Pokémon Universe > Game Features
losing to a gym leader
Frenchfry:
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
*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 ---Quote from: frylock contradicting himself
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---Im sure that we can both agree that a player that loses 15 games in a row has just experienced 15 loses.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---But a player can still be completely horribe.. even whilst thinking he/she's good.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
*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?
--- Quote ---Find someone that's maintained a streak of 500+ in anything legitimate and come back to me with that one.
--- End quote ---
It's a hypothetical situation, ghost. Lemme tone it down. He wins twenty straight matches and loses ONE right after. Does he suddenly suck?
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: frenchfry545 ---1) A player that lost a match is called a player.
--- End quote ---
.....
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 himselfFirst 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:
--- Quote from: Mr Pokemon on July 24, 2010, 06:41:12 PM ---You mean you haven't thrown anything?
Damn! I'm going to have to re-imagine this whole argument..
--- End quote ---
I think me too! :D
You take the lead.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version