losing to a gym leader

[ghostman50]

When I say "here and now" game.. i mean exactly how it's said.  No one cares about past accomplishments (so what if you're number 1). There is no possible way to gauge a player's worth in a game until it's actually played (There is no DBZ radar gun mask eye patch thingie.) The only way to tell if someone is really good, is to see them in action.. and if the player in question happens to lose to "several players in a row"... does that really mean that he/she is any good?
 
hmmm. In mi eyes, No.
 
In your passive illusory world... probably the greatest alive.

Mmm... More personal interference?

huh?

Anyway, Losing streaks happen. Nobody cares what you've done in the past in Call of Duty, either, but a good player can still have a losing streak if he goes up against BETTER players.

Exactly what im trying to figure out. What constitues a good player? Dont you think that if a player is any good, they'd win most, if not all?
 

I don't think you're getting the detail that good and bad isn't black and white.

ALright! Now you're seeing mi point.
 
 
 

There's a big-ass gray area of average, okay, good, skilled, great, pimped, awesome, and godly.

Oh God, you completely missed mi point.
 
Side note: We must be using a different dictionary because pimped does not make any sense in that sentence.

If someone at the 'skilled' level battles five 'pimped' players in a row, he's liable to lose

Again, the standard for being "skilled" and "pimped" is...?
 
In the eyes of the guy losing, he's still skilled... relatively competitive.. ya know.. "Not that bad"
 
 But in the eyes of the pimped player, the losing player is just some loser.. Am I right?
 

but that doesn't mean he's any worse at the game.

Actually it does. The losing player begins to realise that he/she isnt as good as he/she thought he/she was.
 

Im sure he could, he has Parkinson's

Really, dude? I'm talking about both of them in the peak of their careers. Ali was great. Tyson was better.

 
I wouldnt know, im not into boxing like that.
 
 

I agree, because there is also the element of luck in pokemon battles, and by this, I'm referring mainly to critical hits, and the random number generated before each damage is calculated and applied.

Closest to the point I was trying to make. Status is relative. A player's only as good as his/her last match and luck decides a players worth at that point in time. If a player that win's relying on luck really any good? If a player losing 7 battles in a row really good?
 
WHo's to say what's good, skilled, pimped, or the worst I've ever seen in mi life? There isnt a scale. Only thing a person can honestly claim is the experience.There isnt a definite name for anything.
 
To be blunt and make mi point, claiming to be "good" (anything more than experienced) is fairly conceited.

 
 
 

[Frenchfry]

Oh God, you completely missed mi point.
 
Side note: We must be using a different dictionary because pimped does not make any sense in that sentence.

My dictionary includes slang. I like to use slang sometimes because it makes me feel like less of a robot and more of a person.

But in the eyes of the pimped player, the losing player is just some loser.. Am I right?

Nnnnnnnnope. See, when someone is good at a game, they know they're better than almost everyone else. That means that they know that just because they beat another player, that doesn't make that player any worse at the game. Even so, when did we decide to start talking about how conceited a more experienced player is?

Actually it does. The losing player begins to realise that he/she isnt as good as he/she thought he/she was.

Uh... What? When did we decide to talk about the player's mentality, too? I'm talking about what IS, not what each person thought there was.

A player's only as good as his/her last match

Oh, so if I get five hundred straight wins, but then I lose to someone, that means I suddenly suck?

and luck decides a players worth at that point in time.

...So then why would we make the pokemon stop trusting the player, if the fact that he lost was based entirely on luck?

To be blunt and make mi point, claiming to be "good" (anything more than experienced) is fairly conceited.

Oh, so it's okay for YOU to call OTHER players LOSERS, but if THEY call THEMSELVES GOOD, then they're conceited? If there's no good, then there's no bad, and you don't get to call players losers anymore.

[ghostman50]

Oh God, you completely missed mi point.
 
Side note: We must be using a different dictionary because pimped does not make any sense in that sentence.

My dictionary includes slang. I like to use slang sometimes because it makes me feel like less of a robot and more of a person.

So, the massive use of misnomers makes a person a person and not a robot (really? I could have sworn it was breathing.) Thanx for the insight. 
 
