Posted by mrt1212 on 2016-02-11 18:46:19
A cherry can only be a cherry. A picker chooses to be a picker.
Posted by fidius on 2016-02-11 18:48:52
Cherries are bitter to the glutted blackbird.
Posted by Beanchilla on 2016-02-11 19:13:18
Keeps ya humble!
Posted by cdassak on 2016-02-11 19:15:55
BewARRe of Greeks beARRing cherries.
Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2016-02-11 19:20:39
Once ripe, soon rotten, waste of time to be forgotten.
Gotta get the haughty vent spoiled forth from the hastily erected gallows of hubris as well.
Posted by JohnnyFeyev on 2016-02-11 21:28:06
She got the way to move me, Cherry
She got the way to groove me
She got the way to move me, Cherry baby
She got the way to groove me
Posted by DeZigma on 2016-02-11 22:39:04
More rotten, more sugar, more alcohol! That's the truth!
Posted by Arktoris on 2016-02-12 01:47:11
I remember the wise words of Kalamona.
When it comes to cherry picking, it takes two to tango. Why so much hate for the picker but not for the pickee?
Posted by mrt1212 on 2016-02-12 01:55:32
Arktoris, you missed the 2nd proverb.
Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2016-02-12 08:39:50
Because Arktoris, when someone is naive or otherwise uninformed, misled by a lack of understanding or simply unable to make a decision for themselves due to ignorance, we tend to absolve them of any blame.
You wouldn't belittle and verbally abuse a child who returned from school having been bullied.
Posted by Arktoris on 2016-02-12 14:57:08
the Hellbound Charioteers are often cherried by 9AV mighty blow teams. Do you consider me naive, uninformed, and simply unable to make a decision due to ignorance?
How about all those playing 2nd tier non claw teams in box, like the human league? Are they naive, uniformed, and simply unable to make a decision due to ignorance?
Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2016-02-12 15:23:10
Nice strawman. I specifically stated "when", before stating my conditions, one might therefore be able to deduct that if someone did not already fall under those, then the following would not apply to them. That is to say, I am not saying all people who accept games that are to their detriment are unaware of their situation.
The conditions I describe are for coaches who might be better referred by their opponents to the rookie league/145 club rather than subjected to their vitriol.
Posted by Arktoris on 2016-02-12 15:48:46
thank you for back peddling and making your original rebuttal obsolete.
Now we'll see what those who claim "A cherry can only be a cherry. A picker chooses to be a picker." have to say.
Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2016-02-12 15:57:25
I did not backpedal at all.
I made a statement, which you either incorrectly read, or deliberately warped so as to shape the discussion in a manner that befitted your choosing.
Posted by mrt1212 on 2016-02-12 16:14:32
Someone with less than some arbitrarily low amount of games, say 20, doesn't know the game that well or the entire concept of picking to gain advantages. The onus of trying to arrange mutually rewarding matchups obviously falls on the coach who had 50 times the experienice of their opponent. To say they're even close to being as culpable as someone with a 1000 games either makes you deliberately obtuse and argumentative or stupid.
I don't know why you're picking a bone with absolute truths, but I hope its not because you're so vain you think this post was about you.
Posted by mrt1212 on 2016-02-12 16:17:36
Your argument boils down to "babies can consent to sex". Have fun with that.
Posted by mrt1212 on 2016-02-12 18:07:55
Also, if you're incapable of divining the categorical differences between a 1000 game coach who plays tier II races and a coach with less than 10 games getting picked, you're beyond understanding anything I post and should just refrain from making yourself look petty and dim.
Posted by m0gw41 on 2016-02-12 18:30:42
Arktoris: the plum who wants to be a cherry.
Posted by Arktoris on 2016-02-12 18:36:28
Ranked is constantly criticized for being a division of rampant cherry picking.
It is also the #1 most played division.
So it is your point that the majority of ranked games are played vs opponents with less than 20 games on fumbbl, PBeM, Cyanide, tabletop?
Or are you and AD the ones that cannot divine the categorical difference between a cherry and a noob?
Posted by Arktoris on 2016-02-12 18:39:46
bottomline: noobs make up less than 1% of the cherries. they are the outlier data points. why obsess over the outliers while ignoring the other 99% of cherries?
Posted by mrt1212 on 2016-02-12 19:29:28
You have a very wide and encompassing definition of cherry to the point its mostly useless. Is everyone with less than Star in CR a cherry? Are specific teams cherries? Kam and Zed aren't cherries just because they plays flings. Setting up a match between two coaches of roughly equal experience where one is Zons and one is dwarfs doesn't make the Zon coach a cherry. A coach with a small amount of games in total is the only definition of cherry I care about as it has clear and concise meaning and is not open to endless semantic arguments. It's beyond the pale for a coach with multiple tourney wins and 1000+ games to pick them then publicly complain about how crappy their opponent was because they bailed on the game. Way to be an ambassador for the game pickers. Really did FUMBBL a service by taking a crap on a new coach and then berating them for not taking it with a smile! And that's the exact situation that spurred the blog post in the first place.
And you're probably going to prattle on and on about semantics of what makes a cherry because you really want to debase the conversation, for reasons unknown to anyone but yourself.
If I played Ranked, I would actually make an effort to help new coaches on the site acquiesce and learn instead of masturbating on their face and complaining that the opponent didn't enjoy it. But that's precisely why I don't play Ranked - because I actually like giving good FUMBBL and I enjoy a healthy challenge and I'm not egotistically invested in the outcome of the games themselves.
I could go on and on about your personal flaws as an empathetic human (and I wish I saved the spec chats where you've embarrassed yourself) but I want this blog post to remain - put succinctly you're an apologist for abuse because you're incapable of recognizing power imbalances. Whether the cause is because you benefit from these power imbalances or because you're simply not capable of feeling empathy is unknown but it pollutes everything you write.
Posted by Arktoris on 2016-02-12 20:02:24
Ranked is constantly criticized for being a division of rampant cherry picking.
It is also the #1 most played division.
so yes, the data demonstrates there is in fact a wide encompassing definition of cherry.
the definition of cherry picking is well known. It's when you want to play a game where if the situation was switched...you would refuse the match-up.
cherries are by definition, games where you have a good chance of winning or out cas-ing your opponent.
so yes. Kam's flings are cherries. As are just about every nonclaw stunty team. As are most 7av teams (from the cas point of view).
for the easy wins, ogres, zombie teams and other quirky theme teams, and khemri are cherries.
and for 160+ coaches, < 150 coaches are cherries...regardless of experience or IQ.
the list *is* broad and that's why Ranked and Box get a lot of flak on the topic.
But like Kalamona said...it takes two to tango.
when the Watchmen are playing the sammiches...why don't you disapprove of Kam equally as much as liquidorange for such a game?
I'll give you a hint.
The reason why, is the same reason why you are uncomfortable spitting out the real reason.
It is the same reason why you choose to lash out at me instead of being honest.
Posted by mrt1212 on 2016-02-12 20:19:13
Way to prove me right. You want to debate the semantics of what constitutes a cherry above all else as if that is singularly important to the argument of not being shitty to other people. Have fun with yourself.
Posted by tmoila on 2016-02-12 20:23:01
Being #1 played division has no real value when we are talking about picking.
It would happen regardless, whether it would be only #2 most played division. Not all ranked coaches are pickers, but ranked is rightfully called the picker division because it has a statistically notable amount of people who stalk on very favourable match-ups.
It doesn't help that there are people who pick games for their "recovery matches" and then are bleeding their hearts out in match comments when the victim realizes mid-game that the opponent that suggested the matchup wasn't really interested in a fair match but a brutal beatdown and a builder game versus completely inexperienced and inequally skilled opponent.
What it all boils down into, is that community should be more self-regulating in these cases and the mental cases who show lack of any common sense of "arranging fair matches" should be shunned upon. Like how the blog poster is doing.
Posted by mrt1212 on 2016-02-12 20:24:01
Also, Kam and liquidorange have similar levels of information on the likelihood of a mutually entertaining game. That's why neither one is picking or being picked. I don't get in the way of consenting and informed adults engaging in sadism with one another, but I draw the line at people hurting babies for their own gratification and at the expense of future participation on FUMBBL.
