Ongaku wrote:

At this point Philosofikal's topic is completely irrelevant to the one at hand. If you wanna take it personal, take it somehwere else..

It's not irrelevant. He is essentially saying that everything is subjective. How can you argue that PP maps are good or bad if nothing is objectively good or bad?

M3ATL0V3R wrote:

I agree with you on your view on political correctness. In my opinion many people are way too PC.

However when you are trying to convince someone else with a different opinion that doesn't know you, you have to use language that will provoke less of an emotional response.

Save your non PC opinions for people you know (or tone it down) because in this environment you will just start arguments that focus more on trying to win, rather than trying to work together to find the truth.

I'm not a sophist and never will be. Also it's amusing to trigger people with offhand comments, and for those people finding the truth was likely never on their agenda in the first place.

Railey2 wrote:

What do all these players have in common? They enjoy the simple stuff.
Any thoughts about how to serve all these people, whose existence you just overlooked?

by helping them not encounter disproportionately hard maps when their 5.17 star map has a 13 note 270bpm stream and the highest acc on it is 98.72%

181.13pp good job Random 2 Digit Player Who I Don't Know

B1rd wrote:

I'm not a sophist and never will be. Also it's amusing to trigger people with offhand comments, and for those people finding the truth was likely never on their agenda in the first place.

Why are you not a sophist? I assume its not because you want to be morally right since you enjoy triggering people who you think deserve it.

B1rd wrote:

It's not irrelevant. He is essentially saying that everything is subjective. How can you argue that PP maps are good or bad if nothing is objectively good or bad?

In theory nothing is objectively good or bad, by defining something as bad or good it already falls in the category of subjectivty. That's why it's better to focus on the real life implications of said subjectivity instead of circle jerking on the idea "hurr durr your opinion is invalid cause it's subjective"

Come on you're the guy who clearly thinks about thinking stop miss using words like objectivity and axiom lol

Guess I can just go rape a bunch of kids then, because in my subjective opinion that's not bad.

Saying that nothing is objective is the worse form of intellectual suicide you can commit. If you accept than then you may as well just giving up trying to argue anything and accept nihilism. Rather, it's self-evident to anyone but over-educated idiots that good and bad exist and aren't just subject to individual whim.

B1rd wrote:

If you accept than then you may as well just giving up trying to argue anything and accept nihilism.

You're finally completely on point about something.

Arguing is completely pointless if you're seeking to change someone's mind. In fact, an argument, due to the way that human minds and emotional systems are constructed, is pretty much the exact opposite of the correct environment for fostering authenitc changes in belief. Changing your mind in an argument is seen as revealing a weakness in oneself. The only useful point of arguing with anyone is to test your own beliefs, which is why I wrote my post to you. There wasn't one second where I thought that anything I said, or anything I coupld possibly conceive of to say, could change your mind. I don't even care if you understood it or even read it. I wrote all that crap entirely to prove myself to myself, and I did, and I continue to argue with you not to change your mind, but only to sharpen my own as an exercise.

See: https://youtu.be/Tp1eZdtkdQM?t=35s, until 1:12.

B1rd wrote:

Guess I can just go rape a bunch of kids then, because in my subjective opinion that's not bad.

What if I told you that there are indigenous human societies where what we see as child rape is actually an integral part of their belief systems, and that they more or less function just fine? Pretty much all ethics can be relative if you put them into the correct context. I don't believe in moral truths, just universally held beliefs. Even science only hopes to approach the smallest probability of error, instead of certainty. There is such a thing as the problem of inductive reasoning.

Be sure to mention in your response that what I said clearly means I support child rape, even though it doesn't. Even I buy into some of the values pressed upon me by the sociey I'm a part of.

B1rd wrote:

Saying that nothing is objective is the worse form of intellectual suicide you can commit.

Actually, it's the complete opposite. It gives you the intellectual freedom to analyze your own personal values and construct a belief system that fits them from the ground up to become your own person. You wouldn't understand that as you place your emotional security in intellectual objectivity. If nothing has inherent meaning, then you have to find meaning on your own, and I think that is scary to you.

B1rd wrote:

and for those people finding the truth was likely never on their agenda in the first place.

I'm not as cynical and misanthropist as you. I believe you're seeking the truth, but you're misguided.

M3ATL0V3R wrote:

B1rd wrote:

I'm not a sophist and never will be. Also it's amusing to trigger people with offhand comments, and for those people finding the truth was likely never on their agenda in the first place.

