Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DoubleJ

[PSL XI] THE HYPEST HYPE THREAD

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I can see both @Gunthug & @gbwead's sides for this argument though, like I agree with Gunthug in the sense allowing coaching takes away from the competitive nature of PSL, which is literally the reason PSL exists, to have one person coach everyone in their team is dumb.

 

But as gb mentioned, only staff can really enforce this rule, so regardless whether it's banned or not, it's still gonna be happening. I dont really know if/how there would be a solution to this for here. It sucks but it's the truth, people are gona coach and I dont think theres anything we can do about that. At least with team preview now, every duel is still winnable as long as you play correctly. Thats literally about the only plus to take from this argument

 

 

Edited by Parke

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, NikhilR said:

1) Those players who are in the "pro-coaching" position are still going to coach or get coached.

It's so simple-minded or intellectually dishonest to say that those who are for coaching are the ones who want to coach or be coached.
Whether as a player or manager, I personally always condemned coaching, it does not prevent me from preferring his permission, there is no inconsistency.
Those who enjoy it are certainly the worst players and I attended many duels where the random player won his duel brilliantly against a good player while everyone agreed that he was coached.
Allowing coaching would put an end to this hypocrisy for instance.
To stigmatize a contrary opinion as you do makes me pity.

Share this post


Link to post

You'd have to force each player (or suspects) to screen-share and use a web-cam to "enforce" such thing.

Yknow discord has a screen-share option, so a person can coach another without even being online for instance.

If you want to take it a step farther, they can use their phones to communicate the next move as well.

So the thing is.. It really can't be enforced imo. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, NikhilR said:

I'm not speaking for Gunt, but here's what's up:

 

If we allow coaching:
1) You'd essentially be watching the same player face each other multiple times, which would get boring after a while.

2) Any honest player who gets drafted and wishes to play, will probably get subbed out if he disobeys his manager's request to get ghosted. Ultimately there's nothing he can do correct the situation. If ghosting was disallowed, he'd be able to remedy the situation by showing logs that he was asked to ghost.

3) You'd be hampering the development of any player that wishes to improve. 

You are talking only about ghosting here which is really not the same thing as coaching. As for #1, I doubt that would be the case and, if it ends up that way, it will only reflect what is already happening without us knowing. 

 

For some reason, people think that by wanting coaching to be allowed that means I am pro-coaching. This is not the case. I simply believe that by allowing coaching the need for coaching will diminish over time. Sometimes prohibition doesn't solve the issue and just makes everything worse. When it comes to coaching, it's important to understand why it's happening to try to prevent it. Forbidding coaching realistically doesn't accomplish anything. Noobs get coached because they are not good enough to compete with the best players. This means that, if you want to prevent coaching, you can do one thing; get rid of the noobs. Staff and devs could do much more like put a small delay for spectators when they watch a duel or w.e, but our only resort as players is too eliminate the noobs from this competition.

 

That's where I feel coaching could be helpful because, like it or not, coaching (not ghosting) helps players improve, learn the basic thought processes of competitive play and much more. A lot of big names of our competitive scene started out as mindless puppets getting ghosted that afterwards evolved into more defined puppets getting coached and afterwards accomplished players. Therefore, if the puppets become players, that means we have less and less noobs getting drafted and our competitive gain more players. Everyone who has been around logn enough knows that one of the worse thing a noob can do is play against other noobs. When that happens, the noobs just feed off their own stupidity and misconceptions. When good players face each other, the exact opposite happen because they get to test themselves against real competition and can therefore develop their skills. By replacing the noobs by players, our competitive scene become stronger overall.

 

And making our competitive scene greater overall is extremely important. Right now in PokeMMO, the best players play all tiers. The best UU player is not a dedicated UU palyer, it's a player that plays all tiers. The best LC player is not a dedicated LC player, it's a player that plays all tiers. This means that the best players which are the potential coaches can coach in all tiers. If you buy a top player, he will tier a specific tier, but can also coach other players in other tiers. If our competitive scene was stronger, this would not be possible because it implies that the competition becomes so great in each tier that no one could possibly focus on more than one tier. Therefore, the best Doubles players would only play doubles and would not have time to focus on other tiers, so he/she wouldn't be able to coach anyone. In the context of PSL, if you buy a doubles players, you expect him to play doubles. Right now, if you buy a top player, you expect him to play w.e tier is asked of him/her which opens up the door to coaching.

