I've never been to Australia.

Seeing it with my own eyes is the only actual "proof" it's a real place...unless I take the word of others as truth. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I believe when they tell me it's real.

There are times when a vet response seems to be condescending and I think people take offense to that. There are guys with a wealth of information out there. If Alblack speaks, I am going to listen. I respect his opinions greatly and he is always gracious. Zhawk understands the game very well, but can sometimes be short with people. That doesn't bother me, but maybe it does others. I appreciate all the help I can get. The vets have helped to move me from 'clueless' to 'mediocre' and I appreciate that.

I've already passed that point weena. I'll give my answer with some basic reasoning, if the person doesn't like it or trust it, then that's their choice. If my track record and current standings with teams isn't enough to trust, then so be it.

ANd multiple people saying, to bring up the example "I've seen games with all players centers" " All players Small forwards", "All players GUards". . . and then demanding they ALL 'Prove it" is beyond the pale of reasonable information requests. Asking someone to provide a link to somethign easily linkable is one thing.

And also, as much as condescencion from a vet might be annoying, condescencion going the OTHER WAY is worse. Having someone with vastly less game experience then the people he is questioning be condescending? Not so much.

I think you could even rephrase: "DEMANDING" proof versus ASKING for sources. There is a world of difference between a request and a demand.

I have received very helpful information in the forums from several veteran coaches, but I have also been dismissed by some of those same coaches when I have expressed an opinion. I think it is possible that we can ALL learn something by reading the posts from coaches.

Good discussion everyone. I was not looking for a pat on the back but I appreciate the kind comments. Coach_billyg, I definitely was not referring to you. I am the first to admit that I have made erroneous posts here and I would hope that you or anyone would call me out on it whenever necessary. There have been numerous long discussions and debates in this forum that have led to clearer understanding of the topic by all concerned. I would never want to limit that type of free thinking.

To clarify my original rant, no one who posts here is infallible. No one here is above being questioned to explain or verify their statement. What I was referring to was the trend to continue to demand "proof" after the source has been cited or the explanation given.

I am not going to list names but here is one example. I was involved in a thread where there was no clear cut black and white answer. It involved an issue where a process created by the sim engine was questioned. The poster kept rewording the same question over and over because he did not accept the fact that WIS will not spoon feed us every detail of how the formula works. Several vets told him that the answer that he wanted could not be provided and he responded like we were all idiots for not knowing. This is the kind of thing I am frustrated with.

weena. asking for a source/reference in a thread is completely legitimate because it is attempting to differentiate theory from fact. some guys think its fact just because they believe it. that's not good information for me unless you let me know what the source of the information is. in my opinion, its completely reasonable to request source or reference information. there's just to much bs on the forums. if i'm going to take the time to request help i'm going to try and make sure the help provided is as accurate as possible. why would that be offensive to someone?

as for respect. this is the wrong place to be looking for it my man. get that in the real world where it actually means something.

NAm. .reread his last post. Much of what you said is addressed there.

Weena, if you were referring to me, which I think you were, your answer was satisfactory and accepted your answer. It was mostly between zhawks and myself. Probably my fault for reading it another way, but dalter came in and put it in black and white and that was the end of the discussion. After that everything was crystal clear.

Basically, what didn't make sense was cleared up in something that was interpreted another way in the FAQ's and one of zhawk's responses.

a in the b and weena, we must've been writing at the same time and are pretty much on the same page.

i will add that i do thank those that help me each time I am helped and will continue to do so. gl to all.

Wow, just caught a glimpse of that other thread, wasn't paying attention and thought it was a pinned locked thread. Disregard that last message.

Namshub, My opinion is that almost everything in the forum is theory. Sure there are some things that 99% of us would agree on and I guess you can consider them facts. But we are dealing with a game here. The idea is that we shouldn't know everything. So if you ask a question with the understanding that you are getting someone's opinion as a response, then you can believe it or take it with a grain of salt.

It's going on right now in the JUCO thread.

It's great that vets want to respond to questions based on their experience. That's awesome and helpful, but it turns out zhawks' experience-based opinion was wrong. Someone provided a response from CS.

Here's what I've been seeing lately: vets are annoyed and, consequently condescending, because they are being questioned, even when they have a right to be questioned. New coaches aren't being as gracious that vets are taking the time to answer their questions. It's going both ways.

Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 12/29/2009

It's going on right now in the JUCO thread.

It's great that vets want to respond to questions based on their experience. That's awesome and helpful, but it turns out zhawks' experience-based opinion was wrong. Someone provided a response from CS.

Here's what I've been seeing lately: vets are annoyed and, consequently condescending, because they are being questioned, even when they have a right to be questioned. New coaches aren't being as gracious that vets are taking the time to answer their questions. It's going both ways.

LOL!!! That CS response was vague at best! Exactly what gil was talking about... misreading CS responses or reading into them more then what they say.

Other factors have to be considered when proof is asked for.

1. The bizarre-ness/extremity of what's being suggested...zhawks said that A. a 690 could lose 0 games and that a 780 could win 0...I asked him to prove where it ever happened in 370+ HD seasons, and he replied that 370+ seasons is too small of a sample size, ltm. and B. He claims that teams have had 12 players at the same position on the same team before, and I asked him to prove that...he couldn't...I asked him to remotely remember a time when that happened, what team, what coach, he couldn't...it was other users that chimed in and backed his claim. Its still unproven, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, because even if it is true, 1 or 10 or 100 out of 351500+ total teams is hardly a circumstance that needs to be worried about in a ranking system. If you're using a claim that's 3500 times below 1% to thwart the credibility of someone's system, you're not even grasping at straws, you're grasping at thin air. He also said that a 12 SF team won a championship (UNPROVEN) and I give him the benefit of the doubt, but with that said, why should I lower an OTR of a team with 12 guys at the same position if they can win a title?

2. The person in question...zhawks, arssintheb, and dalter are clearly 3 guys who don't like me and were attempting to say anything to shut me up. If you look at nearly everyone else in the thread in question, I had no problems with.

3. The situation being discussed...zhawks, arssintheb, and dalter HATE my new OTR SOS ranking system so add that to their vindictive agenda as to why I should ask for proof to their ridiculous claims.

Not surprisingly, I've seen zhawks be abrasive in other threads as well.

Really, the moral of the story is, don't spout stuff that you can't prove, because it is the responder's RIGHT to ask for proof of the situation and the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the person who MAKES THE CLAIM....I really don't see why this is so hard to understand or why people are muddying the situation.