hey, at least he knows about mexican uppercuts.
haha this guy also made this vid: [media=youtube]WDpQ4rPuU0A[/media]
wasn’t there a thread last week about how crappy that guy is? I like how this guy talks about how you can be good without playing in tournies and how winning tournies doesn’t mean you’re good but then uploads vids of him scrubbing out.
^ I was just about to post that…
i wanna laugh
this guy thinks hes a genius (not you the tutorial guy)
i hate ppl like that
WOW…
wtf is it set to 1 round…
wtf does he walk backwards to charge moves…
wtf are all of is other videos text on static images…
my brain is melting
No, he has some videos of him sucking at random fighters. I only watched the PIM Jimmy one, and he had inf meter for some reason.
Anytime I’d search on Wiki, I would look up the source, then cross-check the information with at least two sources not originally found on Wiki. If it checked out, I would use whichever source pertained to my paper most directly. This, obviously, can only be done with Wiki articles that cite sources, and many of them do not.
I suppose that’s one thing Wiki is very good for. Not as a source of information in and of itself, but as another resource for finding sources. Just check your shit.
This is really not the thread to debate the validity of Wikipedia, but it’s rapidly becoming one, so whatever.
The real problem with Wikipedia is not the obvious vandals that add obvious misinformation; those are easily dealt with as even someone unknowledgable with the subject will have their common sense “shit detector” go off, and have the opportunity to correct the change themselves.
The real issue is stuff like the Essjay situation I mentioned earlier; people that are intelligent enough to present themselves as knowledgable, but devious enough to get away with misrepresentation for years. This steadily, and sometimes imperceptibly, shifts the perspective of articles; not only that, but it causes those familiar with the Wikipedia process to distrust everything presented there anyway.
Which leads to the second problem with Wikipedia - the process itself is so full of shit that nothing gets done. It’s a bunch of lawyers sniping at each other tossing acronyms like “NPOV”, “RS” and “OR” at a million miles per hour at all times.
In short… Wikipedia is, as good_mourning said, fine for personal search of information, but as a source in higher education will never be acceptable because the nature of the Internet invites unproductive assholes.
I’ve played SF3 all of five times, and I could make a better exhibition than that guy. I suck at a lot of fighting games; I know there are hundreds of people who are astronomically better than me at games I feel I’m decent at. There’s one difference between me and the guy who made those videos: I don’t front on Youtube about it…
No one said they were using wikipedia for all their papers. It will be a long time before a source of information like wikipedia is taken seriously by the greater portion of academia simply because they are set in their ways. People tend to resist change, especially people who are set in their ways. If you spent 8 years busting your ass in libraries for stupid ass research papers, you’d be pissed too if people now could reach information without even leaving their room.
However, whether or not any institution accepts wikipedia as a valid source of information doesn’t say anything about the validity of their facts one way or another. Do you think when a teacher is grading a paper and sees wikipedia as a source they don’t count it because the information is wrong or because its wikipedia? I’m leaning towards the latter.
Do you really think their monitoring system involves them just constantly looking through every page on the site one at a time? That would be horribly ineffecient. That’s like implying people look for books in a library by checking every book one by one. I can garuntee you each time an article is edited it gets logged in a queue, and the staff simply picks stuff off the queue to check it.
Where is the guarantee with any literary source? If you think about it, traditional books and encyclopedia’s are held accountable in the same manner that wikipedia is. If a book is full of shit, people won’t buy it. However with wikipedia, your teacher can hop online, and check out the source right away. You think your teacher is going to go through the trouble of checking out every book you used? Who knows how valid the books can be?
Sorry for such a huge derail, it just irks me when people dismiss wikipedia just because of the nature of how its authored. It doesn’t seem like it should work to them, but if you go on there, you’ll find tons of accurate, quality information, and if you aren’t, hit F5 and you are again.
:lol: talk about ignorant and thick headed. i posted a comment on his shit and the motherfucker deleted it and for the most part i agreed with him to a point but had more to say bout other things. asshole:arazz:
IMO competitive gaming isnt a sport, as it generally doesnt have any exhaustive physical activity, but there is nothing wrong with a person who takes video game playing seriously should they choose to do so, and there are others who feel the same way who are willing to gather and compete to see who is the best OMGWTFPWNER among them.
Now wait…he never claimed he was going to be good, he just said that it’s possible that you can be good without playing in tourneys. In addition, he is right that SOME tournaments could have very weak competition, to the point where it doesn’t mean much if you win them. Of course, most tourneys don’t have crappy competition, but some do…
He’s also right that just because you attend a tourney, doesn’t necessarily mean you know what you’re talking about, and there could be very good players that don’t want to join tourneys but still play a lot against the best in arcades. It’s possible…I don’t know why people have to ignore these possibilities. Also to correct someone in this thread, he never claimed that non-tourney players know more than tourney players, he just said it wasn’t the case that all tourney players know more than non-tourney players and this is obvious.