 

But in the eyes of the pimped player, the losing player is just some loser.. Am I right?

Nnnnnnnnope. See, when someone is good at a game, they know they're better than almost everyone else. That means that they know that just because they beat another player, that doesn't make that player any worse at the game.

 

Uh... What? When did we decide to talk about the player's mentality, too?

 
Ill let you think about the above quotes...and give you a second to connect the dots....
 
Alright, dont knowing that you're better than someone count as a player's mentality?
 
hmmm. Just making sure...
 

Even so, when did we decide to start talking about how conceited a more experienced player is?

Im sure that we can both agree that a player that loses 15 games in a row has just experienced 15 loses. In your world, that player can still be "good".. in mine, that player can be among the worst to ever walk the Earth.
 
The grey area between good and bad isnt "pimped" or "guitar bashing" or "trashcan eating" (see how ridiculous this "slang" is).. I believe that the grey area is experience.
 
 

Actually it does. The losing player begins to realise that he/she isnt as good as he/she thought he/she was.

 

Uh... What? When did we decide to talk about the player's mentality, too?
I'm talking about what IS, not what each person thought there was.

Isnt perception the universal scale to gauge good or bad? You dont know that you're good unless you think that you're good. But a player can still be completely horribe.. even whilst thinking he/she's good.
 
You arnt making any sense... or I may have read that sentence wrong.. i dont know.
 

I'm talking about what IS, not what each person thought there was.

Aye aye aye!!
 
Your argument.. You can lose 5 games in a row and still be good. (okay..)
 
Mi response... to others (especially the ones that dominated) the 5 game loser isnt good.
 
Other than the few blind optimists, it's safe to assume that the player isn't any good. Yes, he experienced 5 amazing (earth shattering) losses.. but can anyone honestly point to hard-core evidence and say he's good..... no.
 
Can anyone trick themselves into thinking he's any good... sure.
 
A thought (or perception) has everything to do with status.

A player's only as good as his/her last match

Oh, so if I get five hundred straight wins, but then I lose to someone, that means I suddenly suck?

Find someone that's maintained a streak of 500+ in anything legitimate and come back to me with that one.
 

and luck decides a players worth at that point in time.

...So then why would we make the pokemon stop trusting the player, if the fact that he lost was based entirely on luck?

No idea.
Wasnt mi idea. (jerry's, and it isnt a bad idea)
I went with it because everyone hated mi idea.
What was your idea?
Oh, taking away any and all challenges in the game... great idea!
 
 
Ah, but seriously, it's a simple concept... win you dont lose anything, lose and anything should be up for grabs.
 
Which is fairly reasonable.
 
 

To be blunt and make mi point, claiming to be "good" (anything more than experienced) is fairly conceited.

Oh, so it's okay for YOU to call OTHER players LOSERS, but if THEY call THEMSELVES GOOD, then they're conceited?

It's simple... If you and Mr_Dark battled... fought.. dueled (whatever) one time.. and one time only. And Mr_Dark dominates the chansey out of you, are you not a loser?
 
If you happen to battle him 30 more times and sneak in One or Two wins, are you really any good? Calling yourself good in that scenario is conceited (even we can agree to that right?)
 
You can change the scenario to battling 30 different people and only winning one or two. No reasonable person will ever claim to be "good"... (we can also agree to that right?)
 
 

If there's no good, then there's no bad, and you don't get to call players losers anymore.

So what will a player that loses be called? winners?
 
I never said that there is no good. It's just that your idea of good is skewed, especially if you think that sucessive losses can still mean that a player can be good. Which is absurd. Sure, he may be experienced.. or even talented... but is he really any good?
 
Quick question, what does it take to be a bad player? From all of your responses, anyone can be good no matter how much fail is involved.
 
 
 

[Mr Pokemon]

Although there are lots of factors when it comes to deciding if someone is good or not, the main thing is who tje person is being compared to, or who is saying they are good or bad (Or pimpin) For example, if someone wins a tournament, they might consider the people they beat bad, and the people who lost would probably consider the winner good. However, if somebody beats the person who won the tournament, they might consider them bad, and so on.

