-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
The North Carolina Melee Power Rankings - February 11th, 2010
- Thread starter Foxy
- Start date
- Status
GofG
Smash Champion
so superficial
i would choose intelligent and geeky over not ugly any day. I remember sitting in my first girlfriend's basement, playing diablo 2, seeing if we could beat Hell in one sitting. 3 am, her mom would come down expecting to catch me impregnating her, but no man, we were just trying to finish up the mausoleum or something before crashing for the night.
That was the best relationship I ever had.
stingers
Smash Obsessed
tomato isn't a word
SK919
Deal with it
I like pie
Ocean
Smash Master
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,810
- Slippi.gg
- OCEAN#0
AlcyoNite
Smash Champion
Don't cha wish your girlfriend was hot like me?
Don't cha wish your girlfriend was a freak like me?
Don't cha?
Don't cha?
Don't cha wish your girlfriend was raw like me?
Don't cha wish your girlfriend was fun like me?
Don't cha?
stingers
Smash Obsessed
yo behr
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT2mUwI4294
i got that song from a waffles vid lol
its so good
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT2mUwI4294
i got that song from a waffles vid lol
its so good
$mike
Smash Ace
Eddie makes threads 2x better
Now PP needs to get here
Now PP needs to get here
AlcyoNite
Smash Champion
Beautiful girls all over the world
i could be chasing but my time would be wasten
they got nothing on you baby
nothing on you baby
they might say hi and i might say hey
but you shouldn't worry about what they say
cos they got nothing on you baby
nothing on you baby
i could be chasing but my time would be wasten
they got nothing on you baby
nothing on you baby
they might say hi and i might say hey
but you shouldn't worry about what they say
cos they got nothing on you baby
nothing on you baby
stingers
Smash Obsessed
~Twitch~
Smash Master
ok, looks like i'm going to be "that guy". stop freaking talking about random stuff in the PR thread! you're going to get it moved.
stingers
Smash Obsessed
mike don't check this thread any more. calm yoself
So, I typed a text to a girl I used to see
Sayin that I chose this cutie pie with whom I wanna be
And I apologize if this message gets you down
Then I CC'd every girl that I'd see see round town and
I hate to see y'all frown but I'd rather see her smiling
Wetness all around me, true, but I'm no island
Peninsula maybe, makes no sense I know, crazy
Give up all this ***** cat thats in my lap no lookin back
Spaceships dont come equipped with rearview mirrors
They dip as quick as they can
The atmosphere is now ripped
Im so like a Pimp, Im glad its night
So the light from the sun would not burn me on my bum
When I shoot the moon high, jump the broom
Like a premie out the womb
Sayin that I chose this cutie pie with whom I wanna be
And I apologize if this message gets you down
Then I CC'd every girl that I'd see see round town and
I hate to see y'all frown but I'd rather see her smiling
Wetness all around me, true, but I'm no island
Peninsula maybe, makes no sense I know, crazy
Give up all this ***** cat thats in my lap no lookin back
Spaceships dont come equipped with rearview mirrors
They dip as quick as they can
The atmosphere is now ripped
Im so like a Pimp, Im glad its night
So the light from the sun would not burn me on my bum
When I shoot the moon high, jump the broom
Like a premie out the womb
stingers
Smash Obsessed
andre 3000 is the silent wolf of rap
Diatenshi
Smash Lord
My partner yellin "Too soon! Dont do it! Reconsider!
Read some litera - ture on the subject
You sure? **** it
You know we got your back like chiroprac - tic
If that ***** do you dirty
we'll wipe her *** out as in detergent
Now hurry hurry, go on to the altar
I know you aint a pimp but pimp remember what I taught ya
Keep your heart 3 stacks, keep your heart
Aye, keep your heart 3 stacks, keep your heart
Man, these girls is smart, 3 stacks, these girls is smart
Play your part
Play your part
Sweet jones
By ***** a choosey lover, never **** without a rubber
Never in the sheets, like it on top of the cover
Money on the dresser, drive a compressor
Top notch hoes get the most, not the lesser
trash like the **** for 40 dollars in the club
****ing up the game, ***** you gets no love
She be cross country givin all that she got
A thousand a pop, Im pullin Bentleys off the lot
I smashed up the grey one, bought me a red
Every time we hit the parking lot we turn heads
Some hoes wanna choose but them *****es too scary
Your ***** chose me, you aint a pimp you a fairy
By ***** a choosey lover, never **** without a rubber
Never in the sheets, like it on top of the cover
Money on the dresser, drive a compressor
Top notch hoes get the most, not the lesser
trash like the **** for 40 dollars in the club
****ing up the game, ***** you gets no love
She be cross country givin all that she got
A thousand a pop, Im pullin Bentleys off the lot
I smashed up the grey one, bought me a red
Every time we hit the parking lot we turn heads
Some hoes wanna choose but them *****es too scary
Your ***** chose me, you aint a pimp you a fairy
AlcyoNite
Smash Champion
no one answered twitch's question, so until then.....
