
Trick Member
Joined: 21 May 2002
Location: work |
| 129. Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Since every person who plays no bar is either too lazy or incapable of making their own ranking website how about you all just email groovestats and request they make one, because apparently it would require very little effort on their behalf? Then we wouldn't need another one of these.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
XOR-SYS
Trick Member
Joined: 04 May 2005
Location: Canada |
| 130. Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OW MY FUCKING HEAD. Nice job preventing this thread from becoming a debate, guys. 
Even though he derailed the topic into a discussion about who argued what and the value of one's arguments, I agree with Novalis that differentiating pro-bar and no-bar is pointless (at least, I think that was his position, I got lost after he started thesaurusizing), because at the end of the day, it's still just mashing arrows with your feet.
If someone gets a lower score than they would by using the bar to balance themselves, they should be able to justify themselves by adding a comment that says "LOL I DIDNT USE THE BAR FOR THIS ONE GUYS", but there's really no need for anything other than that.
I don't see how not using the bar warrants a "moment in the sun", as it's only there as an aid for balance and has no effect on the actual gameplay itself. Rhythm games are about just that - rhythm. If you have trouble keeping to the rhythm of a song because of your balance, use the bar. If you can somehow keep balance and still maintain good rhythm, don't. If you get a low score because you chose not to use the bar even though you need it, that's your own fault. Whether or not you use the bar shouldn't become a matter of pride, and for that reason alone there's no reason to differentiate efforts with or without the bar, therefore no reason to make a No-Bar scoring section on Groovestats.
*pant*
_________________
2MB = tomb? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
0rion
Trick Member
Joined: 02 May 2005
Location: Kirby will explain it to you. |
| 131. Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, guys. I was doing a million other things yesterday, so I wasn't able to add anything until now.
| Novalis wrote: | | Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | No, it doesn't. Someone says "I don't agree with you." At that point it is their CHOICE whether or not they say WHY they don't agree with you. If they don't add anything to that, it does NOT mean that they didn't say something relevant to the discussion. |
True. It does mean, however, that they have added no argumentative content to the discussion. |
He had no less content that you did when you posted simply for the sake of pointing out that his posts lacked content.
| Quote: | | Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | In a subjective conversation!? What the hell IS this, anyway? |
Subjectivity does not imply Impermiability. |
Subjectivity does imply that more than one point of view can be held and not be correct or incorrect however. You claimed that your view was the "correct" one to have, did you not?
| Quote: | | Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | I think I understand, now. You're saying that it is acceptable and possibly even commendable to be contradictory simply for the sake of being contradictory, and not because it has any real relevance. I'm glad we cleared that up. |
I've never said this, nor do I believe it. I think it is admirable to stand up for what you believe in with reasoned objection, as I am doing on this thread. |
So, what qualifies as a reasoned objection? I've already pointed out twice that KoFfreak's objection was valid and reasonable. In fact, I gave you three reasoned arguments he made for the position he took. You, however, have NOT acknowledged this statement one way or another.
(Gee... you did have a term for that... now what was that again...?)
That was when the argument was about whether or not ITG should have a bar division. And that was the point he was arguing. I'm sure that he'd be willing to concede that the point could be considered arbitrary, but that is not what he was discussing.
Your grounds was that his point shouldn't be even considered because it could be considered arbitrary (as opposed to principled), and because he did little to defend his viewpoint. (Or, you would probably say "Nothing" to defend his viewpoint.)
| Quote: | | Where in this is there an argument that the distinction is non-arbitrary? If the distinction is non-arbitrary, then people ought to care. |
First of all, I have already very clearly explained that sometimes arbitrary distinctions can and should become accepted and acknowledged. Boxers have their own weight divisions, flag football players have their own set of rules and regulations, and so on and so forth.
Second, you point about no one caring about an arbitrary distinction is clearly incorrect. There's just no grounds for it at all. The fact that this topic has gone on so long - even discounting our posts - is proof enough of that.
| Quote: | | If the distinction is arbitrary, then it might be nice, but there is no particular reason to compel someone to do it. If he wants to do it on his own, he is more than welcome. |
So, what is it, exactly, that you're arguing? I mean, seriously. Take a deep breath and really concentrate on this for a moment. I know your mind is like a super-computer and it can process all of what I've written in .27 seconds, but just indulge me here.
If you say that he hasn't defended his point, you're wrong, because he's very clearly said why he wants to do this.
Now, don't respond just yet, because there's more to it than that. If you say that it's an arbitrary distinction to create, then bully for you! In the interest of moving things along, I will flat-out say it: THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN NO-BAR PLAYERS AND BAR PLAYERS IS ARBITRARY! (And, if you'll notice, I've been saying that all along.)
There. Now you tell me why it matters whether it's arbitrary or not.
If you say that it's because people don't care about arbitrary distinctions, then welcome to planet Earth. You must have just been here for all of three seconds.
If you say that people shouldn't care about arbitrary distinctions, then fine. What do you propose to do to change that? Not indulge this one person's idea?
If you're saying that you don't care about arbitrary distinctions, first, prove it. Done that? Wonderful. Now tell me why it should be pertinant to discuss what you care about.
