UMEC Forum Index UMEC
United Mining Exploration Commission: A group of friends playing JumpGate-- "a MMORPG that launched smoothly, breaks from fantasy character setting, emphasizes PvP, and is the first persistent world space simulator that nobody talks about." ~Scorch
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

What constitutes a philosophical question?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    UMEC Forum Index -> News, Reviews & Articles
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
MajorFreak
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2003 7:02 am    Post subject: What constitutes a philosophical question? Reply with quote

A Philosophical Question
Denotation versus Connotation


I'm a Canadian who listens to our public broadcasting corporation (CBC Radio) very very rarely, but in this case it was about Hockey. Hockey violence, a subject i love as an aspect of ProSport NHL, specifically an issue arising after a coach removed his team of 11-year-olds from the game over OTT altercations and general lack of discipline.

The first guest was the coach who got suspended (effectively fired) for doing so. he was the second in as many months for objecting to too much violence in minor league hockey...For anyone reading this who doesn't know how violent hockey can get, a year prior a had a "Hockey dad" on trial for the beating death of a referee during gametime. (so it's pretty darned serious.)
    his spin that there is really way too much hockey violence and it's always been OTT and sometimes one needs to pull one's team off the ice. it's that simple. unfortunately, he knew the rules and he knew he'd be suspended for a long time. a year at least
The second guest was the leagues president who suspended (fired) the coach. he came across as a jovial, "no nonsense" guy who has to deal with adult level aggression in kids as well as kid level aggression in adults. He didn't talk so much about the general malaise and OTT nature of hockey violence as completely exclude everything else but "how it is" as merely a philosophical question
    he brought that catch word up real fast. real fast. first sentence he uttered was along the lines of, "well, hockey violence is a philosophical question" and went on to say that it's all in the eye of the beholder, and quite frankly, that the majority of minor league clubs have continous say (feedback) on this issue every year and the written rules (convention) is that there's violence in hockey, that referees enforce this, and coaches shouldn't break the rules when things don't go their way.
    Sounds a hell of a lot like those pvp hissy fits, eh?
Actually, i'm more concerned how this relates to the carebear vs griefer aspect of JG. To that effect, The Philosophical question bit really got me going and i searched far and wide for explanations of this word combo to practically no avail. (mostly i got drowned in crappy navel gazing new age drivel, cliches and the usual snakeoil salemen tactics which i didn't bother reading past the tacky html coding)

Finally i found enough to begin a study of what a Philosophical Question is in real life terms. something i could use to judge/critique the above issue's "spin"
Buffy the vampire slayer fan wrote:
here is a philosophical question: What are the substantive grounds for even entertaining the representation of social groups on television shows as an important issue?...
...I have often wondered whether the passion that people put into decrying how their group gets treated on TV isn't misplaced...
...representation is more about marketing, chance, genre convention, and artistic choice than it is politics or discrimination (except possibly for actors).

Okay, so looking at that rant, i figured this fan was a total bullshitter who couldn't see the forest for the trees. (ie. he'd gotten it completely bass-ackwards) -- That most people seem to use the term to mean "judging not by merit, but by politics/discrimination and therefore not keeping both feet on the ground" (ie. letting one's hatred cloud one's judgement; Sun Tzu)
Sun Tzu wrote:
Five winning ways
  1. Those who know when to fight and when not to fight
  2. Those who know how to use the large or small
  3. Those who agree on superior and inferior objectives
  4. Those who prepare to lie in wait for the unprepared
  5. Those who lead without interference from a ruler
Those who know these five strategies will win. Thus it is said

"Know the other and know yourself
Fight one hundred of battles without danger.
Know not the other and yet know yourself
One victory for one defeat.
Know not the other and know not yourself
Every fight is certain defeat."


Okay, so how can I apply this understanding to the first issue i brought up about hockey violence? Well, as i stated in my introduction, i love hockey fights though i'm not a thug like the ones Rodney Dangerfield mocked when he said, "I went to a boxing match and while i was watching some hockey broke out"
LOL
So where does that leave me with this Philosophical Question? Well, even while i love hockey there's just too much bloody testosterone going around in the minor leagues. Professional NHL players know themselves and know their enemy; in Amateur kid hockey it's the parents who are even more clueless than simple kids just being kids having simple fun with a bit of kid bravado.

