.Net Survivor (The Blame Game)

The game starts officially after this post.

Everyone on the site is in the game and is a winner until they prove themselves a loser.

To prove yourself a loser, you must respond to a criticism in the main forum of a specific facet of the team with a retort that is directed towards another part of the team.

To report someone a loser just respond to this thread with a link to their post and a dash with their name. EZPZ.

Example:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=153314#p2257406 - acer1240

My feeling is this game will help sort out people that are not good at conversation and focus.

Glib whataboutism isn't helpful and yet it is so common here.

Can I report myself as a loser? I'll give it less than 24 hours. If I have this right....pretty much everyone will end up a loser so what is the point of this game?

Seymour":go98oxnc said:

Can I report myself as a loser? I'll give it less than 24 hours. If I have this right....pretty much everyone will end up a loser so what is the point of this game?

Click to expand...

:lol: Damnit, I was hoping to reveal that prediction at some point later

The overall point is to help people realize how they communicate and what they communicate can be deconstructive.

Disagree with your thought process here. "What about ..." are usually seen in response to posts that attempt to artificially narrow an otherwise complicated discussion to a single source of blame. The truth is that there are hundreds of factors that play into any outcome and the argument to "focus" on just one is often a bad faith argument. Even the example thread you provide contains no discussion of substance that is at risk of being derailed.

mrt144":14e1dh2h said:

Seymour":14e1dh2h said:

Can I report myself as a loser? I'll give it less than 24 hours. If I have this right....pretty much everyone will end up a loser so what is the point of this game?

Click to expand...

:lol: Damnit, I was hoping to reveal that prediction at some point later

The overall point is to help people realize how they communicate and what they communicate can be deconstructive.

Click to expand...

Well that is a relief! :twisted:

Here I thought it might be to actually "survive". For the most part keeping silent is the only way.

Rarely is there a single answer or reason for problems being discussed here.

AgentDib":3gdibwma said:

Disagree with your thought process here. "What about ..." are usually seen in response to posts that attempt to artificially narrow an otherwise complicated discussion to a single source of blame. The truth is that there are hundreds of factors that play into any outcome and the argument to "focus" on just one is often a bad faith argument. Even the example thread you provide contains no discussion of substance that is at risk of being derailed.

Click to expand...

To your point about complexity and specifics - is there then a point for a thread that covers a specific facet of the team? And more importantly it is the blame aspect for game instances that rubs me wrong.

Point blank, in any game neither side of the ball plays to their maximum possible level. Some games the offense shines, some the defense and somes both and neither. This oscillates through out the season. By what virtue does saying 'whatabout the defense, whatabout the offense' for specific instances actually reveal insight and wisdom? It doesn't because it applies an instanced contradiction to a specific point to then be an aggregate contradiction of a criticism of that facet.

And you're right, there was no substance to derail in that instance but this is why I thought a self reporting mechanism would turn up myriad examples of how it does derail a conversation.

Does this qualify?

Am I first out yet?? :twisted: :lol: :lol:

http://www.seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=153292#p2257544

Seymour":38f7ew8m said:

Does this qualify?

Am I first out yet?? :twisted: :lol: :lol:

http://www.seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=153292#p2257544

Click to expand...

:lol: I don't know if that qualifies because it's so off the original criteria for subject matter

mrt144":mur72sw8 said:

Seymour":mur72sw8 said:

Does this qualify?

Am I first out yet?? :twisted: :lol: :lol:

http://www.seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=153292#p2257544

Click to expand...

:lol: I don't know if that qualifies because it's so off the original criteria for subject matter

Click to expand...

Not if I prefer a woman for "head" coach. :twisted: :lol:

What a silly game. All I have to do is post a thread saying Tyler Lockett is not worth the money he's getting because he didn't win the Dallas game.

Any response from anyone would eliminate them because obviously Lockett wasn't the issue in that game.

That's low-hanging fruit, but I hope you get the point - people blame whatever scapegoat is on their personal agenda even if it's completely wrong. This "game" would deter people from posting dissenting opinions. Sometimes idiots need to be told they are idiots.

KiwiHawk":2j12qf2b said:

...Tyler Lockett is not worth the money he's getting because he didn't win the Dallas game.

Click to expand...