 

That's why I think allowing coaching could be beneficial in diminishing the amount of coaching long term. There are other things ofc that could be done in order to reduce the amount of coaching. If we keep in mind that we need to reduce the amount of noobs, we could reduce the amount of tiers so less noobs get drafted. To the people that think I am overestimating the amount of coaching going on, I just want to say that it may be so, but imo in a competition it takes only one apple to spoil the whole bunch and right now PSL is spoiled. I feel we are seriously wasting our time by policing players around and rewarding rats with the psl prize pools. Coaching is happening whether we like it or not, whether we allow it or not, so really if we want to attempt to fix the issue, let's not kid ourselves in pretending not allowing coaching fixes anything, it never has and never will. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Okay most people argue to allow coaching because we can't stop/prove it anyways most of the time. But would you allow murder if there is a high chance of the murderer getting away most of the time as well? This argument is just plain stupid. There should be no coaching allowed, it goes against what the PSL is made for - valuing each player in terms of skill/experience/versitility...

Does that mean we can and therefore should enforce sort of an "anti-coach"-standard? Not really. It's just not possible, there will always be ways to avoid it. Make it decently hard and punish coaching if evidence is found. Not guilty unless proven otherwise. But to allow it per se is just a terrible idea imo!

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
Just now, Sashaolin said:

It's so simple-minded or intellectually dishonest to say that those who are for coaching are the ones who want to coach or be coached.
Whether as a player or manager, I personally always condemned coaching, it does not prevent me from preferring his permission, there is no inconsistency.
Those who enjoy it are certainly the worst players and I attended many duels where the random player won his duel brilliantly against a good player while everyone agreed that he was coached.
Allowing coaching would put an end to this hypocrisy for instance.
To stigmatize a contrary opinion as you do makes me pity.

Explain to me again why someone who is against coaching would want to enforce a rule allowing for it to happen. Your logic fails in the part I bolded, because if you allow coaching to happen, people are going to claim that the random player who won his duel brilliantly was also coached.

 

Just now, gbwead said:

You are talking only about ghosting here which is really not the same thing as coaching. As for #1, I doubt that would be the case and, if it ends up that way, it will only reflect what is already happening without us knowing.  

Ghosting isn't literally the same as coaching, but the purpose and result are the same, which to me makes no difference as to why you should differentiate it too much.  I don't understand the rest of your sentence in terms of what point you were trying to get across. 

 

Just now, gbwead said:

For some reason, people think that by wanting coaching to be allowed that means I am pro-coaching. This is not the case. I simply believe that by allowing coaching the need for coaching will diminish over time. Sometimes prohibition doesn't solve the issue and just makes everything worse. When it comes to coaching, it's important to understand why it's happening to try to prevent it. Forbidding coaching realistically doesn't accomplish anything. Noobs get coached because they are not good enough to compete with the best players. This means that, if you want to prevent coaching, you can do one thing; get rid of the noobs. Staff and devs could do much more like put a small delay for spectators when they watch a duel or w.e, but our only resort as players is too eliminate the noobs from this competition.

Explain to me your train of thought of how "allowing coaching will diminish the need for coaching?" When someone is being coached, they are hardly conscious of what moves they are making, and because of this they will literally never improve. If allowing coaching would diminish the need for coaching, then almost everyone here should be at the peak of their game because coaching is allowed extensively for officials. You can't eliminate whomsoever you call "noobs" because that term is relative, not absolute. Every player here is either a noob or god depending on whom you're comparing them to. So if you pick a Frags / Bowser like person as captain of a team, the rest of the members will be noobs. Can you name me a few players who have improved solely because of coaching but not because of their own effort?