[Crow]

Don't forget the fact that someone is only good if they effort to be BETTER each time. One days loss can be another day's victory. I know when I lose to anyone, I train, improve and consider a new strategy to take the next victory. After I claim such victory, I try to improve myself to make sure no one can find a sure-fire system to use to beat me (that's why I love training a Gardevoir. hahaha)  

[Frenchfry]

So, the massive use of misnomers makes a person a person and not a robot (really? I could have sworn it was breathing.) Thanx for the insight.   

*Counts to ten while breathing heavily* You know, it isn't generally considered to be socially adept to know what someone is talking about, yet still insist on making an argument out of it because it doesn't make 100% literal sense.

Quote from: frylock contradicting himself

First off, I'm not frylock. I'm definitely more of a knot, or retina scanner. Second, you brought up mentality, I responded to it, then I asked why we suddenly started talking as if a player thinking someone else sucks means that that player sucks.

Im sure that we can both agree that a player that loses 15 games in a row has just experienced 15 loses.

Purposely operating under a different use of the word in question is, like  pretending you don't know what someone's talking about, commonly considered socially inept. And I think you just invented that fifteen right there. Yep, that was 100% you, that fifteen.

But a player can still be completely horribe.. even whilst thinking he/she's good.

And a player can think they suck when they're the fifth best out of ten thousand. point being? Good is not a mentality, it's a level of skill relveant to every other participating party.

Your argument.. You can lose 5 games in a row and still be good. (okay..)
 
Mi response... to others (especially the ones that dominated) the 5 game loser isnt good.
 
Other than the few blind optimists, it's safe to assume that the player isn't any good. Yes, he experienced 5 amazing (earth shattering) losses.. but can anyone honestly point to hard-core evidence and say he's good..... no.

*Counts to fifty*
...If his win/loss ratio is  0/5, then yes, he sucks. I'm not talking about someone who only played those five games he lost. I'm takling about somone who's w/l ratio is around 5/2, which would mean that the player is well above average. If he goes on a losing streak, he doesn't suck. He just so happened to lose five matches in a row, because he was outmatched. If he's payed seventy matches and lost a total of twenty, he's good. Why, then, does that change just because five of those matches were consecutive, and his most recent five?

Find someone that's maintained a streak of 500+ in anything legitimate and come back to me with that one.

It's a hypothetical situation, ghost. Lemme tone it down. He wins twenty straight matches and loses ONE right after. Does he suddenly suck?

So what will a player that loses be called? winners?
 
especially if you think that sucessive losses can still mean that a player can be good. Which is absurd.

Sure, he may be experienced.. or even talented... but is he really any good?
 
Quick question, what does it take to be a bad player? From all of your responses, anyone can be good no matter how much fail is involved.
 

1) A player that lost a match is called a player. stop putting the hypothetical people beneath you just because your opinion is that they fail at life just because they lost a pokemon match. Mind you, a loser is someone who fails at life, unless specifically indicated otherwise. You can be the loser of a match without personally being a loser. If not, then everyone on earth is a loser, because nobody goes through life without ever losing.

2) The consecutive losses don't mean the player is good, they just don't invariably mean that the player is bad. if he was unlucky and landed several battles in a row with players whose pokemon were five levels above his, then he would be outmatched, and it was a completely unfair fight. He still lost, but does that really means he sucks? No, it means that the other player had the edge.

3) Talented means skilled. Skilled means proficient. Proficient means above average. Above average means good.

4) Being good at something means being somewhere above the average level of performance for other people. You can still be above average and go on a losing streak.

[ghostman50]

Alright, dude. It's early.. im feeling blah right now and this is no longer fun.
 

1) A player that lost a match is called a player.

.....
 
Breaking News! A person that wins a battle, match, duel is called a winner and a person that loses the aformentioned encouters are called losers... *sigh*
 
Im going to make mi point.. then log.
 
The point is fairly simple. Not sure why you reject it. It's not like you have much of an argument, yourself, because when I ask the standard of good, i only get a "uhm derr uhhh" response. Or a ton of broad hypotheticals that mean nothing.
 
