--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, Matt Weiner <darwins_bulldog1138_at_y...> wrote: > I'm dissapointed, although not altogether surprised, > to find out that my efforts at providing a detached, > logical argument were met with fallacies and insults. > Good grief, Matt. You do it, too. I do it, too. Most people on this board do it, too. Get off the high horse. > No, that would be comparable to the tournament > director deciding which team is best based on previous > events and awarding them the championship without > playing the games. I don't see how you get "On PAPER" > out of playing the round robin games. My premise here > is, in fact, in opposition to all sorts of subjective > ideas about what paper stats are more important: I am > saying that only won-loss record--not order of games, > not statistics, not the way things are done in NCAA > women's soccer--should determine the ranking of teams. > Fair. It is legitimate to argue for won-loss record. However, there are certain arguments to be made under the rubric of competition that state that certain other formats are acceptable. I find this falling on your sword over one set format tiresome. And using various examples doesn't deaden the point - if used correctly, they can enliven the point and make things clearer. Eschew the example as being incorrect, but don't say that examples by themselves are bad. > Again...yes, but if he finishes 43rd, he doesn't then > get to race one lap against the 1st place finisher for > the championship. > Better example - everyone know that the top two racers at the end go one-on-one for five laps. It's a different game - one that rewards consistently beating the team closest to you rather than rewarding you for whipping lots of bad teams consistently and losing to your top rival. The New York Rangers in the early 90s built a reputation of doing well in the regular season, then tanking in the playoffs. > > I'm not sure what Matt's motivation was in making > > such full-hearted > > gripes at CBI (maybe sour grapes?) > > How mature. For the record, I've won four of the six > CBI events I've played in, as difficult as it was to > suppress my gag reflex at the questions. Hence he's not sure as to your motivation, as evidenced by the little question mark. No one can truly know the man that is Matt. Most gag reflexes are usually suppressed as one enters adulthood, so it could be included as a judgement of maturity. Your call. > > Once again, here's the essence of my argument: Play > the games. Decide the winner and the ranking of the > rest of the field on the results of those games, and > not anything else. > > Anyone who thinks that the above premise has something > to do with awarding Michigan the championship in every > tournament, or thinks that saying "sour grapes" to > someone constitutes a valid argument, is just plain > wrong. Fine. However, anyone who thinks that that is the Categorical Imperative From Which Thou Shalt Not Depart needs to make better arguments to prove the point.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST