Name that Skill!

[Chicago]

Originally posted by bulldog2k
We're talking about deliberately adding shots, and not over-cooking bounce, or whatever?

If the answer to the last point is it's the same thing, please don't bother replying and refer to my meta-ethic/sematicism point above

It is the same thing. If a marker bounces, it's because the manufacturer wants the marker to have more than one shot per pull.

The only difference ebtween designing the marker to have more than one shot per pull by changing shot modes and designing the marker to have more than one shot per pull by, say, changing the debounce setting, is labelling semantics. Read: Sneakiness.

the first angels didn't have trigger bounds. Bushmasters: No trigger bounce. In fact, no electronic markers had trigger bounce until the shocker came along, and we all know that the trigger bounce in the 4x4 was BY DESIGN.

Suddenly every marker has trigger bounce if not "set up correctly"? That's a buncha bull and you know it. Markers have trigger bounce because they ARE DESIGNED TO HAVE IT.

 

[JoseDominguez]

It was going well, long convoluted sentences that were so confusing they had to be clever! Then you spell semanticism wrong If you're going to use English to cloud an argument, make sure all of the words go together

Burying an argument in semantics is great, really great, makes it a valid and interesting read for all involved. That is of course if this was "The pedants literature web" and the thread was titled "Define the word skill".......it wasn't.
If Baca was fishing for bites, then he appears to have hooked a big one.

Biggest issue for me here, is in a "sport" where gun cheats are impossible to catch, how in the name of god can you be sure of a "skill" that can easily be outdone by cheating? Until we enter the magical kingdom of Narnia and Aslan the frigging lion ensures true semi-auto only then we might as well be singing show tunes.
I feel for the few players who could consistently fire better than 15bps, I really do, particularly those that were using egg hoppers incapable of doing any better.
But things change all of the time in paintball, why isn't anyone complaining about the increase in bunkers on PA fields? That has killed the long ball as most fields have no corner to corner fire lanes. Now that is an obvious skill........ being able to lay a lane of paint corner to corner, consistently and accurately, but all of that training is wasted now because..... oh no, it's still good.... accuracy and consistency.
Same as ramping, if a player could truly manage 20bps without ramp, then surely they are now capable of a consistent 15 without even working at it, therefore, a less "skilled" player can hit 15 standing still......... no help when the finger waggler runs cross field firing 15bps from the hip is it?
The "skill" isn't gone, it's just got to be redirected. And hopefully I never have to stand in a Burger King after a tourney watching fat men waggle their fingers and go on about "ripping it up" over their BK flamers.

 

[bulldog2k]

It was going well, long convoluted sentences that were so confusing they had to be clever! Then you spell semanticism wrong If you're going to use English to cloud an argument, make sure all of the words go together

Burying an argument in semantics is great, really great, makes it a valid and interesting read for all involved. That is of course if this was "The pedants literature web" and the thread was titled "Define the word skill".......it wasn't.
If Baca was fishing for bites, then he appears to have hooked a big one.

*properly laughed out loud* You pick me up for mis-typing semanticism but not for typing 'eyars'? Like, the big brothers of the ewoks?

BTW, you mis-used a comma after your fourth word (I'm actually not sure if 'mis-used' is hyphenated - apols ) The rest of your post I agreed with - well, I agreed with the first bit as well...

Chicago, I understand your point, but I asked whether there was any proof?

 

[JoseDominguez]

Originally posted by bulldog2k
*properly laughed out loud* You pick me up for mis-typing semanticism but not for typing 'eyars'? Like, the big brothers of the ewoks?

BTW, you mis-used a comma after your fourth word (I'm actually not sure if 'mis-used' is hyphenated - apols ) The rest of your post I agreed with - well, I agreed with the first bit as well...

Chicago, I understand your point, but I asked whether there was any proof?

And thank you for proving my point
The thread was about an aspect of paintball and the skill set used, but as usual, ended up an English Lit assignment.
I wasn't arguing semantics...... just said that if I was, I'd have spelt it right

 

[Chicago]

The proble is that in a sport, you shouldn't be able to buy wins. The problem isn't whether ramping is allowed, or not, it's that the sport is willing to let people pay to win.

The rule, everywhere, was that you were allowed to have one shot per pull of the trigger. Whoever was best was supposed to be determined by who could play the best under those rules. But some people started buying an advantage by breaking the rule.

The *RIGHT* thing to do would have been for *EVERYONE* to take whatever action was necessary to enforce the semi-auto rule. But paintball isn't really a sport. PSP decided to tell everyone that they were just going to let people buy the skill. NPPL decided that they were going to tell everyone they were going to enforce the rule, and then not do it.

Both are wrong, because what they are both saying is "What the rules are now doesn't matter. If you beak them, we'll just let that happen."

Next time it isn't going to be shot ramping. It's going to be velocity ramping. If we're willing to throw the semi-auto rule away because we don't want to enforce it, what rule are we going to throw away next? Are we going o throw away the 300 fps rule because we can't stop boards from ramping dwell? Are we going to throw away the padding rule because a major manufacturer puts more padding in their jersies?