What I don’t agree with though is that saying competitive gaming is stupid. But, just realize that his video is probably not targetting all tournament players, just some of them.
And pherai pretty much summed up my thoughts on wikipedia. That said, my university generally does not like the use of wikipedia.
you cant be good enough unless you play other people which usually will include tourneys.
It has nothing to do with academic institutions being resistant to change. It has nothing to do with academics having an anti-Wikipedia bias. It has everything to do with the open source format. Literary sources, accredited journalistic sources, encyclopedic sources and so forth are not open source. Anybody, on the other hand, can edit Wikipedia. As I said before, there is NO guarantee whatsoever that the information you’re looking at is reliable, no matter how many fact checkers are going through it.
That is all there is to it, plain and simple. I hope that helps you understand why academia does not embrace Wikipedia as a legitimate source of information. Pity all those poor students who still have to actually put a little work into their research.
Because it doesn’t make sense. How can you be good, with no record of you actually being good? Maybe I’m the fastest race car driver the world has ever seen, i just haven’t been timed yet!
The more important question, is wtf am i supposed to do with that possibility? Bet on it? Give out awards and prizes for hypothetical tournaments? What do they want?
Most times, they feel that if they were a tournament player, their theories would be more respected and people would treat them better. I hate to break it to him, but the internet hates on everyone. Perhaps he missed the hate on tournament champions, srk staff, and many good tournament players that goes on almost daily.
If someone wants to talk about non competitive aspects of the game, SRK also provides forums on fan fiction, fan art, video, general tech, general anything (GD), and a trading post. I suppose we’re missing a whining station, maybe wiz can add it later.
Is the implication that gaming in general isn’t harsh? That people who don’t attend tournaments don’t get upset, throw their controllers, call people names?
The best part is when xbox live is somehow used as an example of compeititve gaming. I believe that xbox live can be used as a tool to enhance the competitive scene, but if you play a random halo or madden match online, are you more likely to run into respected tournament players? or casual players? Who’s point is this proving?
On the wikipedia debate, i notice a lot of people saying that anyone can edit wikipedia, but in a lot of cases, anyone [with money or power] seems to be able to edit scientific research pretty easily too. Remember the research shows that video games cause violence and is ruining society, along with illegal mp3 downloads.
Well, depends what your measurement of “good” is based on. If Player A doesn’t play tourneys and player B does, and if your measurement of goodness is how well you’ve done in tourneys (which is what it seems you’re implying), then it obviously won’t work. But if player A and B play and you measure goodness based on who wins, then you can conclude A is better than B if A wins.
I don’t think you can do anything about it…his point is just that people who enter tourneys shouldn’t automatically assume they know more than people that don’t. I think it’s a legitimate point…
It is also a legitimate point that people who play at home and never show what they can do in a public event can bloviate all they want about how good they are, but nobody has a good reason to take them seriously.
If Street Fighter were a less accessible contest, like a professional sport, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. You can play nowhere except on your back patio and claim to be better than Lebron–and maybe you’re right, by a pure act of god–but why would anyone believe you if you just tell them about it instead of competing? I realize it’s a pretty ridiculous comparison, but the general principle applies. If not through competition, how else does somebody measure how good they are at this kind of game?
I think what you’re talking about is certainly within the realm of possibility, but I think it fails the practicality test.
In this example Player A apparently goes to tournaments (and I’d assume for arguments sake that Player A tends to do rather well in them), and Player B does not go to any tournaments.
Now Player B could very well be a better player than Player A, but if you had to put money on which would would win a match, the guy with the good finishes or the guy who tells you he is good, which do you put your money on?
Obviously the better bet would be to put your money on Player A, because logically he has a better case for claiming to be the better player. Player B could ultimately be the better player, but his argument is made much weaker by the fact that he has little, if any proof of his competency.
So the assumption that Player A is the better of the two players isn’t made out of ignorance, it’s just made on the preponderance of evidence available to the person making the judgment at the time, which would in this case always favor Player A.
The catch is, you actually have to play that match! Non-competitive players, by definition, don’t take part in such matches, so how do you give someone credit for a match they won’t play?
In addition, being ‘good’ is across any opponent, saying that your knowledge and gameplay is on the same level and that you have a reasonable chance to win. If someone is hand picking opponents, noone can tell how good you are in the general case.
Where is this well written argument that got disregarded because the person didn’t play in tournaments?
Even if you find a few, I can find a lot more times where a tournament player’s advice was disregarded and/or flamed. It’s not a special event.
Is there an alternate reality I’m not aware of? One where people get credit because they technically could beat someone in a match that never gaes played?, where they get credit for all these great arguments and posts that noone ever sees, and where the ONLY difference between them and a respected player is the fact that they don’t attend tournaments?
If someone knows where this is, lmk, in the meatime, i’d at least settle for a rant that uses contrasting foreground and background colors. My eyes hurt.