Your response to my post showing that I'd read your stated problems with a private group
You ignore the reasons I posted for why the jury system works the way it does, to bring up completely arbitrary points that have nothing to do w/ what I said. Your points were all completely irrelevant to the conversation.
first of all you didn't really post why the jury system works the way it does, you just said
"juries deliberate in secret, so that people from the outside can't try and influence a decision by the jury"
and then I explained why the reasons juries deliberate in secret is different than why the backroom is deliberating in secret.
because the backroom is composed of the supposed top intellectuals of the smash community, outside influence should not make a difference because, backroomers should be smart enough to recognize silly arguments and criticisms and ignore them
whereas jurors are a bunch of random individuals with no prior expertise in the matters their deciding, which is why outside influence is more of a problem in the interest of a fair trial.
its funny that you keep saying my posts are irrelevant to what you say,and that Im just avoiding the issues, but you havne't even tried to refute the points that I made about the jury system...the criticism of avoiding issues applies much more to yourself then to me.
Im not sure if you know how to debate but, you can't say my points are irrelevant and arbitrary without explaining why.
its like me just responding by saying "No! Your Wrong"
The second part you quoted again ignored my point to talk around the issue. It doesn't matter if the decision they came up with isn't right, down the road. The point is that if they get to decide their standpoint without the people not in the backroom (a unstated part of this being that the people in the back room DO have more knowledge and experience than most of the people who'd be trying to discuss it were it public) knowing their personal opinions on it. Then, when they reach their group consensus, they can go with that and have a clear, unified opinion, with strong reasons backing it.
I think your confusing ignoring/talking around an issue with not agreeing with what your saying lol. my response was directed at why I think what you have just re-stated above is a bad way to approach decision making, because the main reason for deliberating is to reach the "correct" decision lol IT does matter if the decision isn' t right!
yet again with your above statement you have failed to show why outside people having a knowledge of the individual backroom members decisions has a negative impact on the process,
all you have said is that being secret allows people to decide stuff without other people knowing about it.
and I quote
The point is that if they get to decide their standpoint without the people not in the backroom knowing their personal opinions on it
yes we all know that people in the backroom decide their standpoint without people knowing about it.
The question is why would having outside people know about their decisions be bad, even if those people are of sub-par intelligence, they still have no power over backroom decisions. If the backroom is truly the best and the brightest, then like people with mediocre intelligence they should be able to filter what is intelligent dissent and what is fundamentally incorrect dissent.
It should not be a problem.....for a group of smart people.
You failed to address why this is any more wrong than the countless other organizations that have a decision making team, or even just have people ranked higher than you on the totem pole--or do you expect you boss at whatever job you have to include you and all his employees when he's making a decision?
yes I would certainly expect my boss to include me when he's making a decision that directly effects me? That seems like it would be important to know about lol? The fact that he doesn't does not make it right.
I think your forgetting that a main reason that large organizations make secret decisions is because the decisions their making are not beneficial to anyone but themselves.
also in a business setting the reason other employees are not included in decisions is because they are hired to be doing something else, those decisions are another employees responsibility, it has nothing to do with those individuals thinking that if they let other people know about their decisions they'll be criticized and it will change their decision
I mean if they're making decisions that negatively affect other employees it would make a difference but that applies to my first point of secrecy due to the unbeneficial nature of the decision.
the reason why the organization model doesn't apply to smashboards is because everyone on smashboards are not employee's, we have no obligation to anyone with apparently lots of free time on our hands. so the reason for secrecy don't apply in this case we have nothing better to do than read a bunch if MBR posts we haven't been hired to do anything specifically we are simply here to learn and discuss matters pertaining to ssbm.
In terms of your response to kaos in the same post, you again bring up "the only point i'm trying to refute is in this particular situation, conversing in secret is somehow advantageous to transparency." Except that you can't
let me tell you a secret, trying to prove someone is a troll is a lot easier if you know what your talking about
but here let me post the benefits of transparency that I gave earlier
-with a great deal of scrutiny backroom members would be more likely to articulate their ideas more clearly and concisely. provide more solid arguments in light of the fact that anyone with a smashboard account could post a thread as to why they are either right or wrong.