The problem isn't really whether people shoot semi-auto, or ramping, or whatever. The problem is that if rules are only rules until someone breaks them, then they're not really rules in the first place.

The truth of the matter is, paintball isn't a sport because there ARE NO RULES. Trigger rules arn't enforced. Padding rules arn't enforced. Playing on rules arn't enforced. The eam that wins the NPPL event is the one whose players are best at getting one or two more eliminations after they've been elinated but before the ref does anything about it.

At the end of the day, *THAT'S* the problem - the winners are the people who cheat the best.

If we don't have the sack to enforce semi-auto, when are we going to get the sack to enforce the rules? If there's no penalty for adding shots, why should I believe there will be a real penalty for adding velocity?

 

[Baca Loco]

Ignorance is bliss

Originally posted by bulldog2k
1--It would logically incorrect, Baca Loco, to use the motor racing example as a holistic counter to your argument when it wasn't yours, but presumably, by furthering it, you are in some sense endorsing it.

2--Formula 1 vs Formula 3 would indeed bury driver skill under other issues. Making it hard to spot does not mean it does not exist, and not making it measurable does not mean it does not exist.

3--You appear to be using your own semantic definition of skill, which I think is...

The dictionary definition posted earlier does not (surprisingly!) make any mention this. What it does say is...

I do not, Toye does not, Gyroscope does not, and Collier does not - I'm sure there are others. I'm sure all of us would also say it really doesn't matter...

4--When you say, "Can anyone explain where my argument is wrong?", you are actually saying, "Does anyone agree with my fictional definition of the word 'Skill'?"

5--I have decided that black means white, Baca Loco - where is the flaw in my argument?

6--We're talking about deliberately adding shots, and not over-cooking bounce, or whatever?

My, Bulldog, what a clever chap you are. Too bad reading comprehension isn't among the littany of your obvious skills.

1--I was responding to a direct question and by using his analogy hoped he might see the distinction I was making as opposed to what he thought I was saying.

2--It does mean, however, that within the context of a competition that the skill, whatever it may amount to, is negated and becomes essentially valueless as an element of that competition. Which has been one of my points all along and a rather awkward position for those championing the "skill" of fast shooting to find themselves in.

3--if you wish, along with the others, to assert the existence of a "skill" separate from any meaningful context in which that "skill" may be judged or valued you are welcome to do so. Feel better now?
My argument was predicated from the beginning on evaluating any claim of "skill" within the context in which the "skill" was being used, and within that context nobody, not even you, has challenged my position. And the fact you can list a few other posters who agree with you is as meaningless as your claim to a "skill" separate from the arena the "skill" is used in.

4--and the larger reason the context matters to the argument is because the "skill" of fast shooting is being claimed as a legitmate argument against ramping and ROF caps.

5--until we have agreed as to what "black" and "white" mean you can make any claim you want which is precisely what advocates of the fast shooting "skill" have been doing. D'oh!

6--Thanks for playing, Bulldog. Should you stumble on a clue feel free to come on back.

 

[Chicago]

Shooting fast is a skill, but only if semi-auto is actually a rule anywhere other than the paper it's written on.

 

[Mark Toye-Nexus]

Originally posted by bulldog2k
Sometimes things in paintball surprise me. Hey, what can I say? I'm an optimist and a humanist - I want to think the best of people, but then I started playing paintball Only (partly) kidding...

This thread amazed me - it really did. It seems a little like Baca Loco is prodding sleeping animals just to see whether they'll bite or not.

Meta-ethics doesn't interest me and this doesn't either for the same reasons. This argument was finished by Toye in his first reply. The fact he didn't explain the flaw in your argument does not mean it is not wrong.

In addition, Gyroscope talked truth and sense, which in my experience, he almost always does.

It would logically incorrect, Baca Loco, to use the motor racing example as a holistic counter to your argument when it wasn't yours, but presumably, by furthering it, you are in some sense endorsing it.

Formula 1 vs Formula 3 would indeed bury driver skill under other issues. Making it hard to spot does not mean it does not exist, and not making it measurable does not mean it does not exist.

You appear to be using your own semantic definition of skill, which I think is...



The dictionary definition posted earlier does not (surprisingly!) make any mention this. What it does say is...



When you say, "Can anyone explain where my argument is wrong?", you are actually saying, "Does anyone agree with my fictional definition of the word 'Skill'?"

I do not, Toye does not, Gyroscope does not, and Collier does not - I'm sure there are others. I'm sure all of us would also say it really doesn't matter...

I have decided that black means white, Baca Loco - where is the flaw in my argument?

###############

I really don't see what the 'no true semi for eyars' argument has to do with this semantic argument about whether shooting fast is a skill, but out of interest, is there any actual proof of which markers added shots? We're talking about deliberately adding shots, and not over-cooking bounce, or whatever?

If the answer to the last point is it's the same thing, please don't bother replying and refer to my meta-ethic/sematicism point above

Lovely job - I agree!

I just havent got the mental capacity to put it so beautifully



Mark