Addition of "one segment per map/level category" [locked]

2009-07-14 06:20:06 pm

Main argument against OSPL category; due to must runners using this philosophy anyway, it's not different enough. Honestly I'd like a subtle rewording of the rules to be (more) sure that difference stays minimal.

Spider-Waffle

(user is banned)

Spider-Waffle

Edit history:

Spider-Waffle: 2009-07-15 03:21:13 am

2009-07-15 12:21:53 am

Don't think! feeeeeal

I think my original vision was too ambitious and not necessary, I can see now it's not really necessary, and think SDA would prefer to wait until the serious problem comes up before they do something about it. I'd like to possibly start a new thread with my new, much revised, less ambitious vision, which wouldn't change SDA that much and wouldn't have to be fully implemented until the serious problem inevitably does come up.

Would it be better to close this thread and start the new one or do you want me to completely edit my original post? I'll do which ever you feel most complies with the forum rules.

Zealie

2009-07-15 01:40:13 am

I've been reading some of these posts (yes I admit, not all).

At first I didn't even get the difference between this OSPL and IL, but then I read the example of WC3 which carries over your hero's lvl so an IL table would (practically) be impossible.
I then thought, well for such games that makes an IL table impossible maybe this isn't a bad category.
However, thinking about it more I realised that if one makes an OSPL of WC3 in say 30 minutes (just random numbers punching here) and someone else makes a segmented run of WC3 which is also OSPL except for the last map where he uses 1 extra segment.
Then this is suppose to be a new category. Which would really be stupid of course.
And the question arises that, if this segmented run would be only 3 secs faster then the OSPL could it be excepted?
And if it was 1 minute faster, the OSPL would not be obsoleted? (if so the category would be completely useless and if not it would still just seem pretty useless because it's only 1 segment difference...)

Well, as you can see in my example, the OSPL category seems kinda useless in that case.

But, I must agree that if there would be a WC3 run wish say, 150 segments or something an OSPL run would (imho) be a fresh addition to the site.

So I guess that's my conclusion. And I guess one could say this 'problem' hasn't arived enough in practical means to be considered at the moment. (atleast I'm assuming that's what most people say from what I've read that disagree with OSPL, but I haven't read all, so I might be wrong)

I've been reading some of these posts (yes I admit, not all).

At first I didn't even get the difference between this OSPL and IL, but then I read the example of WC3 which carries over your hero's lvl so an IL table would (practically) be impossible.
I then thought, well for such games that makes an IL table impossible maybe this isn't a bad category.
However, thinking about it more I realised that if one makes an OSPL of WC3 in say 30 minutes (just random numbers punching here) and someone else makes a segmented run of WC3 which is also OSPL except for the last map where he uses 1 extra segment.
Then this is suppose to be a new category. Which would really be stupid of course.
And the question arises that, if this segmented run would be only 3 secs faster then the OSPL could it  be excepted?
And if it was 1 minute faster, the OSPL would not be obsoleted? (if so the category would be completely useless and if not it would still just seem pretty useless because it's only 1 segment difference...)

Well, as you can see in my example, the OSPL category seems kinda useless in that case.

But, I must agree that if there would be a WC3 run wish say, 150 segments or something an OSPL run would (imho) be a fresh addition to the site.

So I guess that's my conclusion. And I guess one could say this 'problem' hasn't arived enough in practical means to be considered at the moment. (atleast I'm assuming that's what most people say from what I've read that disagree with OSPL, but I haven't read all, so I might be wrong)

dex

Edit history:

dex: 2009-07-15 03:55:20 am

2009-07-15 03:45:03 am

Invisible avatar

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

I think my original vision was too ambitious and not necessary, I can see now it's not really necessary, and think SDA would prefer to wait until the serious problem comes up before they do something about it. I'd like start a new thread with my new, much revised, less ambitious vision, which wouldn't change SDA that much and wouldn't have to be full implemented until the serious problem inevitably does come up.

Would it be better to close this thread and start the new one or do you want me to completely edit my original post? I'll do which ever you feel most complies with the forum rules.

If the vision is less ambitious and changes less than this suggestion, it's even less necessary than the OSPL suggestion.

