Time to stop being so cheap (PU condi)
That’s scrub thinking.
Lastly, you’re making a rather irrelevant point about balance patches. We didn’t call the guy a scrub because he called for a nerf, we called him a scrub because he used scrub logic and confessed to scrub behavior.
Lots of people call for nerfs to PU, and we don’t call them scrubs…just wrong.The scrubs aren’t the people advocating one way or another about balance patches.
They are the people who come in here declaring that mesmer is too boring to play now, or certain builds are so cheap you gotta be more mean to them than other people you beat, or who declare that they’ll never play such a “cheap build” because it’s unfair.
Scrubs don’t play to win because they handicap themselves for irrelevant reasons.Heck, even choosing not to use PU condi for roaming doesn’t make you a scrub, because there are many reasons a person might choose something different. Choosing not to use PU condi because it’s too cheap, or because it’s unfair, though…that’s scrub thinking.
I have to say this again – calling someone a “scrub” means nothing. It’s not an argument. I get the feeling you’re using it only because “scrub” sounds bad.
Let’s have an experiment. Replace the word scrub with “Knight”. It’s just a terminology right? You can link to the definition of a Knight and point to that article explaining thins.
Now ask yourself – would you use the same way of calling people “Knights”? So you’d go:
“You sir, are a Knight”.
Response: “Why thank you!”
Do you see what I’m doing? Neither of the above are logical arguments – calling someone a scrub or a Knight. Yet you use one as an insult and you cannot use the other in the same way.
Moral of the story: Merely naming something is a logical fallacy. Ok, the behavior has a name. So what?
(edited by bhagwad.4281)
That’s scrub thinking.
Lastly, you’re making a rather irrelevant point about balance patches. We didn’t call the guy a scrub because he called for a nerf, we called him a scrub because he used scrub logic and confessed to scrub behavior.
Lots of people call for nerfs to PU, and we don’t call them scrubs…just wrong.The scrubs aren’t the people advocating one way or another about balance patches.
They are the people who come in here declaring that mesmer is too boring to play now, or certain builds are so cheap you gotta be more mean to them than other people you beat, or who declare that they’ll never play such a “cheap build” because it’s unfair.
Scrubs don’t play to win because they handicap themselves for irrelevant reasons.Heck, even choosing not to use PU condi for roaming doesn’t make you a scrub, because there are many reasons a person might choose something different. Choosing not to use PU condi because it’s too cheap, or because it’s unfair, though…that’s scrub thinking.
I have to say this again – calling someone a “scrub” means nothing. It’s not an argument. I get the feeling you’re using it only because “scrub” sounds bad.
Let’s have an experiment. Replace the word scrub with “Knight”. It’s just a terminology right? You can link to the definition of a Knight and point to that article explaining thins.
Now ask yourself – would you use the same way of calling people “Knights”? So you’d go:
“You sir, are a Knight”.
Response: “Why thank you!”
Do you see what I’m doing? Neither of the above are logical arguments – calling someone a scrub or a Knight. Yet you use one as an insult and you cannot use the other in the same way.
Moral of the story: Merely naming something is a logical fallacy. Ok, the behavior has a name. So what?
You already read the article that “scrub” is a reference to.
You made objections to the link, and I (and others) answered those objections.
This post you just made is now pretending once again that http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub doesn’t exist, or that it has no relevance.
In short, this post is meaningless because we already answered the concern that “scrub” isn’t an invocation of an argument.
If I cite “occam’s razor”, I don’t need to repeat the logic behind it. If I cite “murphy’s law”, I don’t need to repeat the concept. If I cite “scrub” in an environment where the referenced argument (the sirlin article) has been frequently cited before, I don’t need to repeat the logic.
This is particularly true when the post right before mine (made by Pyro) already included a skeleton of that same logic.
The upshot of that is that the argument includes a rejection of the scrub mindset, which I agree with, and feel no need to repeat either.
Edit: It seems at this point you are being willfully obtuse. I can’t imagine why you are forsaking fundamentals of argument here, maybe because you yourself feel indicted by the scrub accusation. I don’t know why you would though, your objections (which admittedly many think are ridiculous) to shattering have little to do with fair play, and everything to do with things you don’t enjoy doing…which we can’t indict you for, everytime you talk about it you’re admitting upfront that what you’re after is a playstyle you enjoy, not a playstyle that will win.
(edited by AlphatheWhite.9351)
That’s scrub thinking.
Lastly, you’re making a rather irrelevant point about balance patches. We didn’t call the guy a scrub because he called for a nerf, we called him a scrub because he used scrub logic and confessed to scrub behavior.
Lots of people call for nerfs to PU, and we don’t call them scrubs…just wrong.The scrubs aren’t the people advocating one way or another about balance patches.
They are the people who come in here declaring that mesmer is too boring to play now, or certain builds are so cheap you gotta be more mean to them than other people you beat, or who declare that they’ll never play such a “cheap build” because it’s unfair.