 

Just now, gbwead said:

That's where I feel coaching could be helpful because, like it or not, coaching (not ghosting) helps players improve, learn the basic thought processes of competitive play and much more. A lot of big names of our competitive scene started out as mindless puppets getting ghosted that afterwards evolved into more defined puppets getting coached and afterwards accomplished players. Therefore, if the puppets become players, that means we have less and less noobs getting drafted and our competitive gain more players. Everyone who has been around logn enough knows that one of the worse thing a noob can do is play against other noobs. When that happens, the noobs just feed off their own stupidity and misconceptions. When good players face each other, the exact opposite happen because they get to test themselves against real competition and can therefore develop their skills. By replacing the noobs by players, our competitive scene become stronger overall.

Okay, I see your train of thought here, so you can ignore that specific part of the previous post. I think you're exaggerating the number of players in our game who've gotten good solely by coaching. The way it works is that during your initial stage you can choose to ask for help during your games, but that only gets you so far. Once the training wheels are off, you should be able to build on your own, play on your own etc. This doesn't mean that you can't ask for help afterwards etc. A player who requires coaching is not a player that is meant to play for PSL because this event is meant to pick players who are able to stand on their own two feet. I can give you examples of players like myself, Raaidn, and Bowser who haven't gotten to where we are by being coached. Raaidn and I used to grind the shit out of pokedailies / officials back in 2015 because by playing the game is the only way we would improve, not holding each other's uguus throughout our battle. I can give you another example of myself where I got my ass handed to me by Kriger in PSL DPP and then made it to SPL DPP without ever needing to be coached, but TAUGHT. I do agree with you about how our competitive scene would become stronger overall by having better players who think on their own, but PSL isn't meant to be a "Battling 101" for noobs.

 

Just now, gbwead said:

And making our competitive scene greater overall is extremely important. Right now in PokeMMO, the best players play all tiers. The best UU player is not a dedicated UU palyer, it's a player that plays all tiers. The best LC player is not a dedicated LC player, it's a player that plays all tiers. This means that the best players which are the potential coaches can coach in all tiers. If you buy a top player, he will tier a specific tier, but can also coach other players in other tiers. If our competitive scene was stronger, this would not be possible because it implies that the competition becomes so great in each tier that no one could possibly focus on more than one tier. Therefore, the best Doubles players would only play doubles and would not have time to focus on other tiers, so he/she wouldn't be able to coach anyone. In the context of PSL, if you buy a doubles players, you expect him to play doubles. Right now, if you buy a top player, you expect him to play w.e tier is asked of him/her which opens up the door to coaching.

You're absolutely correct here about what the reality is like. But do you not also see how wrong it is? You're supposed to buy an all-round player NOT TO COACH, but to help people across all tiers. And that help can come in the form of practice games, teambuilding etc. What would the point of practice games / teambuilding be if the other player was just going to be coached?

 

Just now, gbwead said:

That's why I think allowing coaching could be beneficial in diminishing the amount of coaching long term. There are other things ofc that could be done in order to reduce the amount of coaching. If we keep in mind that we need to reduce the amount of noobs, we could reduce the amount of tiers so less noobs get drafted. To the people that think I am overestimating the amount of coaching going on, I just want to say that it may be so, but imo in a competition it takes only one apple to spoil the whole bunch and right now PSL is spoiled. I feel we are seriously wasting our time by policing players around and rewarding rats with the psl prize pools. Coaching is happening whether we like it or not, whether we allow it or not, so really if we want to attempt to fix the issue, let's not kid ourselves in pretending not allowing coaching fixes anything, it never has and never will. 

Again, if coaching was allowed, you should be seeing top notch players everywhere because they were once coached, yet that isn't the case. I'm all for reducing the number of tiers. You're so adamant about how a rule against coaching does not stop ALL coaching and therefore coaching should be allowed. But you still refuse to see how a rule against coaching has stopped coaching to a large degree. 

 

EDIT: Smogon has a clear no-coaching rule and you can see how the players who've been punished for being coached have hardly risen to the top (except one or two), whereas the rest of the playerbase that are honest are on a much superior level. 

Edited by NikhilR

Share this post


Link to post

" If you can't prevent coaching, allow it. This way the need for coaching will decrease over time " -Gbwead.

