Warrior General Games

Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by DL24

Oh, please. A select few dislike him solely because he has the moderator tag. If he didn't you, and a host of others, wouldn't have made a fuss about anything.
"A select few"? Jed gets far more threads made complaining about him than anyone else in the game, including luminaries like SI & Boltz. If it was just a result of him doing his job, then people would react the same to other moderators, but they don't. Some moderators people have a problem with and some they don't, and that's generally related to how those moderators handle their position. Jed chooses to be an abusive bully who locks threads and bans users that he just doesn't like.

Generally, the better job you do, the more complaints you get from the angry rebels who take dotball oh so seriously.

Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by DL24

Oh, please. A select few dislike him solely because he has the moderator tag. If he didn't you, and a host of others, wouldn't have made a fuss about anything.
"A select few"? Jed gets far more threads made complaining about him than anyone else in the game, including luminaries like SI & Boltz. If it was just a result of him doing his job, then people would react the same to other moderators, but they don't. Some moderators people have a problem with and some they don't, and that's generally related to how those moderators handle their position. Jed chooses to be an abusive bully who locks threads and bans users that he just doesn't like.

Or he locks threads that should be locked and bans people that deserve it. Of course, he is only human (I hope) and will make the occasional mistake. The fact that you are not banned yet, disproves your theory on Jed and the fact this thread isn't locked (though it's heading that way if it is only flaming and not discussion) disproves the other part of your theory about Jed.

From what I've seen, most of the peole that don't like him simple because he is one of the very few Mods that has consistently done his job.

Originally posted by jdbolick
"A select few"? Jed gets far more threads made complaining about him than anyone else in the game, including luminaries like SI & Boltz. If it was just a result of him doing his job, then people would react the same to other moderators, but they don't. Some moderators people have a problem with and some they don't, and that's generally related to how those moderators handle their position. Jed chooses to be an abusive bully who locks threads and bans users that he just doesn't like.

Aaaaand more lies. Stop going off-topic and stop lying. Now.

Originally posted by Chysil
he also ignored the fact that I actually posted a legitimate way of testing for this.

He also admitted that he COULDN'T test it... so it's kind of odd that he later claims that he provided evidence...



QFPAGEROLLOVER

Heh, I was about to do the same.

Originally posted by Jed
Do....you understand what evidence means? Evidence isn't you making up numbers and saying, "I think this is happening." That's a theory. Evidence would be posting examples of where your theory is true. In the OP. So people don't have to read 13+ pages to find it.
There has been an abundance of evidence posted in this thread, including a game where a 68 confidence QB threw 6 interceptions in one game (accounting for half that defense's total interceptions that season), a WR fumbling 6 times out of 7 kickoff returns, and a 71 confidence QB throwing two interceptions 66 seconds apart after throwing only one during the regular season. Larry also posted a game where a QB threw 9 interceptions in one game. There has been an abundance of evidence posted, just as there was in the X-factor thread. And just like that thread, you insisting that nothing is happening is not actually proof that nothing is happening.

Originally posted by
YOUR OPINIONS ARE NOT FACT
No, they aren't. I've already said that I do not know for a fact that what I describe in the OP is what is actually occurring. It's simply a mathematical model which does square with the data we can observe. It is logically consistent and fits the information we have. Meanwhile your assertion that confidence solves everything is disproved by the fact that third and fourth capped confidence does not stop these turnover cascades.

now... I'm no moderator... but I would say this thread has been moved off course and has turned to personal flaming, discussing moderator actions, and is no longer on topic...

Originally posted by Chysil
now... I'm no moderator... but I would say this thread has been moved off course and has turned to personal flaming, discussing moderator actions, and is no longer on topic...

Pretty much deserves a lock IMO.

Originally posted by DL24
"No builds are good enough to force fumbles on 6 consecutive kickoffs from a guy who doesn't otherwise have fumbling problems." Of course you have no way of knowing the other team's builds, and all we know is that they vastly outmatched their opposition in the Special-Teams department.
That team didn't force that many fumbles by anyone else. It's absurd to even suggest that it could be possible for builds to normally cause 6 fumbles out of 7 kickoff returns without something else being involved. That something else is the penalty from turnovers which makes subsequent turnovers more likely. Again, don't embarrass yourself by claiming that it doesn't exist since that's pretty much already been confirmed by Bort. The only question is about how that penalty is applied, and whether or not it's too strong. Arguing that it doesn't exist at all just makes you look silly.


Originally posted by driftinggrifter
Pretty much deserves a lock IMO.
You want it locked because you can't actually argue the point. Since you can't "win" with an argument, you want to "win" by getting my argument closed. If people like you and Jed would stop trolling the thread, it wouldn't get derailed. So instead of a lock, maybe you two could just stop posting in it.

Originally posted by jdbolick
There has been an abundance of evidence posted in this thread, including a game where a 68 confidence QB threw 6 interceptions in one game (accounting for half that defense's total interceptions that season), a WR fumbling 6 times out of 7 kickoff returns, and a 71 confidence QB throwing two interceptions 66 seconds apart after throwing only one during the regular season. Larry also posted a game where a QB threw 9 interceptions in one game. There has been an abundance of evidence posted, just as there was in the X-factor thread. And just like that thread, you insisting that nothing is happening is not actually proof that nothing is happening.

So that answers my question. No, you really have no idea what evidence actually is. You're comparing Confidence levels to what you "think" should be correct.

If you want proof, show ones with lower Confidence levels doing better than ones with higher Confidence levels. THAT is how you prove it.



I'm going to go ahead and edit out the off-topic lying bullshit you're posting about me since I don't feel like being accused of posting a warning to stop that while you were posting so you didn't see it and yada yada yada.

Don't do it again.





So in conclusion: post ACTUAL EVIDENCE in the OP or I'm loccking this. If you're looking for a thread to discuss the possibility of something like this and help putting together evidence, that should be in GLB, not here.

so if someone had 40 strength and 40 carrying and runs full speed into someone with 100 str and 68 tackling and 15 power tackler hits you you should fumble on a normal basis...

I think you underestimate the builds hitting the return man, not to mention they probably had close to 200 lbs on the return man

Jed edited out part going off-topic to try to keep it on-topic.

Oh and something else was involved besides confidence and the def/st builds, very low carrying and strength on the returners part.

Got a question, would the necro bumping of this thread have anything to do with the loss of a team you're own yesterday?

http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=789586

Originally posted by Jed
So that answers my question. No, you really have no idea what evidence actually is. You're comparing Confidence levels to what you "think" should be correct.
A 68 confidence QB throwing 6 interceptions in one game is evidence. If you don't think so, then you have no idea what the word means. One case is not conclusive evidence, however. We have myriad examples of high confidence players experiencing turnover cascades, along with no indication that low confidence players experience them more often.

And if you want to embarrass yourself by pretending that 68 confidence isn't "enough," then go right ahead. By all means, tell us that 80 or 90 or 100 confidence is what you need to prevent turnover cascades even though there has never been shown any correlation between confidence and those cascades. Again, if there was a compelling link between the two then they would happen more often to low confidence players, and they wouldn't happen much if at all to high confidence players. That is not the case, therefore any correlation between the two is weak if it exists at all.

Originally posted by
If you want proof, show ones with lower Confidence levels doing better than ones with higher Confidence levels. THAT is how you prove it.
There are tons of low confidence QBs who have never had a 6 interception game.

Originally posted by
I'm going to go ahead and edit out the off-topic lying bullshit you're posting about me since I don't feel like being accused of posting a warning to stop that while you were posting so you didn't see it and yada yada yada. Don't do it again.
Seriously? That's just funny. You really don't see the unintentional comedy in using your moderator powers to edit out comments about you misusing your moderator powers for personal reasons? Come on.

Originally posted by
So in conclusion: post ACTUAL EVIDENCE in the OP or I'm loccking this.
Not posting something Jed finds compelling is not a requirement for threads to stay open. This was a legitimate discussion, and would continue to be one if you and grifter would stop trolling it. The issues being discussed here are real, and the OP is a perfectly valid suggestion. You have no legitimate reason for locking the thread other than to pursue your agenda against me.

Originally posted by driftinggrifter
Got a question, would the necro bumping of this thread have anything to do with the loss of a team you're own yesterday? http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=789586
Of course. That's what we've been talking about with the 4 turnovers in 86 seconds, 2 interceptions by a 71 confidence QB who had only thrown 1 all season, etc.