People on IRC have shown a discomfort at having another thread like this, or even at keeping this one open and letting pointless debate continue. Already are the Rules topic and this one a staple of forum drama. The way you 'debate' is inconceivably annoying - not because you are more coherent or better at talking or have more solid opinions. Oh no, it's because you are stubborn beyond belief. All the arguments that finally convinced you you're wrong were all said on page one. That it took 4 more pages of repeating the same arguments over and over is not a good sign of the way you're debating. People are tired of it; many people completely abandoned checking the thread somewhere around page 2 simply because nothing at all was happening - besides you pointlessly avoiding all arguments put forth against you.

You speak about 'forum rules' and complying with them. I'll tell you what the forum rules are: there are exactly two rules. The first one is the standard from every internet forum ever: no spam and by extension: posting in proper subforums, avoiding offtopic posts. And the second one is one that is present in every social circle in existence, and is encompassed by a very direct and blunt saying: "don't be a dick". It's a very simple rule; and yet... Spammy posts. Agitating in places not made for it. Not listening to other people. Ignoring all arguments against. Debating pointlessly. Debating using fallacies (that one times 50). Debating for basically the sole purpose of debating. Insulting people. Insulting their intelligence without any basis for it. All being ones you've displayed. And there are a bunch more. I'm putting this VERY bluntly, and I apologise for that, but I hope you understand that a blunt and direct approach is the one that might make you rethink your behaviour the most. I've no doubt you *can* change the way you're debating; you were behaving improperly in the Rules thread too, but after a warning or two your post and argument quality actually improved, at least for a while. The way you were behaving in this thread is helpful neither to you (a person might be right in some respects; if they're not behaving properly, their opinion WILL get ignored), nor to the forum (instead of debate going on, people get unnecessarily annoyed trying to make you budge).

As such, and because the change you want to debate is pretty much sure to be of even less significance, and also people are getting annoyed at the discussion threads you partake in a lot, I would prefer if you refrained from making any new threads about rule changes. Or, if you REALLY have to share that suggestion, think first. Is it useful? Do I have solid arguments for it? Can I take into account the opinion of other people? Can I debate in a proper way, at the very least *trying* to avoid fallacies and stubborness? Only if you can answer all those with 'yes' can the thread stand any chance of actually spawning a debate and maybe maybe leading to a rule change.

Also, just making a new thread on basically the same matter, except said in a different, maybe slightly less radical manner does not mean you're starting a new discussion; the arguments from before might and in fact almost surely will hold. Another thing you should think about before posting a new thread. Taking all of these into account, I feel it would be best if you haven't started any new threads on this or very similar matters. If you think your suggestion is truly worthwhile, let it sink a bit. Think about what I've said in this post. Wait a week or two, cool yourself down and then decide whether the new suggestion is of any worth. Only then, if you've reflected on all I've said here, post the topic. I will lock any topic very similar to this one, no matter who makes it, unless the opening poster can bring up new and different ways of looking at the subject. I will lock this thread, because it has ran its course.

I strongly urge you to wait a week or two and reflect on all this before posting a new thread even if you think it's different enough. It'll be good both for your case and for our convenience. If you can't decide whether the new suggestion is worthwhile, chances are it isn't. Remember: the better the way you show your opinion is, the bigger the chances it'll be noticed.

Finally; you speak about a "serious problem inevitably coming up". First off, the way the community works here makes any real problems with segmentation (ie. beating an OSPL run someone decided to make just by segmenting more) very unlikely to pop up. Secondly, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, lest you break it yourself. If there's no evidence of a problem, and fixing the "problem" wouldn't effectively change anything, don't waste time and effort trying to fix "it".

That you've finally decided to listen to us is a good sign; that it took 4 pages of saying the same things over and over AND a poll (an inferior way of gathering opinions to people writing their opinion out) is not a good sign. I hope you read all of this and can take it under consideration, and I hope you can behave properly in the future. If you can, thank you.

[quote="Spider-Waffle"]
I think my original vision was too ambitious and not necessary, I can see now it's not really necessary, and think SDA would prefer to wait until the serious problem comes up before they do something about it.  I'd like start a new thread with my new, much revised, less ambitious vision, which wouldn't change SDA that much and wouldn't have to be full implemented until the serious problem inevitably does come up.