 

Well how about making a poll, and letting the community decide whether they want coaching allowed this season or not. @DoubleJ

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, NikhilR said:

Ghosting isn't literally the same as coaching, but the purpose and result are the same, which to me makes no difference as to why you should differentiate it too much.  I don't understand the rest of your sentence in terms of what point you were trying to get across. 

You said that if coaching is allowed all duels would be the same player fighting every time. How do you know that is not already the case?

Quote

Explain to me your train of thought of how "allowing coaching will diminish the need for coaching?" When someone is being coached, they are hardly conscious of what moves they are making, and because of this they will literally never improve. If allowing coaching would diminish the need for coaching, then almost everyone here should be at the peak of their game because coaching is allowed extensively for officials. You can't eliminate whomsoever you call "noobs" because that term is relative, not absolute. Every player here is either a noob or god depending on whom you're comparing them to. So if you pick a Frags / Bowser like person for any tour, the rest will be noobs. Can you name me a few players who have improved solely because of coaching but not because of their own effort?

You are describing players being ghosted if you say they are not conscious. I am talking about coaching. I'm also not going to throw people under the bus by naming them.

Quote

Okay, I see your train of thought here, so you can ignore the previous post. I think you're exaggerating the number of players in our game who've gotten good solely by coaching. The way it works is that during your initial you can choose to ask for help during your games, but that only gets you so far. Once the training wheels are off, you should be able to build on your own, play on your own etc. This doesn't mean that you can't ask for help afterwards etc. A player who requires coaching is not a player that is meant to play for PSL because this event is meant to pick players who are able to stand on their own two feet. I can give you examples of players like myself, Raaidn, and Bowser who haven't gotten to where we are by being coached. Raaidn and I used to grind the shit out of pokedailies / officials back in 2015 because by playing the game is the only way we would improve, not holding each other's uguus throughout our battle. I can give you another example of myself where I got my ass handed to me by Kriger and then made it to SPL without ever needing to be coached. I do agree with you about how our competitive scene would become stronger overall by having better players who think on their own, but PSL isn't meant to be a "Battling 101" for noobs.

We both want the same thing. We just disagree on how to get there.

Quote

You're absolutely correct here about what the reality is like. But do you not also see how wrong it is? You're supposed to buy an all-round player NOT TO COACH, but to help people across all tiers. And that help can come in the form of practice games, teambuilding etc. What would the point of practice games / teambuilding be if the other player was just going to be coached?

Good players can help is mutliple ways ofc. But once again, when you say coach here, I feel you mean ghost.

Quote

Again, if coaching was allowed, you should be seeing top notch players everywhere because they were once coached, yet that isn't the case. I'm all for reducing the number of tiers. You're so adamant about how a rule against coaching does not stop ALL coaching and therefore coaching should be allowed. But you still refuse to see how a rule against coaching has stopped coaching to a large degree. 

I don't think a rule against coaching has stopped coaching to a large degree. PSL 9 is proves it imo and nothing in PSL 10 has really be done to make things better. The DnD rule is more annoying than anything. It doesn't prevent coaching, it just doesn't allow coaching in chat.

Edited by gbwead

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, CHUCKunso said:

But would you allow murder if there is a high chance of the murderer getting away most of the time as well? This argument is just plain stupid.

This argument is indeed very stupid. It's a good thing no one has used it so far. 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, gbwead said:

You said that if coaching is allowed all duels would be the same player fighting every duel. How do you know that is not already the case?

I don't remember the number of PSL teams last season, but my team definitely didn't coach. If a rule was enforced allowing coaching, I'd coach but maybe not exactly turn by turn. The rule against coaching + measures taken against it stopped me from doing so. Since you are against coaching, I'm sure your team wouldn't have done it either. So that makes two teams minimum being honest in this tour. 

 

Just now, gbwead said:

You are describing players being ghosted if you say they are not conscious. I am talking about coaching. I'm also not going to throw people under the bus by naming them.

