3 ms·

> 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 mea

> 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
    Imagine we were talking about the population of countries, and you made the assertion that "4 million people live in Canada" and then when I point out that "No, 40 million people live in Canada" you get into a hissy fit about how I misunderstood you, I don't understand context, I'm being combative and not charitable. That's how silly you sound right now. You made up a number and pulled it out of nowhere in order to make your argument seem more legitimate than it was, and when I pointed out that you are wrong by an entire order of magnitude along with a source you could use to better inform yourself, instead of just acknowledging you were wrong, you decided to double down on your ignorance. Now instead of discussing the actual topic at hand, you want to derail the conversation into one about etiquette, politeness, HN Guidelines and how unpleasant this conversation is for you despite the fact that no one is forcing you into it. You certainly don't need to publicly admit you're wrong, I don't care one way or another what you personally think... but you also shouldn't attempt so desperately to save face either.
    - ineptech 4y ago
      I'm sorry dude, I definitely meant at least 200k, not no more than 200k. Source: I am the world's leading expert in what I meant. I honestly can't see how that can be misunderstood, either. You said SC2 gets 25k views, and I said, "The reason LoL gets 100-200k is..." and then went on to talk about how much better funded LoL is. How can you read that any other way than, "The reason LoL gets so many more viewers than SC2 is..." ? > ...by an entire order of magnitude... I chose such a low number, ironically, to avoid a conversation like this one. When you're suggesting that a number is high (as I was), it makes sense to choose a lower bound because it makes your claim stronger. Suppose I had said that LoL events get 5M - then you could've replied, "Nuh uh, here's an event that only got 1M views!" If I had said 1M, you could've said, "Well here's one that only got 500k!" I chose the lowest number I could that would still support my point (which, again was that LoL gets a lot more viewers than SC2), to be more confident no one could argue with it. If you respond, could you please clarify what you think my argument was? You said I made up a number to make my argument more legitimate. What argument? What could I have been arguing that would've been strengthened by suggesting LoL's viewership is lower than it really is?

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
  Imagine we were talking about the population of countries, and you made the assertion that "4 million people live in Canada" and then when I point out that "No, 40 million people live in Canada" you get into a hissy fit about how I misunderstood you, I don't understand context, I'm being combative and not charitable. That's how silly you sound right now. You made up a number and pulled it out of nowhere in order to make your argument seem more legitimate than it was, and when I pointed out that you are wrong by an entire order of magnitude along with a source you could use to better inform yourself, instead of just acknowledging you were wrong, you decided to double down on your ignorance. Now instead of discussing the actual topic at hand, you want to derail the conversation into one about etiquette, politeness, HN Guidelines and how unpleasant this conversation is for you despite the fact that no one is forcing you into it. You certainly don't need to publicly admit you're wrong, I don't care one way or another what you personally think... but you also shouldn't attempt so desperately to save face either.
  - ineptech 4y ago
    I'm sorry dude, I definitely meant at least 200k, not no more than 200k. Source: I am the world's leading expert in what I meant. I honestly can't see how that can be misunderstood, either. You said SC2 gets 25k views, and I said, "The reason LoL gets 100-200k is..." and then went on to talk about how much better funded LoL is. How can you read that any other way than, "The reason LoL gets so many more viewers than SC2 is..." ? > ...by an entire order of magnitude... I chose such a low number, ironically, to avoid a conversation like this one. When you're suggesting that a number is high (as I was), it makes sense to choose a lower bound because it makes your claim stronger. Suppose I had said that LoL events get 5M - then you could've replied, "Nuh uh, here's an event that only got 1M views!" If I had said 1M, you could've said, "Well here's one that only got 500k!" I chose the lowest number I could that would still support my point (which, again was that LoL gets a lot more viewers than SC2), to be more confident no one could argue with it. If you respond, could you please clarify what you think my argument was? You said I made up a number to make my argument more legitimate. What argument? What could I have been arguing that would've been strengthened by suggesting LoL's viewership is lower than it really is?