~Twitch~
Smash Master
you mean this question?
AlcyoNite
Smash Champion
$mike
Smash Ace
Theo, get a 6 pack so I'll like you more
vZakat
Half Genie
How did we get so far off topic. Just a few hours ago there was discussions about the panel and how things are being run around here. I don't even know what we're talking about now. Something about how my milkshake brings all the boys to the yard or something. I haven't been paying attention. It would be nice to see productive conversations around here again.
AlcyoNite
Smash Champion
My gorgeous hair should already suffice.
null55
Smash Master
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2008
- Messages
- 3,500
AlcyoNite
Smash Champion
What about my 1111 posts??
Alright, you little douches. My stupid alarm not going off kept me from jumping in on this insanity before, but I'm ready to do this.
Let's take this in a relative order. Cam, the man with the master plan. We'll start with you. Oh, and please read ALL of my post before responding.
So the PRs got messed up ~1 place because Foxy held back information, and you suddenly think the entire panel needs to be reworked because YOU don't like the people on it? That's not how it works buddy. The people are on the panel for a reason. You know WHY I chose the people I did to be on the panel? Because they would use the methods they were supposed to use to look at data and don't give in to popular bullcrap. Let me explain WHY popular bullcrap is bad, since that one seems to have a very hard time getting through for some reason.
Man, where do I even begin with this? For starters, it's a popularity contest. Look at DJ and Theo f*cking campaigning over there because you guys wanted to do whatever you wanted. That's ********. Popularity contests are terrible for PR panels because then you have to watch your back or the people will try to replace you with someone else if you do something else they don't agree with. That's not right. The panel should be people who are REMOVED from the opinions of the masses and are objectively doing their job. Guess what? The system works BECAUSE you guys are pissed off(aside from foxy holding back info, and I'm going to look into that).
Democratic voting in general is just terrible because of the silly bias and politics the PRs would then be made of. You guys think it's cool to just remake PRs because you're not happy with them or the people on the panel, but really, do you think I chose the people that were on the panel because I liked them or they were my friends or whatever? NO. I chose the people I did because of their level-headedness(Mike) or their logical capacity/willingness to adhere to the methods agreed upon by the panel previously(Karn and Foxy). Guess what? I don't think the majority of the people in this state can qualify for one of those, as far as PRs are concerned. If this makes you mad, then you shouldn't take it that way. I still respect all of you, but maybe not in a panel-worthy light. It's not a broad scope or horrible generalization to not be cut out for such a position(look at the crap you'll have to deal with), and you should really try to have faith in the panel because my decisions for panelists were not taken lightly.
You're still wrong about PRs and skill, but I'm not going to elaborate since you didn't.
Actually, I'm going to take this point and go on a rant for a sec. Why does everyone just listen to Cam? Do you really not think for yourselves? Do you think I WANT a biased panel, or I WANTED to put out faulty PRs? Use some sense guys. These people are doing what they think is BEST for the rankings, and the time for bias from them is past. They are mature panelists and I would trust any of them to make the PRs on their own.
Before you all get so gung-ho about revolutionizing the PRs, you should at least ask yourself what it would mean in terms of later down the road when you disagree with them or how unnecessary your actions are. Don't just follow the rage-logic people who disagree with PRs ALWAYS use. Try to take a step back. Do you really think I wanted bias? Do you really think the panel doesn't care? Do you really think Cam will even be satisfied once a new panel comes to power(which it won't)? This is a new panel, and they can make mistakes. You should give them a chance to atone for their losses, and rectify the PRs if they deem it necessary. I plan on talking to each of the panelists about the situation, so don't believe that your complaints and concerns will go unheard. No, the panel is there to make the best PRs without being swayed by public pressure, but they shouldn't be opposed to feedback.
Everyone, please. Consider this issue carefully.
Honestly, at this point I'd get back on the panel if it would quell some concerns about the current one. I can see that everyone is, at the least, uncertain about how things have worked out, so I would maybe be a final observer of the list at least before I saw it released to you guys. Give the panel another chance is all I'm asking.
About working off of "memory":
I'm fairly certain the panel compiles all information that it has available and then discusses it. If something isn't looked over, then it was either withheld or it was impossible to get in contact with the person(s) in question to gather the necessary information in time(the latter has never happened).
Quick @ Dorsey thing: The panel uses the same logic for ranking everyone, but sometimes it's harder to see/explain it with complicated situations(we have a lot of precedents for situations where you say contradictions occur, so our methods are consistent).
Your panel is ridiculous Cam. I'm going to go through and tell you why each person is wrong.
Twitch- Isn't ready to try to understand the methods of PRs. He would just agree with what you guys said.
Cam- Too headstrong and stubborn. You always take your gut instinct and never listen to no. That's not a very cooperative mindset, and it would be impossible to get much done on a panel if you were on it.
DJ- Biased out the wazoo. Has quirky ideas about the PR methods and would change the procedure to the point that the previous rankings would be too different(based on such different criteria). I guess I'd say it makes for inconsistent PRs across time.
Quick @ Stongers: Doesn't matter if it's TOs on a panel or not. TOs can be good at TO'ing but bad at PR handling.
@vZakat: Mission statements pin the panel down and would just give the people different ammunition to fire at us. It's impossible to go over every detail the panel could cover, and thus leads to "contradictions" in how PRs were made, which will lead to more disputes. Maybe Karn or Foxy could find a way to come up with one though.
Lol @ republican party stab. I haven't decided what affiliation I am and aside from that you might as well have argued with GofG and Smith for all the maturity it held. Props.
@Chris: PRs still serve as motivation, and they are of interest to OOS. Aside from that, we need to better seed every player in tournament to give them continually fair results.
@Diatenshi: Point systems don't work. Please just trust me on this one.
I would like to reiterate that QUOTE "but anyways, i would honestly rather just stick to myself for the prs if i pretty much don't get to make the prs as i see fit anyways." That's DJ guys. His way or no way. Not. Panel. Material.
Oh yeah, and about David.....he likes mathematical models as well. Simply not effective on a PR panel. He's certainly a smart guy though, and would be a beneficial member of the PRs if he didn't do the math thing. We'd just have to figure out how to get in contact with him often lol.
Stongers might be fair, but he really doesn't....play the game that much. I wouldn't be totally opposed to him either, except we don't need more people atm.
Ohhh, yes. Time for Theo.
He claims to listen to the people as equally as the panel. Defeats the purpose of the panel if you're listening to people not on the panel all of the time help influence your decision.
There doesn't need to be an "uninvolved party" inspecting the final list because the panel should already be entirely capable of producing an accurate/double checked list on their own.
Theo even says he can't discuss things much and won't be around much longer! Come on guys, that's not really helpful. What would he do then? Say "yes DJ" in the little bit of time he could get online and maybe ask a question or two and then play some more flute.
Cam, your pot-shots ta me are petty and pathetic. That's really all I have to say about that.
@vZakat again: productive isn't what I would call it. More like frenzied mutiny. Cam is self-righteously angry and proclaiming the good word about democracy in PRs to everyone and trying to get a panel run by a bunch of people who will never be satisfied. That's not exactly a good topic of "productive" conversation.
IN CONCLUSION
The panel should 1000% stay as it is until I can at least talk to all of the members individually and understand the situation from their perspective(which has been pathetically lacking in here), and we should all hold off on doing drastic things because that's madness. I could come back to the PRs, maybe permanently, maybe temporarily, in order to restore some stability to their decisions if it would put some minds at ease. Cam likes to call people out violently and insult me because he thinks I'm a power-lover or something. Twitch is too young, DJ is too biased, and Theo is too far removed from the process to be on PRs.
Thank you have a nice day.
Let's take this in a relative order. Cam, the man with the master plan. We'll start with you. Oh, and please read ALL of my post before responding.
So the PRs got messed up ~1 place because Foxy held back information, and you suddenly think the entire panel needs to be reworked because YOU don't like the people on it? That's not how it works buddy. The people are on the panel for a reason. You know WHY I chose the people I did to be on the panel? Because they would use the methods they were supposed to use to look at data and don't give in to popular bullcrap. Let me explain WHY popular bullcrap is bad, since that one seems to have a very hard time getting through for some reason.
Man, where do I even begin with this? For starters, it's a popularity contest. Look at DJ and Theo f*cking campaigning over there because you guys wanted to do whatever you wanted. That's ********. Popularity contests are terrible for PR panels because then you have to watch your back or the people will try to replace you with someone else if you do something else they don't agree with. That's not right. The panel should be people who are REMOVED from the opinions of the masses and are objectively doing their job. Guess what? The system works BECAUSE you guys are pissed off(aside from foxy holding back info, and I'm going to look into that).
Democratic voting in general is just terrible because of the silly bias and politics the PRs would then be made of. You guys think it's cool to just remake PRs because you're not happy with them or the people on the panel, but really, do you think I chose the people that were on the panel because I liked them or they were my friends or whatever? NO. I chose the people I did because of their level-headedness(Mike) or their logical capacity/willingness to adhere to the methods agreed upon by the panel previously(Karn and Foxy). Guess what? I don't think the majority of the people in this state can qualify for one of those, as far as PRs are concerned. If this makes you mad, then you shouldn't take it that way. I still respect all of you, but maybe not in a panel-worthy light. It's not a broad scope or horrible generalization to not be cut out for such a position(look at the crap you'll have to deal with), and you should really try to have faith in the panel because my decisions for panelists were not taken lightly.
You're still wrong about PRs and skill, but I'm not going to elaborate since you didn't.