So do i think that Minor League hockey official was talking out his arse? damned straight. (That's the reason i started writing this thread.) He was basically discounting the coach's opinion as nothing but/merely a philosophical question...which, if you listen to the human story told by the coach you'd probably conclude it was just a bad judgment call by a distressed father and coach (especially since the coach's team was losing when he pulled out and his son was injured)
    And most people, hearing that would just tune out and turn off. I however think that was a dirty, low and plain mean thing a troll would say to invalidate a judgment call that the coach knew would cost him his "career", reputation and smear his character...Basic 'Character Assassination' and 'Libel' that would be won in court by the Official because he has more money. due process my arse.
So, i don't think it was the coach that stated a Philosophical Question, but the offical who did. Remember, i defined such a question as denoting "an issue of politics (pretending to be objective) and one that ignores the merits (the reality of the subjective) of the case"...Taken in this context it's almost child's play (no pun intended) to realize that
  1. There is massive OTT aggression not only in the game, but by the parents not only at the kids, but at the referees and at the other parents.
  2. you'd never see this at a professional level (though i'm sure our british/european members will think of football hooligans; irony of which is that hockey is the only game that encourages fighting by players outside of martial arts/boxing)
  3. The officials and the media focus mostly on the professional side because that's where the money is and forget that punch drunk parents in amateur league are literally 'football hooligans'...though not all english soccer fans are rabid dogs, in fact hardly any are, it's just that it only takes a few to bully -- and i mean bully -- an entire sport.
  4. the spindoctors aren't interested in dealing with this issue because the OTT hooliganism is purposely ignored and the rules referees are given handicaps them in dealing with this...and kids being kids it just influences minor hockey in a very unprofessional manner.
  5. These same kids know damned well this OTT bullshit performed by hyperactive prima donna parents isn't tolerated on a professional level. (only a few protege bullies think this is appropriate; there's even a few players in the NHL that are just sadistic and know how to get away with it)
  6. It ends up being that this "Philosophical Question" was what the Official said instead of the Coach because the officials, in whitewashing the day to day parental dramas, end up not only handicapping their referees from dealing with it but also instill a culture of OTT violence in juvenile hockey and maintain it by silencing any dissenters. (it's either play the game our way or take your kid out of the rink)
Which is exactly how the hardcore PvPers defend the OTT BS PvP RP they've been conducting since the beginning of Beta6.

This is directly why we have no "Self-Defense", the reason we have Carebears demanding their be segregation from this PvP culture with no morals that encourage players to kick whoever's down, the reason we have vigilantes proclaiming that because it's possible it's right and good they gank any bountied player, period. This in turn feeds the "Matter Farmers" and "Disco/Griefer/Llamas" attitude that it's okay to exploit the game because the very core of this game (pvp) encourages an "honour among thieves" culture of zero morals where everyone is equally treated with contempt.


CONCLUSION
The hockey official forgot one thing. He was hired to ask those very same "Philosophical Questions" that he sluffs off on the "majority"/"Parent Committes"...I mean, WTF does he think his job is? conducting spin on national television/radio? I'd swear and call him names at this point, but this is a little too serious a topic and "light muffy entertainment" isn't appropriate, atm.
    So, muffy gets locked up in it's cage for now.
'Objectivity', 'Politics' and 'Philosophical Questions' shouldn't be some 4-letter word. seriously. I mean, if we all thought the government and any official was THAT bad we'd start a revolution.

Now. how can we relate this to our game, JumpGate? For one thing you've probably concluded muffy over there *GGGRRRR whinnnnnne* is a manifestation of my love of NHL (hockey fighting)...The other thing is that the gulf between carebears and griefers starts at the official level and it's not up to the community to voice it's opinion on how PvP should be, because we all bloody know how ND spins it.

Unfortunately, we cannot start a revolution in any other fashion than simply taking our wallets elsewhere.

BRING SELF-DEFENSE IN TO CHANGE THE VERY CORE OF OUR COMMUNITY'S CULTURE

prophetic warning
You know that hockey official? he stated quite clearly that his personal opinion that violence plays no part in hockey is irrelevant to the conversation. This plea to 'objectivity' isn't really when you put it into perspective. How do we do that? Well, his spin was that the majority of the committees want violence to be a part of hockey's tradition and therefore his personal opinion is irrelevant; His personal opinion is to be politically correct, preach objectivity and distance himself from the petty quarrels of the few hockey parents who try to bully the system with merely "philosophical questions"

