Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 09-13-2017, 07:23 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Because, inexplicably, you claimed to be confused.
Ferchrissakes, both of you.

That said, I provisionally agree with your opinion that union voice acting won't make a difference here, and they won't get much if anything in response to the strike. Again, this is not a heavily unionized field, and unions work best with serious, for lack of a better term, market penetration.

With the television writer's strike, the WGA was able to prevent scabs from England from crossing picket lines by contacting the British version of WGA. They were able to set up picket lines around 14 studios, and they were able (I think) to convince Teamsters not to cross the picket lines. They were able to convince writer/producers to go on strike, hamstringing productions. They were 3,000 strong, and people who crossed the lines to go write for shows faced the danger of never being able to work on a union show once the strike ended.

What can the voice actors do? What's their strength?

I'm not saying they shouldn't be unionized. Far from it: conditions in the game industry are notoriously close to company towns, and the industry would absolutely benefit from the activity of unions for various professions within it. But I do wonder whether this strike was premature, or whether its main benefit might be to raise awareness of unions within the industry so that they can gain new members and be more effective in the future.
__________________
"In politics, everyone regards themselves as moderate, because they know some other sumbitch who's twice as crazy as they are." -Timothy Tyson
Advertisements  
  #202  
Old 09-13-2017, 08:16 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
You wanted specific examples of outlandish interpretations on your part?
...yep.

Quote:
I said: but my thesis is that in virtually all cases, a game's success does not rest on voice talent being famous, or union.

You replied, "Then the correct term you should be using is 'name voice actor' and not 'union voice actor.' I'm glad we cleared that up."

See the problem? No, it's not "name voice actor" alone. I contend that in virtually all cases, a game's success does not rest on voice talent being famous, or on using union talent. Neither factor is a big deal. Games will do essentially as well if they use non-union voice talent, I claim. Also I claim that games will do essentially just as well if they use non-famous, non "name" talent.

See the word "or?"
Are you defining a "name voice actor" as famous? Had you heard of Troy Baker, Nolan North or Jennifer Hale before you started this thread? We've had this discussion. "Famous" voice actors don't tend to do as well. Peter Dinklage's lines were removed from the game Destiny and he was replaced by Nolan North. I quoted why they replaced him before. I'll do it again to remind you:

"North, a prolific video game voice actor, is a better fit because "this is his thing.

"You can just call him up and say, 'Hey, next week we're doing this internal play test and it would be great to get some Ghost dialogue in there,'" Noseworthy said. "And he's available."

https://www.polygon.com/2015/8/11/91...n-north-bungie

And the other reason they cut Dinklage was that his reading was bad, and one line was so bad "That wizard came from the moon" that it turned into an internet meme.

This is what name voice actors bring to the table. They deliver day in and day out. They are a safe bet for a games studio. "Famous actors" are expensive and risky. Non-union talent are (by in large) un-tested and risky.

So now we have "famous actors" and "name voice actors" and "non-union talent" and "union talent" and "SAG AFTRA voice actors" and "all voice actors." You are constantly refering to one subset of the voice talent industry when you actually appear to be talking about another. For the love of og can you figure out what your position is and stick with it?

Quote:
BWAHAHAHAHA.

Yes, sure, as long as the strike continues, then it might be working. We'll revisit this thread in 2020, and you'll say, "Hey, the strike is still going, and those game companies will crumble any second now!"
SAG-AFTRA were reluctant to take strike action because they knew they weren't going to get a result "overnight." That the strike is still going is not a surprise to me nor is it a surprise to those taking part in the strike. A number of games companies have already struck independent agreements to use SAG-AFTRA actors in their games. Those companies already have "crumbled."

Quote:
I'm watching games launch and sell well with non-union voice talent.
Games have launched and sold well with non-union voice talent since games have been around. Its happened countless times before the strike. Ten years ago you would have watched the very same thing. How does something that happened plenty of times before the strike become an indicator that the strike isn't working?

Quote:
Any word on the free sodas?
What the fuck are you talking about now?

Quote:
Look, this is perhaps my fault for dealing with you and failing to explicitly include my prior context.
Yep, this is entirely your fault.