Actually, I'm going to take this point and go on a rant for a sec. Why does everyone just listen to Cam? Do you really not think for yourselves? Do you think I WANT a biased panel, or I WANTED to put out faulty PRs? Use some sense guys. These people are doing what they think is BEST for the rankings, and the time for bias from them is past. They are mature panelists and I would trust any of them to make the PRs on their own.
Before you all get so gung-ho about revolutionizing the PRs, you should at least ask yourself what it would mean in terms of later down the road when you disagree with them or how unnecessary your actions are. Don't just follow the rage-logic people who disagree with PRs ALWAYS use. Try to take a step back. Do you really think I wanted bias? Do you really think the panel doesn't care? Do you really think Cam will even be satisfied once a new panel comes to power(which it won't)? This is a new panel, and they can make mistakes. You should give them a chance to atone for their losses, and rectify the PRs if they deem it necessary. I plan on talking to each of the panelists about the situation, so don't believe that your complaints and concerns will go unheard. No, the panel is there to make the best PRs without being swayed by public pressure, but they shouldn't be opposed to feedback.
Everyone, please. Consider this issue carefully.
Honestly, at this point I'd get back on the panel if it would quell some concerns about the current one. I can see that everyone is, at the least, uncertain about how things have worked out, so I would maybe be a final observer of the list at least before I saw it released to you guys. Give the panel another chance is all I'm asking.
About working off of "memory":
I'm fairly certain the panel compiles all information that it has available and then discusses it. If something isn't looked over, then it was either withheld or it was impossible to get in contact with the person(s) in question to gather the necessary information in time(the latter has never happened).
Quick @ Dorsey thing: The panel uses the same logic for ranking everyone, but sometimes it's harder to see/explain it with complicated situations(we have a lot of precedents for situations where you say contradictions occur, so our methods are consistent).
Your panel is ridiculous Cam. I'm going to go through and tell you why each person is wrong.
Twitch- Isn't ready to try to understand the methods of PRs. He would just agree with what you guys said.
Cam- Too headstrong and stubborn. You always take your gut instinct and never listen to no. That's not a very cooperative mindset, and it would be impossible to get much done on a panel if you were on it.
DJ- Biased out the wazoo. Has quirky ideas about the PR methods and would change the procedure to the point that the previous rankings would be too different(based on such different criteria). I guess I'd say it makes for inconsistent PRs across time.
Quick @ Stongers: Doesn't matter if it's TOs on a panel or not. TOs can be good at TO'ing but bad at PR handling.
@vZakat: Mission statements pin the panel down and would just give the people different ammunition to fire at us. It's impossible to go over every detail the panel could cover, and thus leads to "contradictions" in how PRs were made, which will lead to more disputes. Maybe Karn or Foxy could find a way to come up with one though.
Lol @ republican party stab. I haven't decided what affiliation I am and aside from that you might as well have argued with GofG and Smith for all the maturity it held. Props.
@Chris: PRs still serve as motivation, and they are of interest to OOS. Aside from that, we need to better seed every player in tournament to give them continually fair results.
@Diatenshi: Point systems don't work. Please just trust me on this one.
I would like to reiterate that QUOTE "but anyways, i would honestly rather just stick to myself for the prs if i pretty much don't get to make the prs as i see fit anyways." That's DJ guys. His way or no way. Not. Panel. Material.
Oh yeah, and about David.....he likes mathematical models as well. Simply not effective on a PR panel. He's certainly a smart guy though, and would be a beneficial member of the PRs if he didn't do the math thing. We'd just have to figure out how to get in contact with him often lol.
Stongers might be fair, but he really doesn't....play the game that much. I wouldn't be totally opposed to him either, except we don't need more people atm.
Ohhh, yes. Time for Theo.
He claims to listen to the people as equally as the panel. Defeats the purpose of the panel if you're listening to people not on the panel all of the time help influence your decision.
There doesn't need to be an "uninvolved party" inspecting the final list because the panel should already be entirely capable of producing an accurate/double checked list on their own.
Theo even says he can't discuss things much and won't be around much longer! Come on guys, that's not really helpful. What would he do then? Say "yes DJ" in the little bit of time he could get online and maybe ask a question or two and then play some more flute.
Cam, your pot-shots ta me are petty and pathetic. That's really all I have to say about that.
@vZakat again: productive isn't what I would call it. More like frenzied mutiny. Cam is self-righteously angry and proclaiming the good word about democracy in PRs to everyone and trying to get a panel run by a bunch of people who will never be satisfied. That's not exactly a good topic of "productive" conversation.
IN CONCLUSION
The panel should 1000% stay as it is until I can at least talk to all of the members individually and understand the situation from their perspective(which has been pathetically lacking in here), and we should all hold off on doing drastic things because that's madness. I could come back to the PRs, maybe permanently, maybe temporarily, in order to restore some stability to their decisions if it would put some minds at ease. Cam likes to call people out violently and insult me because he thinks I'm a power-lover or something. Twitch is too young, DJ is too biased, and Theo is too far removed from the process to be on PRs.