Why are you not a sophist? I assume its not because you want to be morally right since you enjoy triggering people who you think deserve it.

It's because they want to be intellectually superior without any of the hard work. Being a sophist would require arguing with people who can actually carry their own mental weight around.

B1rd wrote:

Guess I can just go rape a bunch of kids then, because in my subjective opinion that's not bad.

Saying that nothing is objective is the worse form of intellectual suicide you can commit. If you accept than then you may as well just giving up trying to argue anything and accept nihilism. Rather, it's self-evident to anyone but over-educated idiots that good and bad exist and aren't just subject to individual whim.

N0thingSpecial wrote:

That's why it's better to focus on the real life implications of said subjectivity

It's like you didn't bother to read, trying to box something into objectivity is even more closed minded and death to thinking from multiple perspectives, boxing everything to subjectivity is death to thinking at all tbh cause at that point nothing has any meaning, hence you look at the implications of thinking with both subjectivity and objectivity in mind. Man I thought I was the arrogant pseudo intellectual here B1rd you manage impress me

N0thingSpecial wrote:

Man I thought I was the arrogant pseudo intellectual here

Well, you were certainly wrong about that, because that's definitely me

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LETS COMPARE E PENIS

You're a fool and a hypocrite. Here you are grandstanding on a platform and in a society that necessitates that millions of assumptions about the nature of the reality were correct. Yes I'm sure there were or are countries that think or though that child rape is perfectly fine. And you know why we don't hear about those countries? Because they failed. The fundamental assumptions that they rested their society on didn't work, and so they were overtaken by societies and cultures that got those fundamental assumptions right.

Provide you want to live, and not die, and live a good and meaningful life, rather than suffer in torment, there are rules that you must follow and it doesn't matter if you acknowledged them or not because they still exist regardless. You can't build a rocket and fly in to space without using the scientific method. You can't live happily and peaceful in a culture that condones wanton murder. The culture of the West is built upon thousands of years of trial and error to become the thriving and most dominant culture in the world, and that's not only due to our knowledge about that nature of physical reality, but the intricacies of our culture, our societal norms, our religion - all these things have been built up because they help us function as a society. This is where morality comes from: it is not something you "make up" by choosing your own arbitrary set of values, it's essentially a system of beliefs that relies on the idea that good exists, and helps you seek it out. Is the system and culture we have now perfect? No, but it's the best we have. The function of philosophy to examine our systems and improve them. It's not to tear down all of the progress we have achieved so far like idiots like so you seem intent on doing.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools

I would be more than happy to continue this over PM, but at this point I smell a thread lock incoming because we've essentially hijacked the whole thread with the argument.

B1rd wrote:

You're a fool and a hypocrite. and stuff

Never denied I wasn't one.

And congratulations you just further proved my point on the implication part of my argument, and you're the perfect example of the implication of a relatively healthy upbringing society.
So now can we lock thread cause we basically almost discussed every single point every time a thread like this appear and we're not really looking for a solution also this is kinda pointless

Philosofikal wrote:

I would be more than happy to continue this over PM, but at this point I smell a thread lock incoming because we've essentially hijacked the whole thread with the argument.

Locking only happens when you resort to ad hominem and personal attacks; otherwise, you're good to go.

The post wasn't directed at you, and I'm not sure what you're on about regardless. I don't see why this thread needs to be locked, even if we have pretty much come to a conclusion (or as much as we can anyway in a place like this) over the main topic, there are still plenty of tangentially related points to talk about, even if I probably won't be bothered. Regardless, any sort of semi-intelligent discussion to be had hardly take less precedence over the inane questions that make up the majority of activity in the Godforsaken subforum.

The past two or three dozen posts is kind of allegorical for mapping criticism as a whole, actually. Start at the topic of "x is bad and I don't like it" and it gradually devolves into massively conflated exposition about tangential topics with only vague association to the actual issue being covered.

I've been of the opinion for years that beatmaps are essentially what you choose to make of them - for better, or worse. Some mappers will cater their style towards increasing whatever progression metric of the time is popular, others will spend their efforts on artistic direction or creative design, others still will do a bit of both and end up somewhere in the middle.

The only thing concerning about this is when the systemic pressure bears down too heavily on anything considered "non-standard", which from what I've seen in the past month or so of reacquainting with the BN/QAT scene, isn't that big of a deal. A variety of maps get qualified, and while the mapping scene is certainly slightly homogenised towards these pp-favorable, progression-centered maps, it isn't skewed to the point of alternative styles being excessively threatened, I think.