Quote:
So, as a reminder: strike ends with residuals granted. Strike ends with the two hours vs. four hours for same pay granted. Strike ends with a guarantee of "actual title of the project and the role being hired for being made available before signing a contract," granted.
I know what you said. I still stand by what I said.

Quote:
I'll take your word for it.
Or you could simply read his fricken post.
__________________
Late-ish [ley-tish] (lā'tĭsh)
An adapted spelling of latish, which includes the use of a hyphen to extenuate the vagueness of the statement.
used to express a situation where it could be seen by one party as not being late at all, and by another party as ridiculously late.

J Knudsen 2007
  #203  
Old 09-13-2017, 08:24 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,581
Banquet, you rascally but loveable ursine, I have laid out a set of clear predictions of things that won't happen. If they do, I am prepared to acknowledge that I was wrong, and the strike was a success.

Do you have any set of predictions that you will stand by for the end of this trike that unambiguously mean failure? Or is any outcome "success" in your mind?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #204  
Old 09-13-2017, 08:32 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Banquet, you rascally but loveable ursine, I have laid out a set of clear predictions of things that won't happen. If they do, I am prepared to acknowledge that I was wrong, and the strike was a success.

Do you have any set of predictions that you will stand by for the end of this trike that unambiguously mean failure? Or is any outcome "success" in your mind?
...is this thread about the success of failure of the strike, or about a game's success does not rest on voice talent being famous, or union? Can you make your mind up?

Because I've stated what I think will happen with the strike several times. Both sides will compromise, both will declare victory, and we all move on. What more do you actually want me to say on the matter?
__________________
Late-ish [ley-tish] (lā'tĭsh)
An adapted spelling of latish, which includes the use of a hyphen to extenuate the vagueness of the statement.
used to express a situation where it could be seen by one party as not being late at all, and by another party as ridiculously late.

J Knudsen 2007
  #205  
Old 09-13-2017, 10:46 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...is this thread about the success of failure of the strike, or about a game's success does not rest on voice talent being famous, or union? Can you make your mind up?
Those topics are intertwined, and the thread encompasses them both. BECAUSE a game's success does not rest on voice talent being famous, or name, or union, the strike will fail to achieve the following goals: strike ends with residuals granted; strike ends with the two hours vs. four hours for same pay granted; strike ends with a guarantee of "actual title of the project and the role being hired for being made available before signing a contract," granted. Those are very specific goals, and according to SAG-AFTRA's page, they are the goals they are seeking.

The next time you ask what I'm talking about, just read the paragraph above. It's very clear and very specific.

Quote:
Because I've stated what I think will happen with the strike several times. Both sides will compromise, both will declare victory, and we all move on. What more do you actually want me to say on the matter?
This is, in contrast, not specific.

I postulated earlier that the game developers would offer free sodas to the voice actors. Should the strike end with that compromise, and nothing else, would you regard it as a successful strike?

I would not, but perhaps you have special insight.

If you wouldn't, can you give some specific examples of compromises on the issues of residuals, two hours vs. four hours, or guarantee of "actual title of the project and the role being hired for being made available before signing a contract," you feel would be fairly called "success?"

See, I am offering up very concrete conditions. Can you?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #206  
Old 09-14-2017, 12:18 AM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 40,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Your description of how movies etc. work is accurate to the best of my knowledge; but I think your assumption is a little off, or at least leaves out something crucial: the gaming industry is far less unionized than Hollywood is.

That lack of union penetration is going to make any union action less effective. But for folks who believe unions are beneficial for workers in an industry, the lesson isn't to give up on union action; the lesson is to work on unionizing the industry further.
I very much doubt SAG thinks it is going to stop the programmers from doing anything. The clout they have in terms of actors is that if a production decides to be non-union, they lose access to the best people. The same goes here. This might have some impact if the production is using known voices, which they'd lose access to, but in many cases no one will care. Like I said, I doubt any voice actor depends on game work.
However consider if future games are built around motion-captured actors, instead of more or less pure animation. Then unionizing the acting part of the game industry could get important. Will it happen? Don't know, but it is a good place to start.

