I appreciate your insight Hornsy. I dont think CD owes us anything, I just naturally like to understand how things work, particularly if its the rules to a game I'm playing. Not sure how the calculations could be more complex than a multiplier for how far the action is from the centre. I get that there are weightings for other factors as well, is that what your suggesting?
"owe" is an interesting word. Metaphorically speaking, the farmer who grows the corn which he sells to the animal feed company who turns it into pellets and sells it to the pig farmer, doesn't owe the pig farmer anything. However, in a world where people collaborate to achieve win/win, if the corn farmer grew a variety of corn that maximised the essential vitamins and minerals required by pigs, then both farmers would benefit. The customer of CD might be the Hun animal feed company, but if they also listened to the end user, both might gain from continual development of a better product.
Yep, namely the State of Game multiplier, which is a far bigger determining factor than the Position on Ground multiplier.
Clearly, Terry. We should all lose the illusion of separateness that is the foundation of much "western" cognitive processes. But I'm the last person in the world that would want to take a specific subject and extrapolate it to other more wide-ranging subjects. CD do actually provide heaps of fantasy help to those playing (Prospectus, Freako etc.), and it's obviously a two-way street as they've licensed their stats to VS/NL. My crudely made point was that when fingers are pointed, it's usually at CD's direction, demanding they justify and fully disclose how their rankings system work to customers who are on the low-end of their scale. When fully disclosing how their system works would severely place in peril the future of their business. A point I have made more than once.
Clarity, and little in the way of metaphor, thank you. The ideal would seem to be that CD do not exist (for the purposes of SC) and that the oft pointed finger is directed at the Hun instead. And we all know how responsive they are to customer's needs. Meanwhile, CD have their own undisclosed sources tapping into the end user's needs/desires. Perhaps the trick is for the Hun to say we will explain why that particular score was such, but you will have to pay us. That should shut a few up. Much of the devilment seems to arise from some extremely serious coaches who are glued to their sets counting every possession and assist. They are then mystified as to why the SC score does not tally with their own. In my own humble experience it is akin to a speeding fine. You can rant and rave all you like, it will not change a thing. Thus the question is raised, why bother to monitor your players to that extent when it will have zero effect on the end result?
My point of contention, T-Bone, is that many are often quite serious with how they take the game and want to understand it better. All well and good. However, when presented with answers that are as specific as they can be, many choose to disregard said answers and cry "conspiracy", which in most cases is the cry of those who don't wish to understand, who only wish to point fingers.
<blockquote>Quote from HeavyMen on June 7, 2012, 18:13 Stop saying metaphor!</blockquote> . <img src="http://tooserious.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/p1zlu-confused_guy.jpg" /> <img src="http://tooserious.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/z8v40-pointing-finger4.gif" />
Hey Hornsy, After you show me the diagrams, graphs, lengths and formulas, please tell me who designed them. Then, please tell me whether those designs have changed over time and who decided to make those changes. After that, please explain why SC scores aren't partially subjective. Mate, your tone is totally different within your own clique.
Que? The diagrams and graphs I refer to would be ones I'd be drawing up myself, so it'd be me designing them. The formulas I refer to would be CD's, so they'd have designed them. CD change their formula(s) over time so that it better corresponds to what actions determine victory. As the game changes, so do they (otherwise the formula would be obsolete ie. it wouldn't best correlate to what actions win games of footy presently). So CD clearly make those changes. Technically there's an argument to be had that everything is subjective, that we create reality through our own subjective consciousness. I didn't mention this on the main page because referencing Schrodinger's Cat and quantum physics' effect on philosophy didn't seem appropriate given the forum. Regarding CD definitions for particular acts like contested possessions, effective disposal, hard ball gets, loose ball gets, pressure acts etc., yep, you could argue that it's their subjective opinion that a disposal is only effective if it results in possession retention. However, given that they actually coined all the above terms and were the first to measure them after deciding what each term should constitute, I'd argue that's as close to objective as you can reasonably get. To think otherwise is like saying I know Da Vinci called his painting the Mona Lisa, but that's just his subjective opinion. I think it should be called Girl With The Weird Smile. And lastly, if you're commenting that the tone I use when talking to Terry is different to the tone I use when talking to people I don't know, you're right. Terry and I are mates. Like actual mates. Therefore we converse with each other, yanno, like mates. No clique, we just happen to get along with one another. Well, for the most part.
Selective quoting, Snoz. I added mostly. And given that definitions can mean whatever you want them to mean, in this instance mostly means that Terry and I have decided you're out of the clique. Sorry, mate.
<blockquote>Quote from whips on June 8, 2012, 01:18 Hey Hornsy, Mate, your tone is totally different within your own clique.</blockquote> . <img src="http://tooserious.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/0z1eq-cliques1.gif" />
One shouldn't post at 1:18 AM. Hornsy, for me to have a crack at your tone while letting myself down with mine is pretty ordinary. Please accept my apology but I do look forward to constructive discussion in the future.
...........in this instance mostly means that Terry and I have decided you're out of the clique. I dont wanna be part of your clique H, have me own ~ <img src="http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2009/2/22/128797897375726628.jpg" />