And since we've proven the latter (official objectivity) wrong, and in fact the opposite doesn't it hold true that we should put the former (official subjectivity) to the same test? Let's ask ourselves how much of that "well, we can't do anything" is the understanding that when something isn't done to negotiate an OTT issue off the ice, it translates into enforcing harsher rules on ice. (simply because the most easily identified issue is the on-ice stuff) They'll ban fighting on the ice, and that will richochet up to the National level and the NHL will be affected by this...You know, there doesn't HAVE to be fighting in hockey and there used to be NO fighting in hockey once upon a time.

why is this prophetic? because NetDevil is exactly like the Hockey official: They're "against violence" but "the majority rules"....they've coded in THE most black & white system where the coding creates a culture of either lily white carebears or "honour among thieves" griefers. NetDevil have by their inaction (lack of respect) polarized the issues to the point where Inhibitor Chips are discussed and rejected as an option. Remember, it wasn't the point that it was defeated - the fact it was discussed at all was a blow to the very core of this game. It's happened before, it will happen again...it's only a matter of time before we get a "PKswitch" for real.

It'll happen in hockey. it'll happen in JumpGate. They really didn't give us much choice at all really...it was simply laziness by the officials who are in a state of denial that the "way it is" hurts the game more than sucking it up and dealing with the violence at the game by the parents of kid's hockey -- by coding rules so that the referees (or game engine) penalizes "vigilante/parental" violence.

It's OTT. It's ruining both hockey and JumpGate. Hopefully our game has the ability to see that iceberg coming, because otherwise all this stuff about EP2 and anything but "self-defense" is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic


Hi folks. this is the bit where i pretend i'm full of shit and go find the best damned counterpoint i can find. i think i found it. Remember, this will spindoctor the context of this entire thread to one that mirrors almost exactly the tone that Minor Hockey League Official used while a guest on CBC's program.
SportsIllustrated - CNN wrote:
The blow is not in dispute. The judge will try to determine whether such an attack in a pro hockey game constitutes assault.

McSorley testified his job is, among other things, to "match the other team's toughness and probably overcome their toughness," and that it "absolutely" means being prepared to fight.

McSorley strongly suggested fighting is not only accepted but an important part of NHL hockey. The job of a tough guy is to inspire teammates and to ensure the team's skilled players are not intimidated.

"Fighting can change the whole complexion of a game," McSorley said.
SportIllustrated - CNN wrote:
VANCOUVER (AP) -- NHL players give "explicit consent" to the risk of on-ice contact and Marty McSorley's hit to opponent Donald Brashear's head wasn't assault, McSorley's lawyer said Friday.

"Behavior which is criminal assault isn't if it's within the norms of the game," Bill Smart told court during closing arguments as McSorley's trial on charges of assault with a weapon -- his hockey stick -- wound down.

Thousands of spectators watched the final moments of a Feb. 21 game in Vancouver between the Canucks and the Boston Bruins as McSorley skated up behind Canuck Donald Brashear and hit him in the head with his stick. Brashear slumped to the ice with a serious concussion.

There is a dangerous prejudice here: The attitude that "Self-Policing" works and doesn't need anything more than that because anything else is nothing but "Philosophical Questions"...Why dangerous? Well, it's not told at all in the court room. First of all, There is no way in hell some Lawyer's gonna be so stupid as to use that as a defense; Second of all, Gary Bettman (NFL commissioner) would want to look like the Keystone Cop he is...The only people i hear using that "self-defense" issue are hockey fans on their own forums. (preaching to the converted isn't a respected currency in a court room)
    So philosophical questions are fine to use in the media, but don't work in court.
    He was found guilty and was blacklisted for almost 3 years until Wayne Gretsky hired him as a coach in Nov'02
:construction:
there's threads related to this and i'll link them sometime...there's also an article Gretzy wrote for the Globe & Mail about violence in hockey and i'm trying my damnedest to find it.

The Farming & Piracy Debate
Back to top
Cay
Nemesis
Nemesis


Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 2:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Question: What constitutes a philosophical question?

Answer: A question that can not be answered conclusivly.
_________________
"The price of Freedom, Is eternal Vigilance"
TexMurphy wrote:
from republican to kgb agent in less then a year!! wtg!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MajorFreak
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2003 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You git, i was being ironic. hammer (if this turns out to be your sense of humor, then i lufferz j00)
Back to top
MajorFreak
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2003 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

heh found that gretzky article. was right under my nose the entire time
Gretzky wrote:
I happened to be watching the game from Vancouver Monday night, but had turned it off and gone to bed before the end. The first I heard of what would become the biggest issue of the hockey year was a quick headline bar on ESPN the next morning, something about Marty McSorley being suspended. "Oh, oh," I said. And then they showed the clip. I just closed my eyes: "Oh my God ... "

It's no secret that Marty's one of my best friends. We played together in Edmonton and L.A. and I was absolutely ecstatic when he caught on again this year with Boston.