Thank you have a nice day.
stingers
Smash Obsessed
i got there and laughed
When he specifically said he would agree with DJ and have little time to look at stuff, I would say it's justified.
The flute thing was part of a joke, so good for you.
The flute thing was part of a joke, so good for you.
DJRome
Smash Hero
lol, im biased? just cause my logic doesn't follow yours doesn't make it "biased out the wazoo." yes, im not really amenable to a panel cause i don't want to weigh others opinions that much. but i stated as much as well and only if you guys agree with my philosophy would i even be considered for such a position.
id love to see where my pr theoreticals have been biased and not based on logic. or in fact where i have been biased about seeding ever.
i like to **** around as much as the next troll, but in serious matters, i don't really think im very bad logically. in all seriousness, i don't think you particularly know my pr methods or how i think of them. and even if you were to, again, my emphases are placed on different aspects of pr evaluation. im not claiming them to be the best, but they are mine. i don't see how that makes me more biased than any other method simply because the one in use is the one that the panelists deem "fair" if my way can hold up to logical scrutiny.
each method contains within itself parameters that define what the prs mean and how they should be calculated. if that method is consistent and produces consistent results while also being accurate relative to the weights put into place, i don't see how it is any wronger than another method.
for the sake of introducing actual evidence into this post, i will point out a distinction between my system that may differ from the current one.
the classic example is how prs used to be done. periods of 3-4 tournaments without regard to previous lists (which proved undoable anyways) and without weight to any results outside of that period.
i oppose this doctrine. there are obvious ways in which i do not like this system. one, these periods completely disregard those just outside the period. they also claim "recent is more valuable" without providing a decay for the earlier ones within that same period. it also limits the sample size to usually 3 and had inconsistencies with regard to attendance. examples of this are times when 1 attendance gave insufficient data and also when a complete absence sometimes led to removal and sometimes not.
which is why i suggested using the 3-5 system, which i believe to be a compromise between my ideal prs and the ones in place.
another issue is that of "benefit of the doubt" as karn puts it. his classic example uses nebs as a basis of judgment wherein significant wins without significant losses was given such a benefit and placed accordingly without regard to quality of attendance. i was not present for this so correct if this is wrong.
but i oppose this as well. i would rather rely on a more extensive set of data to corroborate such a placement.
now in two such matters, i chose to focus on a decaying importance of data consideration, a large data set, and no benefit of the doubt in such cases that players haven't proved worse but haven't proved better either.
these different views, which i find to be equally valid based on personal philosophy lead to the difference in opinion in prs. but i don't see how any aspect of this is "biased."
one of the aspects of prs or really any system is looking at feasibility and cost-benefit analysis. i think using a decaying system and defining clearly such parameters was beyond what any member of any pr panel in nc has ever wanted to do, and quite simply, that is fine. but to state that because a method is more complex without being overly convoluted is a biased method is only a rationalization to not use it and more easily disregard it.
in conclusion, i am content whatever happens. the pr will go on either way, and if the prs differ too much from what i deem accurate, i will not hesitate (well, maybe a bit) to substitute my own if i am asked or if i need to use them for seeding. quite simply put, that is my position.
but i find it troubling and frankly offensive that you should label me biased without so much as any evidence
edit:
i think aspects of this pr simply reflect things that have always been in consideration. the particular troubles with foxy stem from not only his withholding of information but also of his absence. if it is to mean that theo's absence is valid, it is equally valid to state foxy's, particularly having the data that he IS on the panel and failed to address the issue for many weeks.
i do agree about democracy tho. i generally find it terrible. and so no, i would not be in favor of theo being on the panel for many reasons i have already stated. but i in general am not in favor of panels.
but if you are to say that such a panel is immune to democratic appeal, i would argue no to that as well. i think this pr update is a clear indication of dissatisfaction with the pr panel itself. had the prs simply been wrong, it would be excusable to forgive them given a more accurate update. but the root of this failure is founded on flaw within panelists, not necessarily with their character but certainly flaws that detract from pr accuracy.
as such, it seems rather hypocritical to put forth such a notion of panelists "checks" and disregard a broader "check" among the community for no reason other than to say that it is not within their power or capabilities
edit2:lol campaigning. i specifically noted my lack of campaigning by stating its either happening or it's not. idc basically cause i have my own philosophy. nothing new here. just lol tho
id love to see where my pr theoreticals have been biased and not based on logic. or in fact where i have been biased about seeding ever.
i like to **** around as much as the next troll, but in serious matters, i don't really think im very bad logically. in all seriousness, i don't think you particularly know my pr methods or how i think of them. and even if you were to, again, my emphases are placed on different aspects of pr evaluation. im not claiming them to be the best, but they are mine. i don't see how that makes me more biased than any other method simply because the one in use is the one that the panelists deem "fair" if my way can hold up to logical scrutiny.