The programmers are irrelevant to the discussion.
  #207  
Old 09-14-2017, 01:14 AM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Those topics are intertwined, and the thread encompasses them both. BECAUSE a game's success does not rest on voice talent being famous, or name, or union,
...now hold on a second here.

Do you actually understand why a production company would hire name voice actors over famous voice actors or non-union voice actors?

They hire a famous actor because of that name recognition. To get more eyeballs on the game, to increase sales. The downside of this though is that famous actors are expensive, and sometimes they don't have the skills to pull it off.

They would hire non-union talent because it would be cheaper. But non-union talent is cheaper because they don't have the experience, and are inherently a riskier proposition for the production. More takes to get things right. More likely to hurt their voice. Less range.

Name voice actors bring something else to the table: something that non-union actors don't bring (due to a general lack of experience) and that famous actors don't bring either (a different set of skills). Nolan North doesn't get hired because consumers go "Hey! Another Nolan North game! I'm going to buy it!" Nolan North gets hired because it makes the production of a game an inherently less risky proposition. It means the production will probably get done on time and on budget, and they will get things right first time. And if some lines of dialog need to be re-recorded it gets done with little fuss.

I simply don't buy your proposition that name voice actors do not contribute the success of the games that they are part of. You are thinking in terms of "how many extra sales will this name actor make for this game" when that isn't the point at all. Here's a question for you: if name voice actors aren't an important part of a successful game, why do you think they get consistently hired by the gaming industry? Why do they not hire more famous people more often, or less experienced union voice actors, or experienced non-union voice actors? Why do they keep hiring these name voice actors when they could hire people who upload their profiles to a "voice talent database" (like the one you cited) instead?

Quote:
the strike will fail to achieve the following goals: strike ends with residuals granted; strike ends with the two hours vs. four hours for same pay granted; strike ends with a guarantee of "actual title of the project and the role being hired for being made available before signing a contract," granted. Those are very specific goals, and according to SAG-AFTRA's page, they are the goals they are seeking.
Great! You've repeated the same thing over and over again! Well done you!

Quote:
The next time you ask what I'm talking about, just read the paragraph above. It's very clear and very specific.
It is very clear and specific. I hope you are proud!

Quote:
This is, in contrast, not specific.
Of course it isn't, because I'm not a fucking psychic. I can't predict what is going to happen perfectly in an industrial dispute between two parties. And I actually know something about video games. You admit you know next to nothing about video games and the video games industry and your posts in this thread demonstrate that clearly. Yet for some reason you feel you are supremely qualified to make exact predictions in a relatively complex labour dispute.

Quote:
I postulated earlier that the game developers would offer free sodas to the voice actors. Should the strike end with that compromise, and nothing else, would you regard it as a successful strike?
Of course I wouldn't: because I'm not a fucking idiot.

Quote:
I would not, but perhaps you have special insight.
I think if you look at what has already happened you will get an insight into what I think will happen in the end. I'll repeat it for you yet again. "The Union wanted a 5% increase, the employers wanted 1%, they settled at 3%." The Union quoted high, the employers quoted low, they met in the middle. That has nothing to do with "free fucking sodas." This is how many, if not most industrial disputes end up getting settled.

Quote:
If you wouldn't, can you give some specific examples of compromises on the issues of residuals, two hours vs. four hours, or guarantee of "actual title of the project and the role being hired for being made available before signing a contract," you feel would be fairly called "success?"
My metrics for success are "are the voice actors generally happy with the deal?" If they are, the strike was a success. If they are not, then it was not. If that answer is too wishy washy and not "concrete" enough for you I don't really give a shit. This isn't a fucking game. We are talking about these actors lives, their livelihood, and their health. I want them to succeed because they really aren't asking for a lot at all and none of it is unreasonable. The gaming industry has a reputation for treating their employees like shit: and the reason they can get away with it is because they have gotten very very good at stopping their employees from joining together to fight for better conditions.

This isn't just about the actors. Its about an industry that has no qualms about things like "crunch" becoming "standard operating procedure." Voice actors actually have the infrastructure in place to make a positive change. It isn't going to happen overnight. And if they can show the way for other people working in the gaming industry then that is a good thing, not a bad thing, for both the industry and for the consumers.