 
The concept:
 
You're only as good as your last game, match, duel, fight or whatever.
 
Seriously, how can you argue that?
 
The word, good (like most of your statements) is very broad and too wide-ranging. As stated before, there is no measuring stick for good or bad. There is no grand marshall that establishes these things.
 
Words that describe skill, like good.. bad..pimped, are what we call relative.
 
(rel·a·tiv·ism [réll?ti vìzz?m]
n
 belief in changeable standards: the belief that concepts such as right and wrong, goodness and badness, or truth and falsehood are not absolute but change from culture to culture and situation to situation 
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.)
 
 
 This means that a person can't be good just because he wins a few matches. A person cant be smart just because he passes a ton of tests.
 
Conditions, moods, and ways of thinking are always changing. And by there not being an absolute scale, there is no proper way of measuring what or who is good.
 
But the most accurate way of measuring skill at that point in time is by using the most recent trials.
 
Not that hard to grasp.
 
 

So, the massive use of misnomers makes a person a person and not a robot (really? I could have sworn it was breathing.) Thanx for the insight.   

*Counts to ten while breathing heavily* You know, it isn't generally considered to be socially adept to know what someone is talking about, yet still insist on making an argument out of it because it doesn't make 100% literal sense.

You know, it isn't socially adept to say stupid things and not expect a smart ass response..
 
You can stop crying now.

Quote from: frylock contradicting himself

First off, I'm not frylock. I'm definitely more of a knot, or retina scanner. 

Couldnt remember your name. Mi bad.
 
 
What the hell are you talking about in that second sentence?

Im sure that we can both agree that a player that loses 15 games in a row has just experienced 15 loses.

Purposely operating under a different use of the word in question is, like  pretending you don't know what someone's talking about, commonly considered socially inept. And I think you just invented that fifteen right there. Yep, that was 100% you, that fifteen.

  Again, what the hell are you talking about? your random incoherent responses are starting to annoy me. Purposely doing what?
 
You take one line and babble about nothing.... got to be chansey kidding me.
 
 
Again, to re-iterate, skill is nothing but a perception and it is always changing in contrast to something (or someone) else. There is no way to definitely say, "Hey, this guy's good." but one can make a definite point as to whether or not he/she is a loser or a winner.
 
Edit: I dont get your responses, do you have something against what I say? or do you have your own belief? because all you're doing now is quoting (and misquoting) me without any substance... using a ton of hypotheticals that, as stated before, are too broad or don't make any sense.
 
which is chansey irritating.

[Frenchfry]

Ugh.... I'm unsubscribing to this thread. This isn't even a debate relative to the origonal post anymore, this is a retarded, vague, and incoherent argument consisting entirely of sacrasm and ad homs on both our parts, which is not excused by the use of big words. Frankly, I think if we were in person, I'd have thrown something by now.

[Mr Pokemon]

You mean you haven't thrown anything?
Damn! I'm going to have to re-imagine this whole argument..

[Jerry]

You mean you haven't thrown anything?
Damn! I'm going to have to re-imagine this whole argument..

I think me too!
You take the lead.

[Mr Pokemon]

Hm?
Since I don't like short posts...
I think that when you lose to a gym leader, you lose a chunk of your money (How much I don't know) and instead of automatically being taken to the Pokemon Center, you must get back there yourself. A walk of shame, sort of.

[LeoReborn]

Hm?
Since I don't like short posts...
I think that when you lose to a gym leader, you lose a chunk of your money (How much I don't know) and instead of automatically being taken to the Pokemon Center, you must get back there yourself. A walk of shame, sort of.

I never did get that, you Black out, then Magically appear in the EXACT One you last used.

[SantaClaws]

I never did get that, you Black out, then Magically appear in the EXACT One you last used.

How is that difficult to understand?

A. When you loose, you pass out and wake up at a hospital.. that's pretty reasonable.

2. it'd be way to easy to abuse if you'd jump to the nearest PC.

Yes, I use A and 2.

[Frenchfry]

lolnecromancer.
Double points because 2 didn't make any sense.

[DarK_SouL]

None of that post made sense to me. At all. Ever.