For years I've told kids not to think about me when they think about making the NHL -- my career was a bit of an aberration -- but think about Marty and how working hard and believing in yourself can take you such a long way. He's always been not just a friend, but an inspiration.

Hockey's such an emotional game, and emotion can often make the difference between winning and losing. Marty's as emotional a guy as I've ever seen in the game. I've seen him make that difference, and I've also seen him so wound up that I can even remember grabbing the coach in the final 30 seconds and saying, "Don't put Marty out there." He'd be kept on the bench for his own good.

Monday night it all went wrong. Everybody knows what happened in those dying seconds -- everybody's seen dozens of times the Canucks' Donald Brashear going down from Marty's stick swing -- and nobody, absolutely nobody, is going to stand up and say it was right to do or that it wasn't Marty's fault. He's a grown man. And he'd be the first to agree that he has to take full responsibility for what happened.

I deplore what happened, but I can still admire the fact that Marty didn't take the easy way out. He didn't slip out the back door. He stood up front and centre and immediately apologized to Donald Brashear, to both teams and all hockey fans. No excuses. Full responsibility.

That still leaves a lot of questions unanswered, though. Marty started out on the right foot and the first step was at least forward -- but it's only one of many steps, some of which still need to be taken.

First, the NHL acted to suspend him for the remainder of the season and the playoffs. You're never going to get consensus on what is exactly the right number. It's either not enough for some people, or too much for some. But believe me, from his perspective it is a lot. They have taken away his right to play for the rest of this year and if he wants to play next year they're going to first look at it all again.

I am not judge or jury. I don't know what is right here. But I do know that the league did what they believed to be the right thing. They acted swiftly and decisively, and they showed the world that the league is not going to stand for this kind of hockey.

In acting this way, the NHL has sent out a clear message to its players, but also to kids who play minor hockey everywhere. This type of thing will not be tolerated.

A lot of people have compared what happened to incidents that happened years or even decades ago. But I don't know how you can possibly compare this to other incidents. News travels differently now. Everyone has seen the videotape again and again and again. It's a different world and not only do we look at what actually happened differently, but we look at the results differently, as well.

Fifteen years ago if someone took a blow to the head you were told to take a couple of Aspirins and get back out onto the ice. Now we know so much more about concussions and don't know so much at the same time. We just don't know the full ramifications of such a blow, and that's why the league kept the door open to re-visit this thing in the summer, if necessary.

I live in the U.S. now, and there's no doubt that even though people everywhere were upset by what they saw, it is seen a bit differently here than in Canada. Canadians grew up with hockey and know how physical the game can get. We understand that there's fighting and a great many people feel very strongly that it is all part of being a professional hockey player.

In the States, though, a great many people are not at all sure why fighting is still allowed in hockey. And for that reason the incident has a little bit of a harsher impact in the U.S., where people just aren't as familiar with the sport. Where it hurts most is with the potential fan, and the parent who's not quite sure whether or not they want their child to play hockey. After you see that tape, you're no longer sure. These people can't possibly know what an isolated event that was.

Now there's talk that criminal charges might be laid by Vancouver police. That worries me a lot. The league has tried to show that the league can police itself, and I think it can. People have to understand that the investigation has to take its course, and it will, but the hope here is that, in the end, the police decide that the league can best run its own affairs.

That's a bit of a dicey issue, I realize. We say in hockey that there are times when two guys can square off and fight and get the aggression out, but if two guys square off and fight in a park to get the aggression out, we want the authorities involved.

But if the authorities get involved every time something bad happens in hockey, where does it all end? It's something that has to be considered.

And we also have to consider where this all goes if it does stay in hockey. Donald Brashear has been badly hurt and I hope for nothing more than his full recovery.

As for Marty, I've talked to him this week and he's absolutely devastated by what happened. And I can tell everyone that what he had to say after the game is exactly what he has to say in private.

He doesn't want it to end this way.

And hopefully, it will not end this way.

Hopefully both Donald Brashear and Marty McSorley eventually go back to playing the game.

And hopefully, everyone in hockey has learned a lesson from what happened Monday night -- so that it never happens again.


Hyperlink to this post
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    UMEC Forum Index -> News, Reviews & Articles All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Space Pilot 3K template by Jakob Persson.
Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group