Is tanking "cheating"? Poll added
- Thread starter JCTNKINGFAN
- Start date
Making a conscious choice to consume sports-as-entertainment emotionally rather than analytically isn't a question of "getting dumber," but it's interesting that you would see it that way. For differing values of "interesting," of course.
From an "objective" point of view, there's literally no rational reason to cheer for the Sacramento Kings, in the first place.
From an "objective" point of view, there's literally no rational reason to cheer for the Sacramento Kings, in the first place.
I see. So, to mutilate an old expression, we've established what you are, and now we're just haggling over the "price," is that it?
The disconnect here is that you appear to be approaching this from the notion that you should get to be the arbiter for what counts as "rational conversation," and when fans should and should not have it. You are trying to screw the inscrutable.
You also didn't answer the question; you keep paying lip service to this belief that fans can be 'rational,' but what is the rational reason for being a fan, in the first place? Or being a Kings Fan, in particular?
The disconnect here is that you appear to be approaching this from the notion that you should get to be the arbiter for what counts as "rational conversation," and when fans should and should not have it. You are trying to screw the inscrutable.
You also didn't answer the question; you keep paying lip service to this belief that fans can be 'rational,' but what is the rational reason for being a fan, in the first place? Or being a Kings Fan, in particular?
Thread looks fascinating - loved the original post... then the whole discussion got so long so I only read the first few posts and the last few posts - but I want to get my licks in:
I think tanking is cheating. I think ethical fair play is to compete without regard to next year's draft position. When next year's draft comes around, the bad teams should have a better chance at the top picks. To pretend your team is worse than it is, by losing on purpose... is cheating imo.
I think playing with a priority toward developing youth is fair and ethical though. So playing Skal instead of ZBo is fair and appropriate. It's a fair argument whether or not Dave has developed young players the best possible way - I'm ok with those criticisms - reasonable people can disagree.
It would have been reasonable and within the bounds of fair play to run out Fox, Buddy, Bogie, Skal, and WCS every night for 35 minutes - using ZBo only as an emergency reserve when the kids had foul trouble. Would have probably "worked" but I think in Dave's professional judgement it would not have been the best development experience.
I think it would be unreasonable and beyond the bounds of fair play (cheating) to give heavy minutes to Papagiannis and Bruno and Malachi with the purpose of losing. I think that approach would be disgusting and I would divorce the team if they did it.
I want to be able to respect my basketball people and I would not respect Dave if he engineered the rotation with the purpose of losing.
I think tanking is cheating. I think ethical fair play is to compete without regard to next year's draft position. When next year's draft comes around, the bad teams should have a better chance at the top picks. To pretend your team is worse than it is, by losing on purpose... is cheating imo.
I think playing with a priority toward developing youth is fair and ethical though. So playing Skal instead of ZBo is fair and appropriate. It's a fair argument whether or not Dave has developed young players the best possible way - I'm ok with those criticisms - reasonable people can disagree.
It would have been reasonable and within the bounds of fair play to run out Fox, Buddy, Bogie, Skal, and WCS every night for 35 minutes - using ZBo only as an emergency reserve when the kids had foul trouble. Would have probably "worked" but I think in Dave's professional judgement it would not have been the best development experience.
I think it would be unreasonable and beyond the bounds of fair play (cheating) to give heavy minutes to Papagiannis and Bruno and Malachi with the purpose of losing. I think that approach would be disgusting and I would divorce the team if they did it.
I want to be able to respect my basketball people and I would not respect Dave if he engineered the rotation with the purpose of losing.
What on earth are you talking about? Im not trying to be any kind of "arbiter" or anything like that.
And why are you asking me questions like "what is the rational reason to be a Kings fan"? To me, everyone can have any reason to be a kings fan they ever want. All the time by being rational I've ment being rational in a conversation. As I said: You can be a fan and at the same time be able to have a rational conversation where emotions doesnt cloud your judgement. I would assume that you would understand that since you are a moderator in this site (or at least you should). I see zero reason why that shouldnt be the case. And you can be the arbiter or anything you want but Im god damn baffled if I need to argue against a damn moderator that everyone should be able to have a rational conversation.
And why are you asking me questions like "what is the rational reason to be a Kings fan"? To me, everyone can have any reason to be a kings fan they ever want. All the time by being rational I've ment being rational in a conversation. As I said: You can be a fan and at the same time be able to have a rational conversation where emotions doesnt cloud your judgement. I would assume that you would understand that since you are a moderator in this site (or at least you should). I see zero reason why that shouldnt be the case. And you can be the arbiter or anything you want but Im god damn baffled if I need to argue against a damn moderator that everyone should be able to have a rational conversation.
You've been doing exactly that.
You mean rational by YOUR definition. And he asked the question because being a sports fan is arguably one of the most irrational and illogical things a human can be.
That's a cop out and you know it. And you can stop with the cursing. Slim isn't flexing his moderator muscles in this discussion (or any other on this board in my memory).'
Mr. Slim, Capt. Factorial, Warhawk and I are moderators, true. But first and foremost we are long-time members of this forum and fans of the game. When we make comments in threads as MODS, we so indicate.
You mean rational by YOUR definition. And he asked the question because being a sports fan is arguably one of the most irrational and illogical things a human can be.
That's a cop out and you know it. And you can stop with the cursing. Slim isn't flexing his moderator muscles in this discussion (or any other on this board in my memory).'
Mr. Slim, Capt. Factorial, Warhawk and I are moderators, true. But first and foremost we are long-time members of this forum and fans of the game. When we make comments in threads as MODS, we so indicate.
Well if by being an arbiter you mean that wanting to have a conversation based on facts and arguments instead of emotions, then well I guess so(?)
I dont see any reasons why sports fan should be irratipnal or illogical. One can be a fan and at the same time have a rational conversation or be logical ect.
I didnt say he/she was flexing. If he/she is a moderator, he/she should be able to be rational/objective. Or at least not argue against someone who wants to have a rational conversation.
You can always apply the same demands to me that I demand from someone else. You see something wrong in my post, tell me about it and we'll have a rational conversation.
I think I answerd his/her question already. I told him/her that anyone can have any reason to be a fan. I dont care about that. If you have an emotional bond, i couldnt care less what the reason for that is. All I care about is when I have a conversation with someone, that someone can put his feelings aside and have that conversation with arguments that base on facts. I dont believe being a fan means you are unable to have a rational conversation.
I dont see any reasons why sports fan should be irratipnal or illogical. One can be a fan and at the same time have a rational conversation or be logical ect.
I didnt say he/she was flexing. If he/she is a moderator, he/she should be able to be rational/objective. Or at least not argue against someone who wants to have a rational conversation.
You can always apply the same demands to me that I demand from someone else. You see something wrong in my post, tell me about it and we'll have a rational conversation.
I think I answerd his/her question already. I told him/her that anyone can have any reason to be a fan. I dont care about that. If you have an emotional bond, i couldnt care less what the reason for that is. All I care about is when I have a conversation with someone, that someone can put his feelings aside and have that conversation with arguments that base on facts. I dont believe being a fan means you are unable to have a rational conversation.
I think the sad part is that multiple moderators are arguing against rational conversation.
If someone participates in a conversation with me and I like my conversations based on facts and not about emotions, its not huge "guidline" or objective. Its a base for a rational conversation. Its amazing that for some reason two different moderators have so much against it.
If someone participates in a conversation with me and I like my conversations based on facts and not about emotions, its not huge "guidline" or objective. Its a base for a rational conversation. Its amazing that for some reason two different moderators have so much against it.
Calling for "rational discussion" is exactly like that. The obvious subtext in your 'appeals' for "rational discussion" is that you don't think that the discussion is rational enough, which only makes sense if you think that you should get to decide what the threshold is. There are no Duchess of Queensbury Rules for Rational Discussion. People post about the team, and discussion happens from there; it's not for you, or anybody else, to determine whether the discussion is appropriately rational. If you think that a post violates a board rule, you can report it, otherwise, either engage or don't. As long as posters treat each other with respect, we don't actually care whether they're being rational or not.
If you want a Vulcan-esque sports discussion, devoid of emotion (whatever you even think that would look like), you're free to start your own thread, and you'll find out soon enough whether or not the rest of the board thinks that's as interesting as you do. Knock yourself out.
"Any" reason isn't a rational reason. The point is that it's paradoxical to demand "rational discussion" about an activity that is, in itself, irrational. Objectively speaking, the act of watching other people participate in competitive sports is, in itself, irrational and stupid and a waste of time. Disregarding all of that to be a fan, anyway, and then demanding that people have "rational discussion" about it is... incongruous.
Everyone should be able to have a respectful conversation. "Rational" and fandom... don't really go hand-in-hand; they're practically antonyms.
If you want a Vulcan-esque sports discussion, devoid of emotion (whatever you even think that would look like), you're free to start your own thread, and you'll find out soon enough whether or not the rest of the board thinks that's as interesting as you do. Knock yourself out.
"Any" reason isn't a rational reason. The point is that it's paradoxical to demand "rational discussion" about an activity that is, in itself, irrational. Objectively speaking, the act of watching other people participate in competitive sports is, in itself, irrational and stupid and a waste of time. Disregarding all of that to be a fan, anyway, and then demanding that people have "rational discussion" about it is... incongruous.
Everyone should be able to have a respectful conversation. "Rational" and fandom... don't really go hand-in-hand; they're practically antonyms.
No. No one should have to care about why I'm a fan of something or what my motivations are. And no one should ever care about my feelings. They should only care wether my arguments are correct or incorrect (and they dont even have to care about that).
Now I'm compleatly honest but this is the first message board where wanting to have conversations consist of facts instead of feelings is something unusual. If I post something and someone responds, I think I can ask the person responding to stick to the facts instead of emotions cant I? Since its a universal base for a conversation I feel like I dont ask too much and if someone feels like I do, they dont have to answer me. If I comment on a post and ask for "rationality"(so in this case, facrs before emotions), the poster can also decide wether he/she wants to have a conversation on those basis.
Okay so thats what you get from a moderator when all you want is rational conversation.
As I've said multiple times: being a fan doesnt mean you cant have a conversation where you rely on facts instead of feelings. You would be surprised but a lot of people do that. Being a fan itself can be irrational, that doesnt mean the person loses the ability of being rational when discussing about his team.
That is just confusing to me. I see zero reasons why a fan couldnt be rational. Its particurally confusing when a moderator is preaching this
Now I'm compleatly honest but this is the first message board where wanting to have conversations consist of facts instead of feelings is something unusual. If I post something and someone responds, I think I can ask the person responding to stick to the facts instead of emotions cant I? Since its a universal base for a conversation I feel like I dont ask too much and if someone feels like I do, they dont have to answer me. If I comment on a post and ask for "rationality"(so in this case, facrs before emotions), the poster can also decide wether he/she wants to have a conversation on those basis.
Okay so thats what you get from a moderator when all you want is rational conversation.
As I've said multiple times: being a fan doesnt mean you cant have a conversation where you rely on facts instead of feelings. You would be surprised but a lot of people do that. Being a fan itself can be irrational, that doesnt mean the person loses the ability of being rational when discussing about his team.
That is just confusing to me. I see zero reasons why a fan couldnt be rational. Its particurally confusing when a moderator is preaching this
Are you REALLY having this difficult of a time understanding the point everyone is making?
You seem to be demanding that everyone make purely "rational/logical" statements and logical arguments regarding their fandom to the Sacramento Kings when discussing things with you. And you are the one demanding that moderators all make strictly factual statements devoid of emotion. Fandom isn't logical or rational. For instance, there is no reason the crowd should get more excited over a windmill dunk than a 10-foot jumper, because they are both only worth 2 points. Logically, the dunk includes a higher risk of injury so we should actually be rooting for the jumper, right? We logically wouldn't want our player to be exposed to a slightly higher chance than normal of injury, correct? But we don't go just to watch players shoot short uncontested jumpers, we watch for the slam dunks, blocks, three point bombs 3 feet behind the line, player personalities, etc., etc. We want the spectacle and we want to be entertained. If you can't find it within yourself to acknowledge that people don't always react logically or rationally to every statement you make, you are going to be a very disappointed contributor here. It takes all kinds, and believe me, we have all kinds here. Even your kind. So lighten up, quit arguing about the moderation and other crud you bring up way more often than it needs to be, and enjoy this community for what it is. Really, my life is too short to keep reading your posts about being upset about nobody discussing things rationally enough for you. We are fan(atics) on a sports message board. We are not discussing nuclear fission and writing a thesis.
You seem to be demanding that everyone make purely "rational/logical" statements and logical arguments regarding their fandom to the Sacramento Kings when discussing things with you. And you are the one demanding that moderators all make strictly factual statements devoid of emotion. Fandom isn't logical or rational. For instance, there is no reason the crowd should get more excited over a windmill dunk than a 10-foot jumper, because they are both only worth 2 points. Logically, the dunk includes a higher risk of injury so we should actually be rooting for the jumper, right? We logically wouldn't want our player to be exposed to a slightly higher chance than normal of injury, correct? But we don't go just to watch players shoot short uncontested jumpers, we watch for the slam dunks, blocks, three point bombs 3 feet behind the line, player personalities, etc., etc. We want the spectacle and we want to be entertained. If you can't find it within yourself to acknowledge that people don't always react logically or rationally to every statement you make, you are going to be a very disappointed contributor here. It takes all kinds, and believe me, we have all kinds here. Even your kind. So lighten up, quit arguing about the moderation and other crud you bring up way more often than it needs to be, and enjoy this community for what it is. Really, my life is too short to keep reading your posts about being upset about nobody discussing things rationally enough for you. We are fan(atics) on a sports message board. We are not discussing nuclear fission and writing a thesis.
I am going to point out that this wasn’t all this post said. I said if it’s fair game to call the Pro Lin crowd cheaters/hypocrites than it’s equally fair to call the Anti-Lin crowd naive. Tanking is how the game has been played by smart teams since the 80’s.
This post was edited and I was banned for 3 days Unreal.
This post was edited and I was banned for 3 days Unreal.
I don't know why I keep doing this to myself but, sure. Let's go back down the rabbit hole:
- Are you sure that you're not conflating "rational" with "objective"?
- So, when you make a post with your "rational," objective facts and stats, and someone replies to your post with a comment that amounts to, "Yeah, okay, I see your nice numbers and all, but I'm in this for how being a fan makes me feel, so I'mma stay being emotional"... what, exactly, do you think is an appropriate response?
1. You were NOT banned. Your ability to reply to this particular thread was temporarily suspended. Had you been banned, even temporarily, you would not have been able to use any of the board features such as posting on profiles, etc.
2. Yes, your post was edited to remove this: "If the pro tanking crowd are hypocrites then the anti tanking crowd is naive. ( I’m sure I will get warned for that unlike others)". The decision to edit the post did not in any way impact your contribution to the thread's topic.
3. The FAQs are pretty specific. If you have a problem with a post, report it. If you have a problem/disagreement with the mod staff, discuss it in a conversation. The issues you brought up were discussed by the mods. What actions, if any, were taken are between the moderators and the people involved.
Have a nice evening.
2. Yes, your post was edited to remove this: "If the pro tanking crowd are hypocrites then the anti tanking crowd is naive. ( I’m sure I will get warned for that unlike others)". The decision to edit the post did not in any way impact your contribution to the thread's topic.
3. The FAQs are pretty specific. If you have a problem with a post, report it. If you have a problem/disagreement with the mod staff, discuss it in a conversation. The issues you brought up were discussed by the mods. What actions, if any, were taken are between the moderators and the people involved.
Have a nice evening.
You were informed of what was going on at the time it was done. As far as what bothers you the most, we mods have been dealing with it. Appropriate actions were taken. This discussion is over. I refer you to the FAQ. If you want to discuss it further, it will be done via private conversation. It's not going to derail this or any other thread any longer.
I've said multiple times that you can be as anti tanking as you ever want. If you rather not tank and are okay with how things have been for last years, 100% fine by me. The opinion itself isnt what grinds my gears but that how that opinion is argued. You argue against the stats by giving one anomaly that is really already included in the odds, thats not being rational or even smart. Or calling anyone that supports tanking, cheeters ect.. You choose not to support tanking, you do that but if you argue irrational things, be prepared to get called out for that. If you say that "I dont want to tank because I dont like to watch it and maximizing the succes in future doesnt concern me and im fine by future being whatever it is", then 100% fine by me. But when ever you argue something, you should try to remain rational and objective
Yeah I think I understand the point completely, Im just arguing against it. If the point is something like "a fan cannot be expected to be rational in a conversation that concerns the team he/she is a fan of", I understand it fully and I also fully disagree.
First of all even if some aspects about being a fan are irrational, it doesnt mean that a fan cannot remain rational in a conversation. Im not sure what kind of argument is that. Some things in life are irrational but it doesnt mean that regarding life I cant be rational.
And I'm not complaining that no one is rational enough with me. Im not even upset. I've posted on this site for a while and this conversation is only happening because a mod got mad when it was pointed out that his/her point of view about something wasnt rational. I just keep answering because for some reason a moderator keeps telling me that I cant expect fans to be rational.
First of all even if some aspects about being a fan are irrational, it doesnt mean that a fan cannot remain rational in a conversation. Im not sure what kind of argument is that. Some things in life are irrational but it doesnt mean that regarding life I cant be rational.
And I'm not complaining that no one is rational enough with me. Im not even upset. I've posted on this site for a while and this conversation is only happening because a mod got mad when it was pointed out that his/her point of view about something wasnt rational. I just keep answering because for some reason a moderator keeps telling me that I cant expect fans to be rational.