Posted by mrt1212 on 2016-02-12 21:39:06
Per your definition of whether you would consent to the matchup being a qualification of picking, that puts it on a personal level of what you would do. That makes it a terrible definition as applied to a diverse group of coaches who have multitudes of reasons for playing Ranked. By this qualifier I could never be a picker because I would accept all matches if the situation is reversed. Because I'm a wanton FUMBBL slut. And magically I mainly play in a division where I can't refuse matchups. Maybe that's why I have such a clear idea of what constitutes picking and you don't? The personal fortitude to take on all comers is not useful at all in making a definition of impropriety in picking.
The second part of having a good chance - again based on what frame of reference? Every time Kam plays he's a cherry without any context because halflings, globally don't win very much? And yet he's better at it than almost anyone else and is fearless in who he chooses to spend time playing? This definition is so expansive that every matchup would constitute cherry picking based on the variety of factors from coach to team builds to experience. Expansive definitions that apply to almost everyone who plays Ranked who have at one time or another selected an opponent precisely to have a better chance at winning or getting spp robs the definition of any meaning especially construed as a negative behavior to engage in.
But again, if you make the definition very specific, as I have, you can point out specific cases of abuse, which again I have, it eliminates your weak objections and shines a light on something detrimental to the FUMBBL experience.
Just stop Arktoris, you're just making yourself look bad at this point although that hasn't stopped you before.
Posted by Arktoris on 2016-02-12 23:52:54
"You want to debate the semantics of what constitutes a cherry above all else"
no...I want to debate why are you giving the other guilty party a free ride?
it takes two to tango...the picker can't pick without a pickee. so why hate one but not the other?
I'm emphasizing the real definition because in order to have a constructive intelligent discussion, one must first properly define the topic and nomenclature. If I don't take the initiative on this, then both of us would now be idiots. And what good what come from that?
My last game vs Calcium was his humans vs my vampires in ranked. in that game, he said I cherry picked him. Based on your definition, how is that possible?
If the Watchmen constantly played against stunty teams I guarantee you the community would mud sling Orange about it...regardless of the fling coaches number of games.
the most infamous picker on fumbbl plays a pact team in the box. He can't single out new coaches. So why is he called a picker?
if the definition is not personal, why would a 160s coach who only plays 140s coaches called a picker...but the 140s coach who only plays other 140s coaches...gets a pass?
the definition isn't specific because if it were, people would exploit the loopholes. Hence why most pickers love the box. the fact you can't directly ask a cherry for a game is a great smokescreen to hide what you are doing.
we can both see your position has more holes than Swiss cheese. Yet you cling to it. I'm curious why?
Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2016-02-13 00:49:30
Arktoris. You are actually being completely irrational. Let me demonstrate why:
Your idea is that "it takes two to tango", I might as well counter that with "and to every beast his prey". Which by the way, is what "picking" is when it's being applied in the SPECIFIC manner by which it has been defined in this blog and to the matter at hand. A member of of the site, who has less than 10 games played, cannot be expected to understand exactly the hoops other members of the site will jump through in order to make sure that they have a leveraged advantage in the match they proffer.
A new member to this site is not privy to all of the above, they are not aware that, to the unwary, this site does have it's own nest of predators who seek only their own entertainment and are not looking for a "game", but are looking for a "win" (for whatever reason).
We are supposed to be a community. Communities do not harbor predators. They do not absolve them of their actions, and communities, most of all seek to help their vulnerable members. Which most new members are. There has been work recently by some coaches to reboot the faculty/145 club staff and give new members access to educational games. That is what community spirit is, and while it is laudable, it should be the norm.
Right now, on this blog, you would not seek to help the vulnerable members of this community, instead you seek to blame them for being vulnerable.
Shame on you.
Posted by mrt1212 on 2016-02-13 00:51:29
There are no guilty parties if both people make informed consensual agreement to play. I measure informed as familiarity with Ranked's meta game for selecting fair matchups. Do you want me to define consensual? Have you not heard that word in all your years on the planet?