I believe in both instances the player is a puppet or robot that is trained to follow orders. To me that's not being conscious. Personally, I wouldn't judge anyone for their past of being coached if they're currently good. I can understand them "doing whatever it takes" to be good, and if they had to resort to that to be good at this game, it's not something that I would shame them over. If you want you can PM the names of the players. 

 

Just now, gbwead said:

Good players can help is mutliple ways ofc. But once again, when you say coach here, I feel you mean ghost.

Okay, I think our understanding of the terms is different. For me:
Ghosting - Impersonating said player by logging into their account

Coaching - Telling said player what move to make

 

If your meaning of the terms are same, then it makes no difference how I use the term because both are achieving the same result but through slightly different methods. So my point is, if you had a good player coach another, what would be the point of the good player to help out in any other way?

 

Just now, gbwead said:

I don't think a rule against coaching has stopped coaching to a large degree. PSL 9 is proves it imo and nothing in PSL 10 has really be done to make things better. The DnD rule is more annoying than anything. It doesn't prevent coaching, it just doesn't allow coaching in chat.

There were zero allegations of ghosting in PSL 10. Not proof, but basically allegations. That's an improvement compared to PSL 9. The rule against coaching has stopped me from doing so, and the principle of being against coaching has stopped you. When you have a rule against coaching, it creates a mentality that coaching is bad / should be discouraged. Whereas a rule against that would abolish it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, NikhilR said:

Okay, I think our understanding of the terms is different. For me:
Ghosting - Impersonating said player by logging into their account

Coaching - Telling said player what move to make

The way I see it:

Ghosting - Impersonating said player logging into their account or having a player execute everything you said without thinking
Coaching - Helping said player figure out what move to make

 

9 minutes ago, NikhilR said:

There were zero allegations of ghosting in PSL 10. Not proof, but basically allegations. That's an improvement compared to PSL 9. The rule against coaching has stopped me from doing so, and the principle of being against coaching has stopped you. When you have a rule against coaching, it creates a mentality that coaching is bad / should be discouraged. Whereas a rule against that would abolish it. 

Coaching is bad and that's why all coaches will always deny, deny, deny if they are asked about coaching. If you don't know who is coaching, you can't even shame anyone for coaching.

Edited by gbwead

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, NikhilR said:

Explain to me again why someone who is against coaching would want to enforce a rule allowing for it to happen. 

Against coaching =/= Condemning coaching in an event where coaching is not allowed. It's called respecting the rules.

I'm part of the "If you can't prevent coaching, allow it." point of view despite all the irrelevant analogies with drugs and murders.

Kami already explained the difference between the possibility to prevent something and the total inability to prevent it, if you can't understand that, I'm sorry for you.

A relevant analogy would be the doping in sports if we focus on the integrity of the competitiveness and if we were totally unable to detect it.

 

1 hour ago, NikhilR said:

Your logic fails in the part I bolded, because if you allow coaching to happen, people are going to claim that the random player who won his duel brilliantly was also coached.

I said "Allowing coaching would put an end to this hypocrisy for instance."

What I meant is that allowing coaching drives people to be honest and acknowledge the fact that they have been helped.

On the other hand, banning coaching forces people remained silent on the issue and to gain an illegitimate merit.

It's funny how you allow yourself to talk about logic failure while you're the one who made stigma based on stupid inductions.

Edited by Sashaolin

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, gbwead said:

Coaching is happening whether we like it or not, whether we allow it or not, so really if we want to attempt to fix the issue, let's not kid ourselves in pretending not allowing coaching fixes anything, it never has and never will.

 

1 hour ago, gbwead said:

This argument is indeed very stupid. It's a good thing no one has used it so far. 

 

Just gonna leave that here..

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, gbwead said:

The way I see it:

Ghosting - Impersonating said player logging into their account or having a player execute everything you said without thinking
Coaching - Helping said player figure out what move to make

Okay, your definition of coaching is a bit more loose because it's basically the coachee discussing with his coach. Even then, such a player shouldn't be needing that first place. If he is always going to rely on someone else to help him make decisions, he's never going to execute them on his own.

