Tweet
SHORT VERSION: WHY DO YOU ZONEMESSAGE HOCKEY AND I DON'T GET TO PLAY? THAT MAKES BABY JESUS CRY!
------------------------------------------------------------------
LONG VERSION:
Look,
Every time I see a zonemsg for hockey nowadays, I hit esc-A, page down to HOCKEY, and hit return.
Yeah, buddy. . . gonna play some hockey
But NOOOOOOOOOO. Because our host -- I hate to pick on people by name, so I won't -- picks captains from some source, perhaps his buddy list (this would be a SUBJECTIVE [http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=subjective] criterion), although the players do get to choose which two persons from the group our host has picked will be a captain. It's like old-school Soviet-style elections.
Then they (the ostensibly [http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=ostensibly] "elected" captains) pick people from THEIR buddy list.
This goes on until you have either four or five on each team. Then the other two, or four, players are picked at random.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So that's how that goes. By itself, it's all fine and good. My problem with this is, I see a fucking zonemessage saying ?go hockey. This zonemessage implies that, if I type ?go hockey, I will in fact have some reasonable, rational chance to be enjoying a game of hockey in the near future. But NOOOOOOOOOOOO.
That's not how it goes.
So, moving right along to my point with no further delay, I am posting this message to question the logic in sending an zonemessage that tells players to go play hockey, when in fact your average subspace player's chances of ACTUALLY GETTING TO PLAY is negligible.
Let me repeat that. I am posting this message to question the logic in sending an zonemessage that tells players to go play hockey, when in fact your average subspace player's chances of ACTUALLY GETTING TO PLAY is negligible. (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=negligible)
You might say, "that's not even a big deal, CK." I'd agree with you, to an extent. The event / instance / occurrence I'm specifically referring to is not a big deal. Principles, however, ARE invariably a big deal, and it's the principle of the thing. If you zonemessage for hockey, and it's FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED, well, hey -- that'd be an objective criterion; I can't argue with that. Objectivity (look it up if you don't understand the concept, I'm tiring of posting links to the online dictionary) is, I think most would say, fair. Subjective criteria, however, have no place in the basic administration of a (relatively) public game. (If you would dispute that statement, I'd be glad to post an extensive, painful, overly-detailed explanation upon request, although I guess you could make a case for necessity, as a justification . . hmm lemme think on that.)
I wouldn't even bother to bitch about this (although I got halfway through a post about this same issue on a different occasion, but got bored, not to mention realizing that nobody would care, and it wouldn't change anything), except that it's so inane (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=inane). If you want to play a game of hockey with a bunch of people you know, hey, great. Do that. I have heard rumors that, upon occasion, private basing games are hosted. People (I've heard) show up and can't get in because there are too many people. Fair enough. It's called private basing for a reason, thus there is no reasonable expectation -- everyone knows they might not get a spot.
But if you're zonemessaging the event, people have a reasonable expectation of actually being able to play the event in question. Sure, a host has no personal obligation, and indeed may have no obligation at all to satisfy this reasonable expectation. I contend, however, that it is (a) better for the game, long-term; (b) better for the subspace community at large (although those first two may necessarily have some overlap); and (c) quite simply, CORRECT from a moral standpoint, if the players (you average, everyday supporters of the game) who respond to zonemessages about events get a chance to play in those events.
Cordially,
tCK
PS Check out the RIAA's website if you are looking for information on giant monkeys. Or www.asstr.org for some interesting reading. Good day now.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a completely unrelated aside, remember that in the US Federal court system relevancy of evidence depends, first off, on substantive legal issues. Further, the test is whether an item of evidence makes a conclusion more probable. Although the next question is whether that item of evidence's probative value outweighs its possible prejudicial or confusing effect on the jury hearing the case. See Rule 403. Yeah, useful, I know.
------------------------------------------------------------------
LONG VERSION:
Look,
Every time I see a zonemsg for hockey nowadays, I hit esc-A, page down to HOCKEY, and hit return.
Yeah, buddy. . . gonna play some hockey
But NOOOOOOOOOO. Because our host -- I hate to pick on people by name, so I won't -- picks captains from some source, perhaps his buddy list (this would be a SUBJECTIVE [http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=subjective] criterion), although the players do get to choose which two persons from the group our host has picked will be a captain. It's like old-school Soviet-style elections.
Then they (the ostensibly [http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=ostensibly] "elected" captains) pick people from THEIR buddy list.
This goes on until you have either four or five on each team. Then the other two, or four, players are picked at random.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So that's how that goes. By itself, it's all fine and good. My problem with this is, I see a fucking zonemessage saying ?go hockey. This zonemessage implies that, if I type ?go hockey, I will in fact have some reasonable, rational chance to be enjoying a game of hockey in the near future. But NOOOOOOOOOOOO.
That's not how it goes.
So, moving right along to my point with no further delay, I am posting this message to question the logic in sending an zonemessage that tells players to go play hockey, when in fact your average subspace player's chances of ACTUALLY GETTING TO PLAY is negligible.
Let me repeat that. I am posting this message to question the logic in sending an zonemessage that tells players to go play hockey, when in fact your average subspace player's chances of ACTUALLY GETTING TO PLAY is negligible. (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=negligible)
You might say, "that's not even a big deal, CK." I'd agree with you, to an extent. The event / instance / occurrence I'm specifically referring to is not a big deal. Principles, however, ARE invariably a big deal, and it's the principle of the thing. If you zonemessage for hockey, and it's FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED, well, hey -- that'd be an objective criterion; I can't argue with that. Objectivity (look it up if you don't understand the concept, I'm tiring of posting links to the online dictionary) is, I think most would say, fair. Subjective criteria, however, have no place in the basic administration of a (relatively) public game. (If you would dispute that statement, I'd be glad to post an extensive, painful, overly-detailed explanation upon request, although I guess you could make a case for necessity, as a justification . . hmm lemme think on that.)
I wouldn't even bother to bitch about this (although I got halfway through a post about this same issue on a different occasion, but got bored, not to mention realizing that nobody would care, and it wouldn't change anything), except that it's so inane (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=inane). If you want to play a game of hockey with a bunch of people you know, hey, great. Do that. I have heard rumors that, upon occasion, private basing games are hosted. People (I've heard) show up and can't get in because there are too many people. Fair enough. It's called private basing for a reason, thus there is no reasonable expectation -- everyone knows they might not get a spot.
But if you're zonemessaging the event, people have a reasonable expectation of actually being able to play the event in question. Sure, a host has no personal obligation, and indeed may have no obligation at all to satisfy this reasonable expectation. I contend, however, that it is (a) better for the game, long-term; (b) better for the subspace community at large (although those first two may necessarily have some overlap); and (c) quite simply, CORRECT from a moral standpoint, if the players (you average, everyday supporters of the game) who respond to zonemessages about events get a chance to play in those events.
Cordially,
tCK
PS Check out the RIAA's website if you are looking for information on giant monkeys. Or www.asstr.org for some interesting reading. Good day now.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a completely unrelated aside, remember that in the US Federal court system relevancy of evidence depends, first off, on substantive legal issues. Further, the test is whether an item of evidence makes a conclusion more probable. Although the next question is whether that item of evidence's probative value outweighs its possible prejudicial or confusing effect on the jury hearing the case. See Rule 403. Yeah, useful, I know.
Comment