If you say that the solution is to let him and anyone else who cares make a site for it and quit bothering other players about it, then fine! Shut up and let him do it, then, rather than nitpick about why you yourself don't think it's a good idea. Unless you're saying - as a moderator, and not just someone that doesn't agree with him - that it is against forum rules to discuss something arbitrary. In which case, feel free to lock the topic and move on. KoF has already seen the people that have voted "Yea" or "Nay" to his idea, so I'm sure he'd be able to get in touch with them and start working on this. Other than that, you're doing nothing more than harassing him about it, because you stopped actually saying anything pages ago.
_________________
-Sir "O"
There's a little yellow bird on my avatar. (Brawl FC: 4640-1720-6690)
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 132. Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | He had no less content that you did when you posted simply for the sake of pointing out that his posts lacked content. |
I don't agree with that, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a philosopher anywhere who would. My post had clear argumentative (and logical) content (namely, this view is unreasoned because it lacks argumentative content).
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | Subjectivity does imply that more than one point of view can be held and not be correct or incorrect however. You claimed that your view was the "correct" one to have, did you not? |
I claimed that my view was correct. Generally, in subjective debate, for a view to be correct means that it is either correct for the speaker (in most existential topics) or correctly reasoned (no other view which posseses clearly superior reasoning is contradictory). For instance, the debate between Rationalism and Empricisism is largely thought to lack an objective answer; and therefore we can say that both of these views (which are very well reasoned) are equally justified. We can also say that in the debate of modern metaphysics they are 'incorrect' insofar as there are other views which are contradictory but posses clearly superior reasoning (existentialism, for instance).
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | So, what qualifies as a reasoned objection? |
There is a lot of thought on that. Generally, it's thought to be something like this:
If you can subject a view to roundtable criticism by experienced critics, and there is a validly reasoned refutation with non-contradictory premises for each objection, the view is a reasoned one.
For the purposes of this thread, I'd say that if you can refute all of my refutations, you'll have a reasoned view (I'm pretty experienced as a critic).
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | I've already pointed out twice that KoFfreak's objection was valid |
Please state the exact premises of the view and the exact logical reasoning. Any format is acceptable (I can ready almost any symbolic logic).
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | In fact, I gave you three reasoned arguments he made for the position he took. You, however, have NOT acknowledged this statement one way or another. |
I've acknowledged it; I offered refutations. Now we need to move on, either by offering refutations to my refutations or by abandoning the position.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | (Gee... you did have a term for that... now what was that again...?) |
Take that charge very seriously. Most philosophers consider intellectual dishonesty the cardinal sin. If you have a real reason you think I'm guilty of it, feel free to air it, but make sure it is a strong argument. I've lived my life with intellectual courage as it's main aim.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | That was when the argument was about whether or not ITG should have a bar division. And that was the point he was arguing. I'm sure that he'd be willing to concede that the point could be considered arbitrary, but that is not what he was discussing. |
I gave the argument for why the arbitrariness is essential to the division (it determines the normative content).
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | Your grounds was that his point shouldn't be even considered |
I never said that. All views should be considered. I said I thought his view should be rejected.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | because it could be considered arbitrary (as opposed to principled) |
That's not the argument I gave. The argument I gave was that creating the division would lack normative force unless he gave a principled reason for the division.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | and because he did little to defend his viewpoint. (Or, you would probably say "Nothing" to defend his viewpoint.) |
He did something to defend his viewpoint; just not enough.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | First of all, I have already very clearly explained that sometimes arbitrary distinctions can and should become accepted and acknowledged. Boxers have their own weight divisions, flag football players have their own set of rules and regulations, and so on and so forth. |
And I have equally clearly explained that all of those distinctions have principled reasons (and are therefore NOT arbitrary).
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | Second, you point about no one caring about an arbitrary distinction |
I never made that claim. I claimed the distinction lacked normative force, not that no one cared.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | So, what is it, exactly, that you're arguing? |
The OP has presented a claim: that there ought to be a no-bar scoring site. The key word here is 'ought.' I have argued that if the distinction (between bar and no-bar play) is principled, then it holds normative force, and the OP is right. If on the other hand, the distinction is arbitrary, I have argued that the distinction holds no normative force, and while there is nothing especially wrong with a no-bar division, there is no particular reason to make one either. I have then argued that the distinction is, in fact, arbitrary.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | Now, don't respond just yet, because there's more to it than that. If you say that it's an arbitrary distinction to create, then bully for you! In the interest of moving things along, I will flat-out say it: THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN NO-BAR PLAYERS AND BAR PLAYERS IS ARBITRARY! (And, if you'll notice, I've been saying that all along.)