Maybe if we had a kicker that could kick the ball without hurting himself, and a defense that didn't take extended breaks after a score he wouldn't have to!!


Am I out yet?? :2thumbs: :snack:

KiwiHawk":155e9r5l said:

What a silly game. All I have to do is post a thread saying Tyler Lockett is not worth the money he's getting because he didn't win the Dallas game.

Any response from anyone would eliminate them because obviously Lockett wasn't the issue in that game.

That's low-hanging fruit, but I hope you get the point - people blame whatever scapegoat is on their personal agenda even if it's completely wrong. This "game" would deter people from posting dissenting opinions. Sometimes idiots need to be told they are idiots.

Click to expand...

Invoking the opposite side of the team as a response to a criticism of one side or player isnt telling someone theyre an idiot or myopic and certainly either would be more direct than spitting out the highest level contrary opinion possible.

There are methods and means to refute a claim without glibly redirecting the conversation completely away from the claim.

Seymour":3dkwmgor said:

KiwiHawk":3dkwmgor said:

...Tyler Lockett is not worth the money he's getting because he didn't win the Dallas game.

Click to expand...

Maybe if we had a kicker that could kick the ball without hurting himself, and a defense that didn't take extended breaks after a score he wouldn't have to!!


Am I out yet?? :2thumbs: :snack:

Click to expand...

Hehe, yes. But that hamfisted joke you conjured up isnt that far off from earnest replies

"A could be better"
"B Is more important and let us down, A doesnt matter"
"No guys, C is the real important factor"

No matter what A B and C are some amount of crosstalk will happen that eventually gets back to a fundamentally facile conversation - who do we blame and in what proportion.

mrt144":35tju8l1 said:

To your point about complexity and specifics - is there then a point for a thread that covers a specific facet of the team? And more importantly it is the blame aspect for game instances that rubs me wrong.

Click to expand...

I haven't noticed posters derailing thoughtful discussions. Perhaps you have? As in your example, when I see people mention "what about..." it is only in response to an existing attempt to cast blame on a single aspect of the team.

mrt144":2dgnn50g said:

Invoking the opposite side of the team as a response to a criticism of one side or player isnt telling someone theyre an idiot or myopic and certainly either would be more direct than spitting out the highest level contrary opinion possible.

There are methods and means to refute a claim without glibly redirecting the conversation completely away from the claim.

Click to expand...

Yes they are, but this is .Net, and those methods are eschewed in favour of knee-jerk reactions at the most superficial level.

AgentDib":28oay974 said:

mrt144":28oay974 said:

To your point about complexity and specifics - is there then a point for a thread that covers a specific facet of the team? And more importantly it is the blame aspect for game instances that rubs me wrong.

Click to expand...

I haven't noticed posters derailing thoughtful discussions. Perhaps you have? As in your example, when I see people mention "what about..." it is only in response to an existing attempt to cast blame on a single aspect of the team.

Click to expand...

Well this is where the distinction between "blame" and "room for improvement" is important. Blame is in itself reductive as it posits a single actor or group of actors as the biggest proximate factor in outcome, good or bad.

I think everyone could improve without any regard to how that affects or is affected by what happens elsewhere on the team. But that interplay is more important between certain groups of players than others and ultimately yokes how much overall improvement is possible beyond self motivated effort. But when one invokes half the team as a whatabout...to a specific jab at a player or coach, it doesnt sufficiently rebut the claim and really only invites conversation about blame rather than room for improvement specific to coach, unit, player.

Does this post work for this game? Am I out?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=153194&p=2256072#p2255887 - Seahawk

Seahawk":1zbvy7a8 said:

Does this post work for this game? Am I out?

http://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t ... 2#p2255887 - Seahawk

Click to expand...

No because you are correct and that means you get a pass!! :lol: :lol:

:34853_doh: :177692:

How's that for reductive?

Seahawk":19aro385 said:

Does this post work for this game? Am I out?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=153194&p=2256072#p2255887 - Seahawk

Click to expand...

Technically yes, that should count because it's a deflection from the initial front running claim of "Here come da haters calling for heads of X and Y". In spirit though, it doesn't feel like what I'm after which is more of an "Outcome cause by X" rebutted by "Actually it's Y" with no acknowledgment of the claim about X.

Did anyone fight you over it?

I should have consulted AgentDib on how to make this airtight.