Basically the only thing that defines a cherry is their lack of experience in the meta game of selecting matchups. That's MY sole criteria. Rightly or wrongly, I trust coaches with 1000+ games to know how to find a fair matchup on Gamefinder among all possible options. I don't trust a player with less than 10 games to do so. Do I have to repeat myself on this point again or do you understand that you're speaking past me with hypotheticals of two well known players engaging in a game with their favorite teams?
My definition of picking is selecting opponent offers in Ranked based on the prospective opponent's inexperience with figuring out fair or entertaining matchups. While I've arbitrarily set the bar for inexperience at 20 games or less, it could be up to 100 or 200 games. There are 2nd order measurements of experience like CR but that can wildly fluctuate based on the teams you're playing. Whatever any one else claims is picking is, its likely to be inclusive of every single coach who has ever played Ranked thus making any value judgments about the possible harm impossible. Calcium is entertaining but he says lots of things and his opinion doesn't matter to me. Why invoke that at all? It's garbage and irrelevant.
I'm trying to make this as simple for you as possible and you won't let me. Don't debate other people's opinions on what constitutes picking and cherries and hold me to their standard. Other standards are bad and should be ignored because they leave so much personal judgment on the table. My standard takes as much of it out as possible. Look at what I'm writing and respond directly to it, so help me Nuffle.
Coaches with more than a 1000 games generally should not play coaches with less than 20 games by virtue of the coach with 20 games having no possible insight into how they might be exploited. Especially if the difference in the team's games is 500+ games. This is not even in the same ballpark as your hypothetical of liquidorange vs. Kam and it causes me physical pain to realize you believe the two situations are seemingly indistinguishable. You're literally causing me physical pain through your obtuseness. I feel it right in my chest.
I will repeat this again for your benefit because I am optimistic you will eventually get it despite all contrary evidence so far. I don't care if two vastly experienced coaches play uneven games based on their team types and team builds. Both parties have some semblance of what they're getting themselves into if they've played on FUMBBL for years and 1000s of games. Similarly I don't care about coaches playing coaches with vastly different CRs because as I already stated and I can personally attest to, that fluctuates based on your winning/losing streaks and the teams you choose to play as.
I'm talking solely about the definition I created that eliminates the nitpicking garbage you're trying to engage me in. If you don't agree with my definition go kick rocks, it's the only definition that makes sense to me and it's the only way I will discuss the subject. What you, or Calcium or anyone else on the site calls picking, I'm disinclined to give a rat's ass about because it's too open to personal judgment.
I honestly don't care what the community defines as picking or your whining over the moniker of 'picker' being tossed around. I don't care. I don't care. I don't care. Do I have to reiterate WHY I don't care? For the sake of my health, I hope I don't.
Now go do something useful with your time.
Posted by mrt1212 on 2016-02-13 02:31:22
And after reading my diatribe you don't understand the staggering genius and internal consistency of my two proverbs, you should really reconsider your life and how you approach it altogether.
Posted by paradocks on 2016-02-13 03:30:38
I wouldn't categorize myself as an inexperienced player (been on fumbbl 10+ years) but I more often than not enter into matches where my opponent is a big favorite. Mostly because I simply don't care who wins, and because I don't have time for the metagame dance in gamefinder for hours and hours. What's really annoying though is when the picker thinks I'm just going to roll over like a dead dog without putting up any kind of fight and they get very upset to find I'm going to play to the absolute best of my abilities while in game to win (yes, despite the not caring about winning thing). So I think I agree wholeheartedly with the original post.
Posted by pythrr on 2016-02-13 06:27:52
picking conversations are dull
Posted by thoralf on 2016-02-13 08:00:45
What you call internal consistency, mrt1212, looks like a circular argument. If you define predation as a relationship where only the predator has agency, then of course you can lay the blame on predators only. However, shaming anti-social behavior just doesn't work. Predators couldn't care less about your proverb, which means your proverb, to have any efficacy, should target potential preys, or at least those who will help them.
Just as there are players who have no idea they're cherries, there must be players who have no idea they're predators. It is those two we want to preserve from potentially destructive behavior with proverbs. They are the ones who form the core of this community.
