the logic in this thread makes my head hurt ....

That would be like saying you're a prisoner of war and the enemy said they would kill you by a firing squad or a hanging and you get to choose, so that makes it okay since you're not forced to take either option.


Wow.

That is just awful.  Did he really just equate an argument he found annoying, regarding pretend basketball, to war crimes?

Wow.

Also, sometimes people do disagree. Perhaps those of you who are disliking me for no other reason than disagreeing with you need to calm down just a bit. It's just open discussion about a game, for goodness sakes. No one should be angry at other REAL people on the forum just because of a disagreement.

I think some people are disliking you because you equated their arguments to choices offered prisoners of war by war criminals.  (Although actually in your analogy it is the game that is a war criminal and you are a victim, so in fact you equated yourself to a victim of a war crime.)  Just saying.  Speaking just for myself, I didn't dislike you until exactly then.  You even gave me an idea for a fun game, Robot Hoops Dynasty.  Think of the graphics alone.

Now, damn.

Posted by ryrun on 8/30/2012 2:51:00 PM (view original):

Also you're the trolliest troll who ever trolled, which is the only acclaim you could rationally have expected by your conduct.  Mazel tov.

Here is what I am basing my argument on.  There are some fine points there about who is really the troll in situations like this, you decide.

Posted by point_piper on 9/1/2012 10:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ryrun on 8/30/2012 2:51:00 PM (view original):

Also you're the trolliest troll who ever trolled, which is the only acclaim you could rationally have expected by your conduct.  Mazel tov.

Here is what I am basing my argument on.  There are some fine points there about who is really the troll in situations like this, you decide.

Dammit.

Touche.

Posted by ryrun on 9/1/2012 11:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by point_piper on 9/1/2012 10:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ryrun on 8/30/2012 2:51:00 PM (view original):

Also you're the trolliest troll who ever trolled, which is the only acclaim you could rationally have expected by your conduct.  Mazel tov.

Here is what I am basing my argument on.  There are some fine points there about who is really the troll in situations like this, you decide.

Dammit.

Touche.

AND I've lost The Game. Bastard.

Galileo?  You sure?

Your power to equate yourself to people who have experienced actual suffering is phenomenal.  And while I'm 50.1% sure you did not intend to compare the quality of Galileo's insights to your own, you nonetheless just did so.

Phenomenal.

Posted by bistiza on 9/2/2012 12:25:00 AM (view original):

There is no point in this thread anymore.

The main lesson I take from this thread is I can't express my opinion on anything unless it agrees with everyone else. If it doesn't and I should dare try to defend my dissenting opinion, I'll be labeled a troll.

I feel like Galileo trying to convince the masses the Earth isn't the center of the universe. If that discussion were somehow conducted on a message board, I'm sure he'd be labeled a troll too. *rolls eyes*

I'm done here unless there is somehow something left that becomes worthwhile to discuss.

Galileo was right about facts which others could not, would not see

this thread began with exagerated claims by the original poster that a feature of the game was ridiculous - who then embarked on revisionist history about what his opinion had been all along

"" I feel I am correct when I say not everyone would react badly to having their minutes cut as an upperclassman""

bis, you obviously don't read the responses people post very well.  i think multiple people, if not most, would AGREE with this statement and have done so repeatedly.  yes, it is slightly unrealistic  for everyone to have the same response to not getting minutes, especially D3 scholarship athletes, which DONT EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD,  a fact you keep leaving out of your realism arguments.

what you fail to acknowledge, which again everyone here agrees with, is that this feature you want to add would have LITERALLY ZERO BENEFIT.  no one would ever recruit a player because that player would be cool with sitting on the bench as an upperclassmen.  if they aren't good enough to play, then cut them or let them transfer, but this magical player who hasn't improved enough by his junior year to get on the court isn't suddenly gonna become a contributor in his senior year. 

and please don't talk about inherited teams, that just destroys your whole argument.  you want a feature that you can base YOUR recruiting decisions on, and you use as examples players that weren't recruited by you.

that's why you are being called a troll.  you have been told, in clear terms, why what you want is not part of the game, and you tell us we aren't listening.

Not to mention that players DO already react differently to the lack of playing time.  They just do.  Having zero work ethic loss because you as a great coach wouldn't put up with it is NOT a realistic feature or even a beneficial feature.  The thread went the way it did because you posted in a semi-public forum, but are unwilling to accept the prevailing opinion, or to even acknowledge its merits.  Why ask if you already no the answer?

point piper,

You're seeing things in posts that just aren't there.


Hmm.  Well I saw this:

That would be like saying you're a prisoner of war and the enemy said they would kill you by a firing squad or a hanging and you get to choose, so that makes it okay since you're not forced to take either option.


And this:

I feel like Galileo trying to convince the masses the Earth isn't the center of the universe. If that discussion were somehow conducted on a message board, I'm sure he'd be labeled a troll too. *rolls eyes*


You literally said you "feel like" him.  I mean, it's right there.

But explain to us all how an "analogy" works again please, I don't think any of us already knew that, we are are just part of the masses.  Is it permitted for me in questioning your analogy to point out that Galileo's theories and observations were susceptible of proof?

The problem is that your analogies are terrible.  You aren't like a prisoner of war and you aren't like Galileo, neither in the way which you literally state nor in the broader sense which is implied, whether you intend to imply it or not.

Posted by bistiza on 8/27/2012 6:14:00 PM (view original):
I don't think the game should punish you for not playing someone - you're the coach, you should be able to do what you want as far as who plays and how much.

They shouldn't come to your school with any expectation unless you give them one.

I call bull on the claim that the position has not shifted - see above where the position of the great bis was that there should be NO expectations

later in the thread the position was that expectations should vary and NOT EVERYONE should have the same expectations - where was that at the start? no where - it was not that folks didnt understand 

Please dont say that WE are not understanding you, when you are simply spouting illogic and changing your stance.  I fully understand all that you have said and I think most of it is a boatload of unrealistic expectations, smarmy attempts to act like you are smarter than the rest of the world and foolish imposition of your view of the real world on a game.

It is possible for even the great and wise, Galileo like original poster to be simply WRONG and not just misunderstood - and this thread is a good example of being wrong.

Posted by milkamania on 9/2/2012 9:59:00 AM (view original):
"" I feel I am correct when I say not everyone would react badly to having their minutes cut as an upperclassman""

bis, you obviously don't read the responses people post very well.  i think multiple people, if not most, would AGREE with this statement and have done so repeatedly.  yes, it is slightly unrealistic  for everyone to have the same response to not getting minutes, especially D3 scholarship athletes, which DONT EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD,  a fact you keep leaving out of your realism arguments.

what you fail to acknowledge, which again everyone here agrees with, is that this feature you want to add would have LITERALLY ZERO BENEFIT.  no one would ever recruit a player because that player would be cool with sitting on the bench as an upperclassmen.  if they aren't good enough to play, then cut them or let them transfer, but this magical player who hasn't improved enough by his junior year to get on the court isn't suddenly gonna become a contributor in his senior year. 

and please don't talk about inherited teams, that just destroys your whole argument.  you want a feature that you can base YOUR recruiting decisions on, and you use as examples players that weren't recruited by you.

that's why you are being called a troll.  you have been told, in clear terms, why what you want is not part of the game, and you tell us we aren't listening.

+1