Scrubs don’t play to win because they handicap themselves for irrelevant reasons.Heck, even choosing not to use PU condi for roaming doesn’t make you a scrub, because there are many reasons a person might choose something different. Choosing not to use PU condi because it’s too cheap, or because it’s unfair, though…that’s scrub thinking.
I have to say this again – calling someone a “scrub” means nothing. It’s not an argument. I get the feeling you’re using it only because “scrub” sounds bad.
Let’s have an experiment. Replace the word scrub with “Knight”. It’s just a terminology right? You can link to the definition of a Knight and point to that article explaining thins.
Now ask yourself – would you use the same way of calling people “Knights”? So you’d go:
“You sir, are a Knight”.
Response: “Why thank you!”
Do you see what I’m doing? Neither of the above are logical arguments – calling someone a scrub or a Knight. Yet you use one as an insult and you cannot use the other in the same way.
Moral of the story: Merely naming something is a logical fallacy. Ok, the behavior has a name. So what?
You already read the article that “scrub” is a reference to.
You made objections to the link, and I (and others) answered those objections.
This post you just made is now pretending once again that http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub doesn’t exist, or that it has no relevance.In short, this post is meaningless because we already answered the concern that “scrub” isn’t an invocation of an argument.
If I cite “occam’s razor”, I don’t need to repeat the logic behind it. If I cite “murphy’s law”, I don’t need to repeat the concept. If I cite “scrub” in an environment where the referenced argument (the sirlin article) has been frequently cited before, I don’t need to repeat the logic.
This is particularly true when the post right before mine (made by Pyro) already included a skeleton of that same logic.
Edit: It seems at this point you are being willfully obtuse. I can’t imagine why you are forsaking fundamentals of argument here, maybe because you yourself feel indicted by the scrub accusation. I don’t know why you would though, your objections (which admittedly many think are ridiculous) to shattering have little to do with fair play, and everything to do with things you don’t enjoy doing…which we can’t indict you for, everytime you talk about it you’re admitting upfront that what you’re after is a playstyle you enjoy, not a playstyle that will win.
Occam’s razor is a logical line by itself. So when one invokes Occam’s razor, they’re referring to an established principle in science where all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the correct one. They key word here is “correct”. Occam’s razor is not just a description, but also a justification. It is a tool used to raise some arguments an discard others.
Referring to an article giving a name to a certain behavior does not do anything of the sort. At best, one is pointing to a definition, not a refutation, unlike Occam’s razor which is more than just naming.
To put this more clearly, the article defines a scrub. It does not say why being a scrub is a bad thing. It relies solely on the shaming power of the name itself which people might not like to be associated with. I mean, the entire tone of that article itself is not very conducive to logic.
My arguments about “scrubs” here has little to do with my personal feelings or my playstyle. I’m just pointing out logical fallacies where and when I see them. This one in particular I’ve seen a little too often the forums lacking real logic, and so I’ve taken it upon myself to bust it.
(edited by bhagwad.4281)
To put this more clearly, the article defines a scrub. It does not say why being a scrub is a bad thing. It relies solely on the shaming power of the name itself which people might not like to be associated with. I mean, the entire tone of that article itself is not very conducive to logic.
My arguments about “scrubs” here has little to do with my personal feelings or my playstyle. I’m just pointing out logical fallacies where and when I see them. This one in particular I’ve seen a little too often the forums lacking real logic, and so I’ve taken it upon myself to bust it.
Sounds like you didn’t read the whole article.
It sure does say being a scrub is a bad thing.
I’ve never been to a tournament where there was a prize for the winner and another prize for the player who did many difficult moves. I’ve also never seen a prize for a player who played “in an innovative way.” (Though chess tournaments do sometimes have prizes for “brilliancies,” moves that are strokes of genius.) Many scrubs have strong ties to “innovation.” They say, “That guy didn’t do anything new, so he is no good.” Or “person X invented that technique and person Y just stole it.” Well, person Y might be one hundred times better than person X, but that doesn’t seem to matter to the scrub. When person Y wins the tournament and person X is a forgotten footnote, what will the scrub say? That person Y has “no skill” of course.
You can gain some standing in a gaming community by playing in an innovative way, but that should not be the ultimate goal. Innovation is merely one of many tools that may or may not help you reach victory. The goal is to play as excellently as possible. The goal is to win.
The point of the article is that scrub thinking is not playing to win, and you should play to win.
Indeed, the very concept of scrub thinking is a frame around the idea that there is a higher level of play and counterplay that scrubs can never reach because they refuse to go there. The whole article is dedicated to this concept, that scrub thinking is an artificial limitation that is grounded in meaningless distinctions in the first place.
Seriously, you say you read the article, but you’re talking a lot like you didn’t.
To put this more clearly, the article defines a scrub. It does not say why being a scrub is a bad thing. It relies solely on the shaming power of the name itself which people might not like to be associated with. I mean, the entire tone of that article itself is not very conducive to logic.
My arguments about “scrubs” here has little to do with my personal feelings or my playstyle. I’m just pointing out logical fallacies where and when I see them. This one in particular I’ve seen a little too often the forums lacking real logic, and so I’ve taken it upon myself to bust it.