 

Just now, gbwead said:

Coaching is bad and that's why all coaches will always deny, deny, deny if they are asked about coaching. If you don't know who is coaching, you can't even shame anyone for coaching.

Sure we don't know who is coaching, but you should also know that the people who coach are doing it at a risk of possibly getting exposed. It's like how they say that the leverage is in the coachee's hands. A rule allowing coaching would make it seem like coaching is not bad. 

 

Just now, Sashaolin said:

Against coaching =/= Condemning coaching in an event where coaching is not allowed. It's called respecting the rules.

I'm part of the "If you can't prevent coaching, allow it." point of view despite all your irrelevant analogies with drugs and murders.

Kami already explained the difference between the possibility to prevent something and the total inability to prevent it, if you can't understand that, I'm sorry for you.

A relevant analogy would be the doping in sports if we focus on the integrity of the competitiveness and if we were totally unable to detect it.

You're a part of the, "I hate coaching, but I would support a rule allowing for it to happen" which again makes no sense. Kami explained that since you're unable to prevent it completely, it should be allowed. He hasn't addressed how much it has prevented despite not being able to prevent it completely. If there's a specific part of your post I didn't address, it's because I really didn't understand it. 

 

Just now, Sashaolin said:

I said "Allowing coaching would put an end to this hypocrisy for instance."

What I meant is that allowing coaching drives people to be honest and acknowledge the fact that they have been helped.

On the other hand, banning coaching forces people remained silent on the issue and to gain an illegitimate merit.

It's funny how you allow yourself to talk about logic failure while you're the one who made stigma based on stupid inductions.

I don't know what's the water like where you live, but I'd sure love to get a taste of it. You call people who get coached "the worst players" and then you expect them to be honest about it without facing any prejudice about it. If I had to break down your stance, it'd be that you dislike a system that is against crime because not all criminals are caught. So instead let's adopt a system that allows crime to happen because then people are going to be honest about it. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, CHUCKunso said:

Just gonna leave that here..

I need to apologize, I didn't realise you lived in a place where people get commonly murdered and their murderer get away with it on top of gaining all kind of goods for the murder they committed. Must suck.

Share this post


Link to post

Also Kriliin, if you and I end up on the same team, and coaching was allowed, you better know that your ass is getting coached or else its riding the bench, because hey coaching is allowed. A rule allowing coaching offers zero protection for the players who wish to play the game on their own. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, gbwead said:

I need to apologize, I didn't realise you lived in a place where people get commonly murdered and their murderer get away with it on top of gaining all kind of goods for the murder they committed. Must suck.

I am sorry there was no proper teaching about metaphors in the school you went to. Let me help you out.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, CHUCKunso said:

I am sorry there was no proper teaching about metaphors in the school you went to. Let me help you out.

If you call your failed analogies, metaphors, I suggest you stay away from your keyboard and read through this thread a million times until you understand enough to formulate a sentence without sounding like a complete idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

lmao these posts, not going to read all that

but, its obvious that we cant do something about coaching, read some thing about "staff is the only who can do something about it", but still they only can do something about the mmo chat, discord and other things are for sure the common ways to coach

we all know that there is nothing to do about coaching, its not like we need to allow coaching, like some of you said, or going for the other side with the players who say "we cant allow coaching because its against what psl is"

we need to understand that both sides cant be a thing here, and need to go for "rules" or other things to go to a middle of the both sides

it will take time to go for the better for psl, making rules or thinking what to do or other shits, dont go to the next psl thinking it will be all right with no problems if next host says "lets do "x" thing to not allow coaching"

i think i read some like "people who dont take the coach will be benched by his managers" well, it would be a thing of what i want to say with the "will take time" cant do something in the next psl about it if we go for the "allow coaching" option, but in future psl´s there will be lot of ideas for sure to prevent it

 

idk if its understandable with my shitty english but there you have

Edited by Nawe
also mmo is bad, uu too

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, NikhilR said:

You're a part of the, "I hate coaching, but I would support a rule allowing for it to happen" which again makes no sense. Kami explained that since you're unable to prevent it completely, it should be allowed. He hasn't addressed how much it has prevented despite not being able to prevent it completely. If there's a specific part of your post I didn't address, it's because I really didn't understand it. 