each method contains within itself parameters that define what the prs mean and how they should be calculated. if that method is consistent and produces consistent results while also being accurate relative to the weights put into place, i don't see how it is any wronger than another method.
for the sake of introducing actual evidence into this post, i will point out a distinction between my system that may differ from the current one.
the classic example is how prs used to be done. periods of 3-4 tournaments without regard to previous lists (which proved undoable anyways) and without weight to any results outside of that period.
i oppose this doctrine. there are obvious ways in which i do not like this system. one, these periods completely disregard those just outside the period. they also claim "recent is more valuable" without providing a decay for the earlier ones within that same period. it also limits the sample size to usually 3 and had inconsistencies with regard to attendance. examples of this are times when 1 attendance gave insufficient data and also when a complete absence sometimes led to removal and sometimes not.
which is why i suggested using the 3-5 system, which i believe to be a compromise between my ideal prs and the ones in place.
another issue is that of "benefit of the doubt" as karn puts it. his classic example uses nebs as a basis of judgment wherein significant wins without significant losses was given such a benefit and placed accordingly without regard to quality of attendance. i was not present for this so correct if this is wrong.
but i oppose this as well. i would rather rely on a more extensive set of data to corroborate such a placement.
now in two such matters, i chose to focus on a decaying importance of data consideration, a large data set, and no benefit of the doubt in such cases that players haven't proved worse but haven't proved better either.
these different views, which i find to be equally valid based on personal philosophy lead to the difference in opinion in prs. but i don't see how any aspect of this is "biased."
one of the aspects of prs or really any system is looking at feasibility and cost-benefit analysis. i think using a decaying system and defining clearly such parameters was beyond what any member of any pr panel in nc has ever wanted to do, and quite simply, that is fine. but to state that because a method is more complex without being overly convoluted is a biased method is only a rationalization to not use it and more easily disregard it.
in conclusion, i am content whatever happens. the pr will go on either way, and if the prs differ too much from what i deem accurate, i will not hesitate (well, maybe a bit) to substitute my own if i am asked or if i need to use them for seeding. quite simply put, that is my position.
but i find it troubling and frankly offensive that you should label me biased without so much as any evidence
edit:
i think aspects of this pr simply reflect things that have always been in consideration. the particular troubles with foxy stem from not only his withholding of information but also of his absence. if it is to mean that theo's absence is valid, it is equally valid to state foxy's, particularly having the data that he IS on the panel and failed to address the issue for many weeks.
i do agree about democracy tho. i generally find it terrible. and so no, i would not be in favor of theo being on the panel for many reasons i have already stated. but i in general am not in favor of panels.
but if you are to say that such a panel is immune to democratic appeal, i would argue no to that as well. i think this pr update is a clear indication of dissatisfaction with the pr panel itself. had the prs simply been wrong, it would be excusable to forgive them given a more accurate update. but the root of this failure is founded on flaw within panelists, not necessarily with their character but certainly flaws that detract from pr accuracy.
as such, it seems rather hypocritical to put forth such a notion of panelists "checks" and disregard a broader "check" among the community for no reason other than to say that it is not within their power or capabilities
edit2:lol campaigning. i specifically noted my lack of campaigning by stating its either happening or it's not. idc basically cause i have my own philosophy. nothing new here. just lol tho
I don't care if your ideas differ from mine, but your ideas don't belong on a panel for PRs. Don't insinuate otherwise.
Your opinions are biased, though you have done seeding by the book. Don't insinuate otherwise.
Your methods being too different make getting things done cooperatively impossible since the process has always been done a different way. Whether they would have been fine if you were around beforehand is debatable, but silly to consider, unless changes are made in the panel(which may or may not be likely, but there will still be no bullcrap voting).
Your ideas and compromises are fair, and I considered you for PRs at one point just so you know. I brought your name up. The panel voted and decided you weren't necessary at the time. I respect your logical capacity but I still don't feel like you are needed at the moment(which, again, may change).
I believe now we do "benefit of the doubt" differently now(and have done so for a while), but yes, that is worth opposing.
I believe the bias would stem from your own placement. And maybe a closer friend's. That's about it.
I said your methods were too different, and your opinions were too biased. That was my intent in the last post, so sorry if it didn't come out that way.
You seeding on your own PRs is ridiculous and I seriously hope you never take such measures. It makes you look bad as a TO, and we both know you're better than that.
I said the panel should listen to the cries of the people and at least occasionally attempt to explain their reasoning for awkward placements. In this case, it is fine to be concerned about the validity of the panel, even though they did actually do an update no one minded at the beginning. Like I said, I will talk to each panelist and try to figure out what went wrong as fairly as possible and see what comes out of this mess.
AlcyoNite
Smash Champion
And you would say that this is an instance of using proper methods? This still does not account for the screwiness that essentially was the last PR list.