Sounds like you didn’t read the whole article.
It sure does say being a scrub is a bad thing.I’ve never been to a tournament where there was a prize for the winner and another prize for the player who did many difficult moves. I’ve also never seen a prize for a player who played “in an innovative way.” (Though chess tournaments do sometimes have prizes for “brilliancies,” moves that are strokes of genius.) Many scrubs have strong ties to “innovation.” They say, “That guy didn’t do anything new, so he is no good.” Or “person X invented that technique and person Y just stole it.” Well, person Y might be one hundred times better than person X, but that doesn’t seem to matter to the scrub. When person Y wins the tournament and person X is a forgotten footnote, what will the scrub say? That person Y has “no skill” of course.
You can gain some standing in a gaming community by playing in an innovative way, but that should not be the ultimate goal. Innovation is merely one of many tools that may or may not help you reach victory. The goal is to play as excellently as possible. The goal is to win.
The point of the article is that scrub thinking is not playing to win, and you should play to win.
There we have it – that word should.. It requires more explanation. Why should you play only to win? I’m not saying you shouldn’t. I’m not taking a stand here at all in fact. The onus is on the author to prove his use of the word “should”, and he doesn’t do so.
Indeed, the very concept of scrub thinking is a frame around the idea that there is a higher level of play and counterplay that scrubs can never reach because they refuse to go there. The whole article is dedicated to this concept, that scrub thinking is an artificial limitation that is grounded in meaningless distinctions in the first place.
Seriously, you say you read the article, but you’re talking a lot like you didn’t.
Well, yes it says a bad thing but doesn’t (in my opinion), give logical reasons to show why. It relies on describing a set of behaviors and leaving it to the reader to assume. I mean it basically admits as much with this sentence for example:
“Who knows what objective the scrub has, but we know his objective is not truly to win. Yours is. Your objective is good and right and true, and let no one tell you otherwise. "
So the article is admitting it has no clue has to the motivations of the behavior, and at the same time it reinforces the reader’s belief that “your objective is good and right and true”. Note however, that no justification is given for this assertion. Words like “good”, “right”, and “true” need to be explained. Why is it good? Why is it right? Because these words are moral judgments by their very nature and not self evident facts. Never mind that “true” doesn’t even fit in here – is he trying to deny the existence of other motivations? We’ll never know.
I’ve read the article in quite a bit of depth. I just find it lacking in logical reasoning. Honestly, it looks like the author isn’t even trying. Sure, the shaming tone can work on lots of people, but it doesn’t hold water with those who know what makes an argument good and what doesn’t.
(edited by bhagwad.4281)
It seems you have a problem with a word “scrub” rather with the meaning behind it: well, lets look at the dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scrub?s=t
it seems that the offending meaning would be “a small or insignificant person.” or “Sports. a player not belonging to the varsity or regular team; a player who is not first-string.” The origin comes from “low trees or shrubs collectively.”
So you are offended because someone has been called “a low tree”. Well, Sirlin who seems to coin this meaning to certain type of game players decided to use it and collective picked it up, same way calling someone “kitten”, “other word for donkey” or “pig” became offensive even if I don’t believe most people have anything against dogs, donkeys or pork. Would you feel better if Sirlin would call such players “banana”? Well, go ahead, start a petition a meme or something and propagate this change.
Beside me at least other 2 people already proven that such behavior matches the patter that Sirlin called “scrub”. Same as your behaviour matches pattern generally called “trolling”, even if it doesn’t have much to do with Scandinavian mythical forrest dwellers.
It seems you have a problem with a word “scrub” rather with the meaning behind it: well, lets look at the dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scrub?s=t
it seems that the offending meaning would be “a small or insignificant person.” or “Sports. a player not belonging to the varsity or regular team; a player who is not first-string.” The origin comes from “low trees or shrubs collectively.”So you are offended because someone has been called “a low tree”. Well, Sirlin who seems to coin this meaning to certain type of game players decided to use it and collective picked it up, same way calling someone “kitten”, “other word for donkey” or “pig” became offensive even if I don’t believe most people have anything against dogs, donkeys or pork. Would you feel better if Sirlin would call such players “banana”? Well, go ahead, start a petition a meme or something and propagate this change.
Beside me at least other 2 people already proven that such behavior matches the patter that Sirlin called “scrub”. Same as your behaviour matches pattern generally called “trolling”, even if it doesn’t have much to do with Scandinavian mythical forrest dwellers.
See, that’s the thing. Who decided that this word “scrub” was a bad thing? The problem lies in the word itself which is meant to shame people. This is not at all different from someone pointing to a woman and saying “You’re a girl” in a sneering voice. Has it proved anything beyond the fact that she’s a girl? No. Have you succeeded in trying to shame her and thereby render her opinions irrelevant? Probably.
These are all just basically variants of the ad-hominem argument. Logical fallacies that need to be rooted out mercilessly.
Seriously… Stop feeding the trolls. This topic needs to be closed.