We can still probably do better, though. The move to promote "better" maps via Spotlights is a good step forward as I honestly believe that curated content and ranking 'seasons' are the way forward as far as osu! progression is concerned, and if we begin showing precedence to maps that are just simply well made instead of adhering to a particular style or meta, we're bound to see a revival in the interest for these alternative styles.

Or maybe we won't, and perhaps "pp mapping" is just the natural terminus at which the stylistic development of "common" mapping ends. Either way, I'm not hugely concerned.

Ephemeral wrote:

I've been of the opinion for years that beatmaps are essentially what you choose to make of them - for better, or worse. Some mappers will cater their style towards increasing whatever progression metric of the time is popular, others will spend their efforts on artistic direction or creative design, others still will do a bit of both and end up somewhere in the middle.

The only thing concerning about this is when the systemic pressure bears down too heavily on anything considered "non-standard", which from what I've seen in the past month or so of reacquainting with the BN/QAT scene, isn't that big of a deal. A variety of maps get qualified, and while the mapping scene is certainly slightly homogenised towards these pp-favorable, progression-centered maps, it isn't skewed to the point of alternative styles being excessively threatened, I think.

We can still probably do better, though. The move to promote "better" maps via Spotlights is a good step forward as I honestly believe that curated content and ranking 'seasons' are the way forward as far as osu! progression is concerned, and if we begin showing precedence to maps that are just simply well made instead of adhering to a particular style or meta, we're bound to see a revival in the interest for these alternative styles.

Or maybe we won't, and perhaps "pp mapping" is just the natural terminus at which the stylistic development of "common" mapping ends. Either way, I'm not hugely concerned.

People make maps for more or less the same reason play games. Some people make maps to have a social experience. Some people make maps to express something about themselves. Some people make maps to game the system. None of these motivations are wrong as long as there is room for everyone.

People who get their knickers in a bunch about pp mapping are people basically saying that it's wrong to play games to win.

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/a ... 2006-03-20

And as far as unjustified personal attacks/namecalling goes... there's only really one person here whose arguments are mainly based on that.

Ekam says hi.

B1rd wrote:

M3ATL0V3R wrote:

I agree with you on your view on political correctness. In my opinion many people are way too PC.

However when you are trying to convince someone else with a different opinion that doesn't know you, you have to use language that will provoke less of an emotional response.

Save your non PC opinions for people you know (or tone it down) because in this environment you will just start arguments that focus more on trying to win, rather than trying to work together to find the truth.

I'm not a sophist and never will be. Also it's amusing to trigger people with offhand comments, and for those people finding the truth was likely never on their agenda in the first place.

Also I would like to add that toning down what you say doesn't make you a sophist. For example:

B1rd wrote:

a lot of pop music is indisputably trash, and the people who listen to it are most likely trash as well.

This could of been edited to only say "a lot of pop music is trash"

This still gets your point across without being unnecessarily condescending. Saying that its indisputable is not accurate since music taste is subjective and calling a group of people trash based on something subjective is also unnecessary.

Pop music is trash for the same reason PP maps are trash. Lack of creativity and lack of values. Say what you want but I'm not going back on my point.

Good post!

Actually, PP ruined my enjoyment of simple jumpy maps. I don't play maps like Remote Control and others (except when they're unranked) because I'd rather gain PP through maps that are hard to get PP from (not that I'm succeeding). It means I care enough about getting pretty PP scores that I actively avoid some maps I find fun to play. That's kinda weird.

Railey2 wrote:

Reflecting a song isn't the purpose of a map, the purpose follows its function, and its function is that it serves the player as a means to enjoy the game. It's simple really. Song-reflection is merely a byproduct of the main-function: The providing of fun, enjoyment.
The fact that he got this wrong really is concerning.

I reacted when Phisi said that the mappers perspective is "the best way to judge a map". And I react when you say that enjoyment is the best way to judge a map (if I understand you correctly).

"best" is way to score something on a scale. It means it's at the top of that scale. If you don't specify what scale you're talking about, or you're being vague because you don't actually know what scale you're talking about (realist ethics in a nutshell), you're talking nonsense.

You can judge a map based on how well it reflects a song and you can judge a map based on how much enjoyment it produces, and you don't need to specify which perspective is "the best". If you do, at least clarify what the perspective is best at.