There. Now you tell me why it matters whether it's arbitrary or not. |
Because if it is arbitrary, the project lacks normative force.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | If you say that people shouldn't care about arbitrary distinctions, then fine. What do you propose to do to change that? Not indulge this one person's idea? |
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it is not the case that people should care about arbitrary distinctions.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | If you say that the solution is to let him and anyone else who cares make a site for it and quit bothering other players about it, then fine! Shut up and let him do it |
I'm not stopping him.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | because you stopped actually saying anything pages ago. |
I am more than happy to translate any sentence of your choosing in any post on this thread into symbolic logic and prove to you, mathematically and confirmed by any known logic-verifying computer in the world, it's relevance, content and immediacy to the argument.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
0rion
Trick Member
Joined: 02 May 2005
Location: Kirby will explain it to you. |
| 133. Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Look, we could keep going back and forth like this until people start ice skating in hell, but I have neither the time nor the energy to continue any longer. It finally did occur to me that no matter what I said at this point, it wouldn't shake or even tap your point of view. And at this point, I seriously have to ask myself why I even care.
I realized that, here I am, in a lengthy discussion with a person who proclaims himself to be one of the smartest people in the world, and at the core of our discussion we're talking about holding a metal bar. And not in some poetic "leaf-falling-from-a-tree" sense, either. We are LITERALLY talking about holding onto a metal bar. This entire conversation has become nothing more than one gigantic farce!
Here we are, discussing logical fallacies, acknowledgement and consention, refutation, and every method for formulaic discussion this side of the Lincoln/Douglas debates, and the reason we have progressed this far and said so much is because some people want to be acknowledged for doing something in a more difficult way, and other people think it's foolish to not play as competitively as you can. In other words, exactly the conversation I never wanted to have again on a message board.
I honestly can't believe I was suckered into taking part in this puerile mockery of a reasoned discussion for as long as I have. So, whatever. Do what you will with this post. Dissect it, get the words and thoughts you want from it so you can conjure up yet another chapter of discourse, explain why this proves that you're right and all the other viewpoints are wrong; I don't care. At this point, unless something really unexpected or interesting is said, I'm finished with this conversation.
_________________
-Sir "O"
There's a little yellow bird on my avatar. (Brawl FC: 4640-1720-6690)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 134. Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | It finally did occur to me that no matter what I said at this point, it wouldn't shake or even tap your point of view. |
On the contrary, I believe you will find it is extremely easy to change my mind with reasoned argument. I am a Pyrrhonian Skeptic, and open to almost anything given a good motivation. Almost all of my views in philosophy have osciliated around over the last couple of years.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | a person who proclaims himself to be one of the smartest people in the world |
I'm not one of the smartest people in the world. I'm smart, but not that smart. I'm (if you trust the metrics, and I don't) 1/10,000. I'm also an extremely motivated overachiever, so my real counterparts to the intellect (graduating college at 19, AP scores, stuff like that) are much higher than usual.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | and at the core of our discussion we're talking about holding a metal bar. And not in some poetic "leaf-falling-from-a-tree" sense, either. We are LITERALLY talking about holding onto a metal bar. This entire conversation has become nothing more than one gigantic farce! |
I disagree. You'd be surprised how profound conclusions you can draw from seemingly meaningless topics. I've drawn some of my own from this very discussion, which is why I participated.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | Here we are, discussing logical fallacies, acknowledgement and consention, refutation, and every method for formulaic discussion this side of the Lincoln/Douglas debates, and the reason we have progressed this far and said so much is because some people want to be acknowledged for doing something in a more difficult way, and other people think it's foolish to not play as competitively as you can. |
That's certainly not the reason I was doing it.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | I honestly can't believe I was suckered into taking part in this puerile mockery of a reasoned discussion for as long as I have. |
I'm not sure what about the discussion isn't reasonable.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | So, whatever. Do what you will with this post. Dissect it, get the words and thoughts you want from it so you can conjure up yet another chapter of discourse, |
I am doing that, but only because I think it is morally wrong (and extremely arrogant) to give any person in debate anything less than m full and honest reply.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | explain why this proves that you're right and all the other viewpoints are wrong; |
I have never made any claim like this.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | I don't care. |
That's a shame, and not because of the topic matter of discussion. If you want to see why it's a shame, pick Socrates back up. There's a section which begins with, what I think, is one of the greatest quotes of all time "the unexamined life is not worth living." See what Socrates has to say about that.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
squirrel_wrangler[spoink]
Trick Member
Joined: 21 May 2002
Location: work |
| 135. Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
So is someone either going to make their own site or request that groovestats create a separate section or is this whole thing going to happen again a few weeks from now?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IHYD.Blake
Vivid Member
Joined: 14 Aug 2004
Location: Solar City, California |
| 136. Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ill make one, then ban everyone who joins.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GotACoolName
Trick Member
Joined: 28 May 2006
Location: Hales Corners, Wisconsin |
| 137. Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Overuse of the word arbitrary.
_________________
Brawl FC: 4725-7610-1200 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cutriss
Staff Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2002
|
| 138. Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Many people don't like it when their arguments get countered with technicalities and flutter about logical fallacies, etc. Expecting everyone else on this board to go toe-to-toe with you and your massive brain is just going to piss everyone off.
Also, this thread clearly started on the wrong foot, tripped down some stairs, broke its back, and lost the baby. For a topic that was supposed to start off not turning into a bar/no-bar debate, it did a great job of setting it off.
The end.
_________________
Sentient Mode is capable... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 139. Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Did the original poster request a lock? I'm not sure I see the need to lock this.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
Forums FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