Just a few faults I found with this:
-Life is political. For the sole reason that the PR's are for all of NC and OoS, it should actually do its job in serving them well. Whether or not its panel had good intentions, if NC finds its work to be utterly ridiculous and finds traces of potential bias (which I think Cam and DJ argued quite well), then there should be open room for debate as to what the problem is and how it should be solved. I'm sure you've read Locke's contract theory of government; if the people are displeased, then they have a right to overthrow their government, whether the govt likes it or not. But that lends itself to chaos b/c not everyone will ever truly be happy; HOWEVER people have been unhappy for so long that this final list was basically the tipper. Dont get mad at Cam for being the voice to get the issue onto the floor[/QUOTE]
Yeah, now that you put it this way, DJ's arguments TOTALLY make NO sense at ALL!
Democratic voting and its politics is how things are run in government because 1) democracy is the only way to gauge the people whom the organization is serving and 2) politics is a part of LIFE that cannot be escaped
"You guys think it's cool to just remake PRs because you're not happy with them or the people on the panel"- Absolutely! Why else????
"...I chose the people that were on the panel because I liked them or they were my friends or whatever?" - No one ever said this, but I see what you're saying
Well, quite obviously, NC does not agree upon the exhibited "logical capacities" of the panel. I personally consider Alex and Foxy some of the most level-headed people I know, but that does not pertain quite so well to the PR's, as most have argued.
Also, doesn't it follow that members of the panel previously would agree on their own adherence to previous methods? <.<[/QUOTE]
obviously...
I thought for myself, and I decided that I thought that Cam was justified in his approach to this.
And in all honesty, I dont think NC necessarily cares about what you want nor should they care about what you want any more than they care for what I want or what Cam wants unless any of us take it upon ourselves to care about what they want and that is a competent system/judgment decided on by a panel deemed acceptable by the majority of NC.
Again, it really is irrelevant what you wanted because results are all that matter.
Likewise, it doesn't matter how much the panel if results are unsatisfactory (or even far from it).
I don't see why feedback, then, cant come before the PR's are released. AND, consider the feedback that the panel is getting RIGHT NOW that you are so "unopposed" to.
Again, either your judgment is in the minority or I don't understand your definition of "biased" considering that I and a lot of NC consider DJ to be one of the most level-headed, objective people in NC smash.
Regardless, good TO'ing CAN lend itself to good PRing more than bad TO'ing will lend itself to good PRing. Just saiyan~
After your remarks about democracy, definitely lookin like **** Cheney over there..
Just wanted to take this opportunity to point out that you have yet to explain the "fairness" of the PR's as they stand despite the (imo very strong) arguments having been made that NO member of the panel has yet to sufficiently defend.
Are you kidding me? This is the whole point of a bureaucratic entity - that despite the will of the individual, a compromise is reached that while no one is 100% happy, a decision is made that everyone can agree upon. In case you know nothing about government, EVERYONE would "rather just stick to myself for [a governing entity] if i pretty much don't get to make [decisions] as I see fit..." Do you think Obama wanted to sign off on the health care bill as it stands? No! If it were up to him, it probably would have been loads more liberal, but the democratic/bureaucratic system made it so that lots of people were made more happy to the point that enough people would agree upon it (delegates AND the general public). This is the whole reason why the voice of the people should count more: in a democratic system, while not EVERYone is 100% happy, MORE people are MORE happy.
My heart fluttered a little inside!
I never uttered the word "equal." I actually phrased my verbage such that anyone reading carefully could understand that I would only even think about consulting NC if I saw a problem. That in no way even implies that NC would be making my/the panel's decisions for us.
Yeah, so, I can only think to call this wishful thinking. Ideally, any 2 people signing a contract should be able to legalize it and follow through with it on their own, but for quality control/insurance, a lawyer is present anyway. While the lawyer is a, say, house closure costs money, a medium between nc and the panel would come at no cost. Also, you have yet to provide us with such a perfect panel, so how should I trust your saying that such a panel can exist?
All I was doing in my wall-of-text was establishing how much of a role I would like to play in the PR's. I still say that a position that I described would help and the panel wouldnt be taking too much of a loss when I'm gone for the summer. All I was trying to avoid was a commitment to be in Karn's bedroom discussing Brawl for 4 hours talking in circles while everyone is hungry and trying to go get breakfast -_-; for the 3rd time, I still think my involvement would help. If I didnt think so after a few sessions, then I would quit. But the overlying theme of all this is that NC seems to trust my judgment so far, so using it could only help until someone, NC or myself, is displeased.
EDIT: @DJ's post: Again, I agree with your remarks concerning me and I understand your view on democracy. Please (and this is to all of you) take my post as both an scrutinization of pp's logic and a defense of democracy. If the pr's lend themselves to democracy, as you seem to have said dj, then my involvement would be proper. I thought I would make that point.