It's full of sense, I explained it, you just don't get it, apparently too deep for superficial minds who made stigma based on inductions.

I called it my point of view and never pretend it to be the best answer to coaching, it's a complex issue, it's not obvious contrary to what many people think here.

I do not have the need or the desire to defend this point of view unlike you, I only intervened to denounce your misleading remarks.

 

1 hour ago, NikhilR said:

I don't know what's the water like where you live, but I'd sure love to get a taste of it. You call people who get coached "the worst players" and then you expect them to be honest about it without facing any prejudice about it. If I had to break down your stance, it'd be that you dislike a system that is against crime because not all criminals are caught. So instead let's adopt a system that allows crime to happen because then people are going to be honest about it. 

One more time, this analogy is completely inappropriate and irrelevant.

If you don't see the difference between the possibility to prevent something and the total inability to prevent it, the difference between a society you're forced to take part and a game that you must register of your own free will or even the difference between brainstorming and murdering, I guess you're a lost cause.

 

1 hour ago, NikhilR said:

Also Kriliin, if you and I end up on the same team, and coaching was allowed, you better know that your ass is getting coached or else its riding the bench, because hey coaching is allowed. A rule allowing coaching offers zero protection for the players who wish to play the game on their own. 

Thank you for showing to everyone what happens when someone is not satisfied by his own poor arguments, it directly leads to attacks ad hominem.

I won the last PSL I took part as a player with a 7-2 ratio, I even kicked your ass that season but that's another story...

Edited by Sashaolin

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
Just now, Sashaolin said:

It's full of sense, I explained it, you just don't get it, apparently too deep for superficial minds who made stigma based on inductions.

I called it my point of view and never pretend it to be the best answer to coaching, it's a complex issue, it's not obvious contrary to what many people think here.

I do not have the need or the desire to defend this point of view unlike you, I only intervened to denounce your misleading remarks.

Okay this part is nonsense.

 

Just now, Sashaolin said:

One more time, this analogy is completely inappropriate and irrelevant.

If you don't see the difference between the possibility to prevent something and the total inability to prevent it, the difference between a society you're forced to take part and a game that you must register of your own free will or even the difference between brainstorming and murdering, I guess you're a lost cause.

You've ignored all my points and simply resort to "You don't see the difference" without pointing the difference. You say it's inappropriate and irrelevant without giving any reasoning as to why. That's called stating conclusions without any facts or analysis.

 

Just now, Sashaolin said:

Thank you for showing to everyone what happens when someone is not satisfied by his own poor arguments, it directly leads to attacks ad hominem.

I won the last PSL I took part as a player with a 7-2 ratio, I even kicked your ass that season but that's another story...

I'm surprised that you know what "ad hominem" means but that you still don't know how to argue. Thank you for being the most nonsensical person I've ever talked to. Would you say your win against me is in your top 5 moments in your history of Pokemmo? It'd make my day if it did. 

Edited by NikhilR

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, NikhilR said:

Okay this part is nonsense.

 

21 minutes ago, NikhilR said:

You say it without giving any reasoning as to why. That's called stating conclusions without any facts or analysis.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
Just now, Sashaolin said:

It's full of sense, I explained it, you just don't get it, apparently too deep for superficial minds who made stigma based on inductions.

I called it my point of view and never pretend it to be the best answer to coaching, it's a complex issue, it's not obvious contrary to what many people think here.

I do not have the need or the desire to defend this point of view unlike you, I only intervened to denounce your misleading remarks.

There is zero explanation in this post -> Fact

Just a stupid defensive reaction about your view -> Fact / Opinion

 Hence why it's nonsense -> Conclusion

 

It's amazing how I have to actually explain that to you.

Edited by NikhilR

Share this post


Link to post

Every player must play alone, without any help at any time of the duel (excepting calcs) . If player Y interferes in the development of the duel bringing information that player X may not know, player Y is interfering on the outcome of the duel so player X is no longer playing alone. 

We all know that 2 brains are better than one.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.