Those who want to help preys don't have the information on which your definition rests. They're not inside the heads of the people they observe. Sure, there are indicators like coach rating, number of games played, match history, etc. However, they don't know how much enabling is involved, and they can only guess how the predator scores in the dark tryad. Those who score high respond to retaliation better than proverbs.
Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2016-02-13 09:00:32
Thoralf - indeed, but again, this is not a hypothetical situation.
Your idea of the uneducated predator is something that is (a) obvious, and (b) brings this right into the sort of analogy that it has been tip-toeing along for some time - abuse cycles, whereupon abused becomes abuser. This website categorically does not allow naming and shaming, and has a subset of long-time members who have become so indoctrinated to anti-social behaviours that they now see them as de rigueur. Both of these scenarios allow for endless feedback loops of abuse.
This site has had an influx of members due to cyanide's games. It should, hopefully, all things allowing, also have an influx when the new boxset is released next year. It would be to the benefit of all on this site, if new players were actually given an opportunity to learn the game, client and expectations of their opposition, rather than being torn apart by a wolf who then berates them publicly for fleeing. It might actually make them more inclined to stick around.
This is also, once again, a good opportunity for to promote the 145 club. Please, for any new members who may be reading this, or simply anyone who wishes to attempt to improve their game in a relaxed environment, check it out:
You can also use the Faculty of Academy instructors:
Click on the faculty pm link.
This blog should not just be left as an opportunity for people to defend the indefensible, or to simply make uninformed, or silly posts. Community begins with everyone.
Posted by easilyamused on 2016-02-13 09:08:04
So this is just another R v B blog then?
Am I the only one bored of seeing these?
I may just start deleting them in the future.....
Posted by luxyluxo on 2016-02-13 12:22:46
What about putting a time limit on the ranked ? You have an unknown random limit of time to try and cherry pick after that suddenly without any warning two coaches will randomly thrown together by the winds of Nuffle ! it would make the whole ranked thing a little more exciting and pressure the cherry picker into making a potentially ill informed pick .
Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2016-02-13 14:07:57
@EA: To reduce this solely to "just another ranked versus box" blog is missing the point - it was never about the "picking" (although lord knows, the sidetrack semantic diversion was very successful), it was primarily about the public castigation of a new member, when much more productive avenues are available, both in terms of individuals and the community at large. Older and more established coaches should be pillars of the community, not throw people from its summit.
Posted by mrt1212 on 2016-02-13 18:55:57
I believe agency in arranging matches increases with experience and information Thoralf (The parallels to sex are so obvious but for the sake of FUMBBL I refrain from invoking them). I'm glad you used agency, it's the perfect word for the situation. Also, the remark on internal consistency wasn't supposed to be a serious statement taken at face value - I should have included some winking emoticons ;)
Easilyamused, it's about fostering a welcoming environment for new people so they don't get cynical and abandon the game altogether or become the same abusers. B has it's own set of issues but alas, the agency of coaches is limited to team choice, team build and TV management. Everything else is in the hands of the scheduler and we've seen Christer make a tweak to, at the very least, inspire more confidence in getting fair matches. There's so such tweak coming in Ranked and never will be. There's no intermediary saying "Cmon dudes, try again". So I'm absolutely going to pillory coaches who should know better than to take advantage of other coaches in this specific way.
Posted by thoralf on 2016-02-14 01:30:53
Glad you liked "agency," mrt1212. How about "enabling"? After all, this seems to be Arktoris' main beef ;-)
I enjoyed reading your exchange. It had zest and gusto.
As far as I am concerned, shaming pickers is fair game. If that's how it works among kids, inmates and scientologists, I don't see why Fumblers shouldn't enjoy that kind of activity. However, I think it's important to bear in mind that in the end energy must be spent in informing cherries about their cherrihood.
In my opinion, the most threatening aspect of the kind of picking you have in mind is to see noobs leave the site in disgust. So we need the community to validate their cherripicking experience and to offer them games where they have fair chances to have some fun, Nuffle willing.
Posted by thoralf on 2016-02-14 01:37:44
"You can also use the Faculty of Academy instructors: [...]"
Been there, done that: