3 ms·

That seems unnecessarily combative, considering how minor the thing we're discussing is. But since I'm being called out, a) I meant regular LoL events get at l

That seems unnecessarily combative, considering how minor the thing we're discussing is. But since I'm being called out, a) I meant regular LoL events get at least 200k views; I was emphasizing how high it is compared to SC2, so pointing out that the championships got even more is not disputing that, b) I don't know how much Blizzard spends on tourney money, nor Riot or Valve; but I do follow SC2 casually, and the consensus view among the people who would know about Blizzard certainly seems to be that it has dwindled, and c) I looked, the NFL's twitch channel has 62k subscribers and hasn't streamed in months, but I didn't say "Gotcha!" because when I see something that seems way wrong I like to default to assuming that either I misunderstood or they misspoke, and in either case it hardly seems relevant to this discussion.

Kranar 4y ago
>I don't know how much Blizzard spends on tourney money, nor Riot or Valve; but I do follow SC2 casually, and the consensus view among the people who would know about Blizzard certainly seems to be that it has dwindled, Avoid getting information from biased sources. Gaming communities are notoriously bad when it comes to remaining objective about topics or presenting quantitative data that can be independently verified. >I looked, the NFL's twitch channel has 62k subscribers and hasn't streamed in months, but I didn't say "Gotcha!" That's because NFL games aren't streamed on the NFL Twitch account, they are streamed on the following account: https://www.twitch.tv/primevideo https://www.twitch.tv/primevideo Here's a source that the NFL is viewed by 10.8 million people on Twitch: https://www.marketingdive.com/news/nfls-audience-on-twitch-livestream-rises-45-from-last-year/569601/ https://www.marketingdive.com/news/nfls-audience-on-twitch-l... Relevant quote: "Twitch received 10.8 million views for “Thursday Night Football,” for a total of 2.2 million hours viewing time, per the announcement." Your false assertion about the NFL's Twitch channel is once again, comically false and goes to show that you simply do not understand how to properly research this topic, getting your information from biased sources and based on people's feelings instead of looking up authoritative sources that can be quantifiably verified. I would advise that you refrain from taking that biased misinformation and spreading it further. >in either case it hardly seems relevant to this discussion. Then why did you bring it up? If it was never relevant, why did you decide to waste both of our time by making an issue out of it? This is what I mean about discussing things in good faith, you placed the burden on me to look up information that you sought, and then when I point it out and it turns out that the NFL is wildly popular on Twitch getting 10s of millions of views, you decide to do a 180 and declare that it's not relevant.
- ineptech 4y ago
  > Then why did you bring it up? I brought up the NFL in response to you saying, "As I write this, there are [not many] people watching SC2 [on twitch]." I meant that casually checking Twitch can give a false impression of something's popularity. I wasn't suggesting the NFL was unpopular. I also thought I made it pretty clear that my response to your comment about NFL viewership was that we were likely misunderstanding each other, as opposed to accusing you of being wrong. Please consider doing the same next time. This has been a very unpleasant conversation.
  - Kranar 4y ago
    To the extent that you've made verifiable statements, involving actual concrete numbers or claims that can be sourced, they have all been incorrect so I'm not sure what there is to misunderstand. It's very unpleasant for me too when someone just makes uninformed statements and then places the entire burden of researching and fact checking those statements on me, as if I'm the one who's supposed to verify your claims instead of you. There's a sort of Internet principle known as Brandolini's Law [1] that states that one reason there is so much bullshit on the Internet is that it's significantly harder for someone to refute bullshit than it is for someone to spread bullshit. That's basically how I feel about this conversation, and I am tempted to continue discussing it not because I care specifically about you, but because esports is a subject I am personally involved in and care about and so I have a vested interest in putting in the effort to avoid others from being misinformed by the bullshit you seem to continue to spread unapologitically. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
    - ineptech 4y ago
      When I said LoL events get 200k views, do you understand that was correct? Because, in context, I meant, "at least that much and often more," not the opposite? If you had understood my comment, you wouldn't have had to look anything up - you would've known that LoL events do indeed get more than 200k views without checking. Right? That requires considering the context and interpreting ambiguous comments charitably, as suggested in the HN Guidelines: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." When you misinterpreted my comment and triumphantly declared me wrong and accused me of bad faith, well, that's the opposite of that. Anyone can misunderstand something, it happens, but you need to be willing to say, "Either that guy's crazy or I'm missing something" and default to the latter rather than the former, like I did about the NFL thing. Also it might be worth taking a step back and considering the topic, and whether such a combative tone is appropriate for it. And while you're at it, do you even disagree with the point of my comments, as opposed to the numbers? If so, I missed the part where you said so.

Kranar 4y ago

>I don't know how much Blizzard spends on tourney money, nor Riot or Valve; but I do follow SC2 casually, and the consensus view among the people who would know about Blizzard certainly seems to be that it has dwindled, Avoid getting information from biased sources. Gaming communities are notoriously bad when it comes to remaining objective about topics or presenting quantitative data that can be independently verified. >I looked, the NFL's twitch channel has 62k subscribers and hasn't streamed in months, but I didn't say "Gotcha!" That's because NFL games aren't streamed on the NFL Twitch account, they are streamed on the following account: https://www.twitch.tv/primevideo https://www.twitch.tv/primevideo Here's a source that the NFL is viewed by 10.8 million people on Twitch: https://www.marketingdive.com/news/nfls-audience-on-twitch-livestream-rises-45-from-last-year/569601/ https://www.marketingdive.com/news/nfls-audience-on-twitch-l... Relevant quote: "Twitch received 10.8 million views for “Thursday Night Football,” for a total of 2.2 million hours viewing time, per the announcement." Your false assertion about the NFL's Twitch channel is once again, comically false and goes to show that you simply do not understand how to properly research this topic, getting your information from biased sources and based on people's feelings instead of looking up authoritative sources that can be quantifiably verified. I would advise that you refrain from taking that biased misinformation and spreading it further. >in either case it hardly seems relevant to this discussion. Then why did you bring it up? If it was never relevant, why did you decide to waste both of our time by making an issue out of it? This is what I mean about discussing things in good faith, you placed the burden on me to look up information that you sought, and then when I point it out and it turns out that the NFL is wildly popular on Twitch getting 10s of millions of views, you decide to do a 180 and declare that it's not relevant.

ineptech 4y ago
> Then why did you bring it up? I brought up the NFL in response to you saying, "As I write this, there are [not many] people watching SC2 [on twitch]." I meant that casually checking Twitch can give a false impression of something's popularity. I wasn't suggesting the NFL was unpopular. I also thought I made it pretty clear that my response to your comment about NFL viewership was that we were likely misunderstanding each other, as opposed to accusing you of being wrong. Please consider doing the same next time. This has been a very unpleasant conversation.
- Kranar 4y ago
  To the extent that you've made verifiable statements, involving actual concrete numbers or claims that can be sourced, they have all been incorrect so I'm not sure what there is to misunderstand. It's very unpleasant for me too when someone just makes uninformed statements and then places the entire burden of researching and fact checking those statements on me, as if I'm the one who's supposed to verify your claims instead of you. There's a sort of Internet principle known as Brandolini's Law [1] that states that one reason there is so much bullshit on the Internet is that it's significantly harder for someone to refute bullshit than it is for someone to spread bullshit. That's basically how I feel about this conversation, and I am tempted to continue discussing it not because I care specifically about you, but because esports is a subject I am personally involved in and care about and so I have a vested interest in putting in the effort to avoid others from being misinformed by the bullshit you seem to continue to spread unapologitically. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
  - ineptech 4y ago
    When I said LoL events get 200k views, do you understand that was correct? Because, in context, I meant, "at least that much and often more," not the opposite? If you had understood my comment, you wouldn't have had to look anything up - you would've known that LoL events do indeed get more than 200k views without checking. Right? That requires considering the context and interpreting ambiguous comments charitably, as suggested in the HN Guidelines: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." When you misinterpreted my comment and triumphantly declared me wrong and accused me of bad faith, well, that's the opposite of that. Anyone can misunderstand something, it happens, but you need to be willing to say, "Either that guy's crazy or I'm missing something" and default to the latter rather than the former, like I did about the NFL thing. Also it might be worth taking a step back and considering the topic, and whether such a combative tone is appropriate for it. And while you're at it, do you even disagree with the point of my comments, as opposed to the numbers? If so, I missed the part where you said so.