-you wouldn't have to re- explain your decisions, anyone could simply read the threads for themselves.
-if any smashboard member could read the backroom discussion a large portion of the community could probably learn a great deal about whatever you discuss, character match-ups, stage weakness's etc.
-people interested in the tier list could read your discussions as to why you reached those conclusions, just providing a tier list doesn't explain very much and explaining the tier list in detail would take the amount of time you spent discussion it in the first place.
Basically it would be providing useful information to the entire smash community and at the same time increasing the quality of discussion
. We provide evidence for why it's good, why it works the way it does, and all you do is bring up secret societies, ignoring the day to day evidence supporting the way it's done. Private organization=/=conspiracy. The fact is, a small group is more efficient. On a public forum, a public group is unable to be small, even if it's read only--the members of said group would be deluged by people (that aren't in their group for a reason) pming them, bring topics up in other threads, trying to influence their decision.
all I've done is bring up secret societies? I mentioned them maybe a couple times I've posted like three pages worth of argument not involving secret societies lol.
in my previous posts I have also agreed that small groups are more effective at Reaching a decision , but that does not mean that they are more accurate in reaching a decision.
Again what is wrong with people getting pm's about backroom topics, if the backroom members are actually intelligent like I said before they should be able to use Pm's constructively to reach a decision, there no reason why getting messages from people thinking why such and such a stage should be banned or why some character should be above another on the tier list would be a hindrance to the process, it might bring some unique information to the discussion.
Also, your claim about having one person is simply reducto ad absurdum, everyone knows that if it was once person, the results would be highly biased. You brought that up for no reason, except to avoid talking about our points. Same w/ comments like "all I am against is secrecy in an open society." **** like that proves that you're either helplessly naive, or a troll .And you're being to unwilling to respond in any meaningful way to our points, which leads one to believe the latter
um if you had Read the post with any degree of comprehension you wouldn't have posted what you just did.
let me copy and paste the quote that your talking about
yes of course working in smaller groups is more effective at reaching a conclusion.
of course just having one person would be the most efficient"
I said one person would be the most efficient. which is undeniable.
and I was using this as a way of showing a flaw in the small team effective argument, because if your just after effectiveness then one person is the way to go, as there wouldn't be any discussion or deliberation. it was a response to a kaos's small team argument not something I posted for no reason as you have stated.
and simply picking out one sentence from a page post and using it to imply that I avoided talking about your points is pretty weak and is also really ****ing ironic, because it was a comment I made in passing which had little to do with my real argument, and instead of responding to my actual argument you just pick out a sentence that you think you can attack and then ignore everything else I said, so who is really avoiding whos argument?
and how is saying that I'm against secrecy in an open society is acting like a troll, if you understood what was going on in the world right now you wouldn't be saying that.
politicians, Corporate leaders, private orginizations, deliberate in secret because they have something to hide from the general population, because if people knew what they were really talking about they wouldn't exist for very long, the use of secrecy in the real world is used to hide malevolent intent. please explain your perception of secrecy in the real world more clearly if you do not think this is the case.
so let me sum up the arguments so far, and correct me if I have your argument wrong.
You think that the backroom should be secret because having it open to the public would cause an outside influence on backroom decisions, which would be bad because the backroom decisions are the best possible and outside influence would come from an uninformed and unintelligent source which could only cause a deterioration of the final conclusions.
My response to this is that , assuming that the backroom is indeed the smartest and most able to make a correct decision, allowing it to be viewable to the public would not be detrimental to the decisions because the backroom members would only change their decision if an argument proposed by a non-backroommember was well founded and convincing, in which case the change in that backroommembers decision would be positive.
unfounded arguments would be rationally negated by the supreme intellect of the backroom and hence not a factor in the final decision other than the strengthening of their decision due to the flaws in the proposed argument.
also the rest of the smash community might learn some valuable information from reading discussions which is why most people have a smashboards account.
...
