Diese Seite macht ausgiebigen Gebrauch von JavaScript.
Bitte aktiviert JavaScript in Eurem Browser.

Why Americans can't speak (or write in) English properly.

Antwort verfassen

Zur Forenübersicht zurückkehren

Beitrag von Squishalot

You still haven't answered the question ;p

If you can rank someone's contribution to the game, then you're implicitly weighting the importance of different aspects of their game. It's no longer objective.

Beitrag von Hyperspacerebel

Relative to the end/goal of the action (which is to win). Basketball is a defined unit, as such all 'good basketball' is in proportion to its end.

Beitrag von Squishalot

What, that if you win, you played good, and if you lose, you played bad, is that what you're implying?

Beitrag von Hyperspacerebel

What, that if you win, you played good, and if you lose, you played bad, is that what you're implying?
In relation to that game, yes...100% is good 0% is bad.

Obviously, you take more than 1 game though, because no one is absolutely perfect at basketball, and few if any are absolutely the worst at it -- the only way to get an accurate number is through multiple games. But if the team pool only consists of those two teams, then yes, the winner is good and the loser is bad, because one will always be above and one always below the median.

Beitrag von Squishalot

Well, in relation to that game, I'd horribly disagree with you, because I believe there is the likelihood that the best player on the team that loses is 'more good' than the worst player on the team that wins.

Example: the player who gets benched after missing two free shots, is he 'good' just because his team wins?

Or have you strawmanned the issue by now looking at good teams, rather than good players? ;p

Beitrag von Hyperspacerebel

Well, in relation to that game, I'd horribly disagree with you, because I believe there is the likelihood that the best player on the team that loses is 'more good' than the worst player on the team that wins.

Example: the player who gets benched after missing two free shots, is he 'good' just because his team wins?

Or have you strawmanned the issue by now looking at good teams, rather than good players? ;p

I thought that was obvious from the beginning.

Both the 'perfect' player and the 'perfect' team would wind no matter what.

Beitrag von Squishalot

I thought that was obvious from the beginning.

Both the 'perfect' player and the 'perfect' team would wind no matter what.

Yes, but your goal is to identify the good players from the bad players.

Beitrag von Hyperspacerebel

No, that's not my goal, I can already do that.

Relative to the end/goal of the action (which is to win). Basketball is a defined unit, as such all 'good basketball' is in proportion to its end.
A players goodness is still inherently linked to winning, just as much as the 'perfect' player would always win.

Beitrag von Squishalot

And a good player stuck with a bad team?

If someone's statistics are consistently higher than a member of a winning team, are they still 'bad' because their team loses?

I think it's too simplistic to look purely at win/loss records, just as people can be carried through raids in WoW.

In any event, since your idea of 'good' appears to be relative to your brother's playing pool, it's still subjective and biased, when you don't know how 'good' other players from other countries are.

Beitrag von 343569

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Beitrag von Squishalot

Abbreviate anything, anything but please.
You are asking for a favour, you are asking for me to do an effort for you, could you do the !@#$ing effort of typing two more letters? Is it that !@#$ing hard?

Although I agree with you (profanities excepted), I do feel honour-bound to point out that the conventional abbreviations of 'plz' or 'pls' require an additional three letters to type (not two), thereby doubling the effort placed into typing the original. Given that the abbreviation is commonly used when spamming or begging, over time, it becomes a significant time/effort saver.

Beitrag von 285720

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Beitrag von 178827

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Beitrag von 260787

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Beitrag von Adamsm

I don't know; here on the Forums I've had a few people tell me that spelling Honour, Armour and other words are 'incorrect' till I remind them I'm Canadian, and we use the 'Queen's English' when we spell them. It is true that Americans use a different version of English from England, and that leet-speak is screwing up the language even more; and your more likely to see leet-speak from an American player over any other one.

Beitrag von pezz

Going to go back to the original post here, first of all:

So, while the rest of the world is taught that they need to learn English to interact in the global economy and while they learn it incidentally through music and movies, we learn that nobody gives a crap if we don't write so good and never see an example to the contrary in the famed "real world" we finally enter into at some point.

This post suggests that you're comparing Americans to non-native speakers of English, which I think does a disservice to Americans in particular. I've met plenty of non native speakers who had a better grasp on the language than I did, but I've also spent more than 30 seconds in Staines and in northern England and I can tell you English is changing in those places in ways that can definitely be considered negative, so I don't think a decline in the quality of the language is an American problem. 'Am I bovered?' definitely annoys me very slightly more than the 'Who dat?' cheer here in New Orleans, though I find both of them to be corruptions of the language. And now that the Saints are super bowl bound I'm hearing and seeing 'Who dat?' enough that it's gradually going up the scale in terms of annoying me. Though at the same time, I think both of them are just inevitable evolution of the language, which is the same process by which it has happened that a reasonably literary and verbose individual needs an hour and a half a bottle of Advil to get through one untranslated page of The Canterbury Tales.

Also as for HSR and Squish's argument: As far as I can tell it's 'good is not relativistic' versus 'good does not have one single overarching definition, nor is it a yes/no proposition.' I struggle to see how those two things are mutually exclusive.

Beitrag von 178827

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Beitrag von 393249

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Beitrag von Hyperspacerebel

Yes, I make grammatical mistakes, just like everyone else. Making mistakes, however, is not the same thing as "giving a crap if we don't write so good ." I will have you know that all the things you quoted were typos (except the first). 90% of my replies are typed out while I'm doing something else, which means I have a very short amount of time to reply and am usually partially distracted.

As far as the first is concerned, they are labeled 1 and 2, because I'm answering the assumptions -- I had no need to repeat what was already written in the post I was replying to.

Beitrag von Hyperspacerebel

In any event, since your idea of 'good' appears to be relative to your brother's playing pool, it's still subjective and biased, when you don't know how 'good' other players from other countries are.

No it's not relative to his playing pool. Who ever said that?

And a good player stuck with a bad team?

If someone's statistics are consistently higher than a member of a winning team, are they still 'bad' because their team loses?
"Proportionate to" =/= attaining of.

Antwort verfassen