Also, i have numerous typos above, but they should be negligible
stingers
Smash Obsessed
I just caught a Delibird in the Ice Path in Soul Silver
:D
:D
DJRome
Smash Hero
now pp, we both know that it's laughable that i would consider any *** here differently on the basis of friendship. i make a specific point to AVOID such situations in all things where i am required objectivity.
once again, my thoughts on prs were never for me to play an equal part of a panel. i restate this thoroughly.
on the question of incumbancy, i don't understand. there is no pragmatic disadvantage to redrafting pr focus. it would be done once and then the panel would be able to insert their choice of emphases rather than adhere to one with which they may not agree. i think it is obviously wrong to provide this point of contention. it is an extension of the fallacy of "too much work for little reward" since there is much reward.
this begs the question of the threshhold for too different and too biased.
if a redefinition is proper in this case, difference is irrelevant. and you have yet to show where my "bias" is bad or inaccurate in any way nor provide any biases that would compromise my involvement, only reservations that could be held by any potential member and in fact likely exists in the panel now. so no, i don't see the validity of that point either.
i am not here to call forth any change. i am not so bold. but i will point out the flaws and the plausible solutions.
and in terms of the "update no one minded," it was a combination of disbelief and incredulity that provided such silence. that is the extent of its laughability. it is not ~ 1 spot
once again, my thoughts on prs were never for me to play an equal part of a panel. i restate this thoroughly.
on the question of incumbancy, i don't understand. there is no pragmatic disadvantage to redrafting pr focus. it would be done once and then the panel would be able to insert their choice of emphases rather than adhere to one with which they may not agree. i think it is obviously wrong to provide this point of contention. it is an extension of the fallacy of "too much work for little reward" since there is much reward.
this begs the question of the threshhold for too different and too biased.
if a redefinition is proper in this case, difference is irrelevant. and you have yet to show where my "bias" is bad or inaccurate in any way nor provide any biases that would compromise my involvement, only reservations that could be held by any potential member and in fact likely exists in the panel now. so no, i don't see the validity of that point either.
i am not here to call forth any change. i am not so bold. but i will point out the flaws and the plausible solutions.
and in terms of the "update no one minded," it was a combination of disbelief and incredulity that provided such silence. that is the extent of its laughability. it is not ~ 1 spot
TheLastCacely
Smash Hero
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2009
- Messages
- 6,937
lol but that pokemon sucks.....
Hahaha, you're mad and it's funny.
Let's just take this one step at a time as well then.
As I have said, ONCE AGAIN, the panel should listen to the people and try to at least revisit any questionable issues. There is no need for a revolution though if the panel is willing to be understanding and take a little time to respond to people.
Sarcasm in serious discussions is fun huh!!?!!!??!!?
Okay I honestly don't know what your next point was about because you just bolded pronouns and sounded mad. I guess you want everyone to have the same valued opinion and you think democracy ***** for PR panels, which is backwards logic because the panel has to have a higher authority than the people in order to keep their lists final.
Wow theo, I'm going to break some of this down again.
I. Like. Feedback. Feedback is good. I am glad you all have expressed your opinions. Let's get that out of they way right now. And let's remember it.
NOW THEN, just because you all disagree with what has happened and have brought it to the attention of the panel, doesn't mean that you should at least get a fair response from them or try to overthrow them. I have said that I will talk to all of the panelists and determine what went wrong here, and if it seriously looks like a panelist is unqualified/unfitting of a second chance from that point onward, then I will not hesitate to tell him so and work on getting a replacement for him.
Don't put more words in my mouth(regarding DJ at this point). Actually, that's probably my entire response to this it looks like, but I'm going to keep working through this.
Rofl back up your arguments please.
So it's my job to defend every panelist now? Questionable light has only been brought onto Foxy, so your only beef should be with him. Regardless of what you think, Foxy does a pretty good job gathering, organizing, AND interpreting the data.
This isn't about government. This isn't a society. This is a panel that views data and listens to the people when questionable decisions are made. Does it really have to be harder than that?
You said you liked to listen to popular opinion, and emphasized it, which made me think you might listen to them too much, though equally may have been overdoing it.
Forgive me but I can't even read your next to last last paragraph without wincing. It's mostly a rehash of your disapproval anyway.
It honestly seems like an unnecessary position. It's like we can't trust the panel to do its job so we need a guy to make sure the list looks well enough to put out to the public. That just feels like the panel isn't taken seriously at that point, and honestly it's probably embarrassing. You're leaving soon anyway so I'm not sure why it bothers you so much, but I guess I probably came off a little too harshly since I didn't like the campaigning so it's whatever. My bad for being mean in my response I guess.
Edit: nvm fixed the text.
Still have yourself to be biased for. The wanting to be the leader doesn't help either lol.
It doesn't work when you clash with the prominent ideas on the panel though. You'll just slow the process down by being stubborn.
Waiting for concrete evidence of your bias would be a foolish act.
Well, I had no idea anyone minded the previous update. As I have said, I will talk to the panelists and see what sounds good, though I have some ideas about what can work best for the panel at this point.
Moophobia
Smash Champion
I love this thread again
- Status