Would it be better to close this thread and start the new one or do you want me to completely edit my original post?  I'll do which ever you feel most complies with the forum rules.
[/quote]
If the vision is less ambitious and changes less than this suggestion, it's even less necessary than the OSPL suggestion.

People on IRC have shown a discomfort at having another thread like this, or even at keeping this one open and letting pointless debate continue. Already are the Rules topic and this one a staple of forum drama. The way you 'debate' is inconceivably annoying - not because you are more coherent or better at talking or have more solid opinions. Oh no, it's because you are stubborn beyond belief. All the arguments that finally convinced you you're wrong were all said on page one. That it took 4 more pages of repeating the same arguments over and over is not a good sign of the way you're debating. People are tired of it; many people completely abandoned checking the thread somewhere around page 2 simply because nothing at all was happening - besides you pointlessly avoiding all arguments put forth against you.

You speak about 'forum rules' and complying with them. I'll tell you what the forum rules are: there are exactly two rules. The first one is the standard from every internet forum ever: no spam and by extension: posting in proper subforums, avoiding offtopic posts. And the second one is one that is present in every social circle in existence, and is encompassed by a very direct and blunt saying: "don't be a dick". It's a very simple rule; and yet... Spammy posts. Agitating in places not made for it. Not listening to other people. Ignoring all arguments against. Debating pointlessly. Debating using fallacies (that one times 50). Debating for basically the sole purpose of debating. Insulting people. Insulting their intelligence without any basis for it. All being ones you've displayed. And there are a bunch more. I'm putting this VERY bluntly, and I apologise for that, but I hope you understand that a blunt and direct approach is the one that might make you rethink your behaviour the most. I've no doubt you *can* change the way you're debating; you were behaving improperly in the Rules thread too, but after a warning or two your post and argument quality actually improved, at least for a while. The way you were behaving in this thread is helpful neither to you (a person might be right in some respects; if they're not behaving properly, their opinion WILL get ignored), nor to the forum (instead of debate going on, people get unnecessarily annoyed trying to make you budge).

As such, and because the change you want to debate is pretty much sure to be of even less significance, and also people are getting annoyed at the discussion threads you partake in a lot, I would prefer if you refrained from making any new threads about rule changes. Or, if you REALLY have to share that suggestion, think first. Is it useful? Do I have solid arguments for it? Can I take into account the opinion of other people? Can I debate in a proper way, at the very least *trying* to avoid fallacies and stubborness? Only if you can answer all those with 'yes' can the thread stand any chance of actually spawning a debate and maybe maybe leading to a rule change.

Also, just making a new thread on basically the same matter, except said in a different, maybe slightly less radical manner does not mean you're starting a new discussion; the arguments from before might and in fact almost surely will hold. Another thing you should think about before posting a new thread. Taking all of these into account, I feel it would be best if you haven't started any new threads on this or very similar matters. If you think your suggestion is truly worthwhile, let it sink a bit. Think about what I've said in this post. Wait a week or two, cool yourself down and then decide whether the new suggestion is of any worth. Only then, if you've reflected on all I've said here, post the topic. I will lock any topic very similar to this one, no matter who makes it, unless the opening poster can bring up new and different ways of looking at the subject. I will lock this thread, because it has ran its course.

I strongly urge you to wait a week or two and reflect on all this before posting a new thread even if you think it's different enough. It'll be good both for your case and for our convenience. If you can't decide whether the new suggestion is worthwhile, chances are it isn't. Remember: the better the way you show your opinion is, the bigger the chances it'll be noticed.

Finally; you speak about a "serious problem inevitably coming up". First off, the way the community works here makes any real problems with segmentation (ie. beating an OSPL run someone decided to make just by segmenting more) very unlikely to pop up. Secondly, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, lest you break it yourself. If there's no evidence of a problem, and fixing the "problem" wouldn't effectively change anything, don't waste time and effort trying to fix "it".

That you've finally decided to listen to us is a good sign; that it took 4 pages of saying the same things over and over AND a poll (an inferior way of gathering opinions to people writing their opinion out) is not a good sign. I hope you read all of this and can take it under consideration, and I hope you can behave properly in the future. If you can, thank you.