Quote:
See, I am offering up very concrete conditions. Can you?
I'm not your fucking monkey. We aren't making a bet. This isn't a "prediction" thread. You can either accept my answers or not but I'm not going to dance for you.
__________________
Late-ish [ley-tish] (lā'tĭsh)
An adapted spelling of latish, which includes the use of a hyphen to extenuate the vagueness of the statement.
used to express a situation where it could be seen by one party as not being late at all, and by another party as ridiculously late.

J Knudsen 2007
  #208  
Old 09-14-2017, 07:57 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
I simply don't buy your proposition that name voice actors do not contribute the success of the games that they are part of. You are thinking in terms of "how many extra sales will this name actor make for this game" when that isn't the point at all. Here's a question for you: if name voice actors aren't an important part of a successful game, why do you think they get consistently hired by the gaming industry? Why do they not hire more famous people more often, or less experienced union voice actors, or experienced non-union voice actors? Why do they keep hiring these name voice actors when they could hire people who upload their profiles to a "voice talent database" (like the one you cited) instead?
All other things being equal, I'm sure a production would seek out people for precisely the reasons you outline. But when things aren't equal -- when procuring that union name actor means the company must incur costs like the requested residuals, the four hour pay time, and incur the risk of disclosing the actual title of the project and the role being hired for before signing, then I say they will willingly forgo those advantages and hire non-union talent.

Quote:
Yet for some reason you feel you are supremely qualified to make exact predictions in a relatively complex labour dispute.
I started this thread knowing very little. Since then, I've read responses in this thread, I've read external articles, and I have observed one usually unerring rule: the guy in a debate who substitutes hostile attacks and passionate defenses for sound reasoning is usually on the side that lacks supporting facts. For these reasons, I feel confident -- not 'supremely' so but enough to advance my views as specific predictions -- that I'm seeing the conflict correctly.

Quote:
I think if you look at what has already happened you will get an insight into what I think will happen in the end. I'll repeat it for you yet again. "The Union wanted a 5% increase, the employers wanted 1%, they settled at 3%." The Union quoted high, the employers quoted low, they met in the middle. That has nothing to do with "free fucking sodas." This is how many, if not most industrial disputes end up getting settled.
That wasn't the result of the strike, though - was it?

Quote:
My metrics for success are "are the voice actors generally happy with the deal?" If they are, the strike was a success. If they are not, then it was not. If that answer is too wishy washy and not "concrete" enough for you I don't really give a shit.
How does this rule out the free soda outcome?

That is, if the strike ends and the voice actors have gained free sodas on recording days, you wouldn't call it a win, as you strongly expressed above. But if the voice actors' union say they're generally happy with the outcome, then the strike was a success. Can you reconcile these?

Quote:
This isn't a fucking game. We are talking about these actors lives, their livelihood, and their health. I want them to succeed because they really aren't asking for a lot at all and none of it is unreasonable. The gaming industry has a reputation for treating their employees like shit: and the reason they can get away with it is because they have gotten very very good at stopping their employees from joining together to fight for better conditions.

This isn't just about the actors. Its about an industry that has no qualms about things like "crunch" becoming "standard operating procedure." Voice actors actually have the infrastructure in place to make a positive change. It isn't going to happen overnight. And if they can show the way for other people working in the gaming industry then that is a good thing, not a bad thing, for both the industry and for the consumers.
Do you think that passionate belief in how things SHOULD be helps you accurately predict how things WILL be?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #209  
Old 09-14-2017, 08:43 AM
Alessan Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 22,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
All other things being equal, I'm sure a production would seek out people for precisely the reasons you outline. But when things aren't equal -- when procuring that union name actor means the company must incur costs like the requested residuals, the four hour pay time, and incur the risk of disclosing the actual title of the project and the role being hired for before signing, then I say they will willingly forgo those advantages and hire non-union talent.
For an $80 million computer game, all that extra stuff is pocket change. Any production company would be happy to pay it in order to avoid the risk of bad voice acting sinking the project.
  #210  
Old 09-14-2017, 08:58 AM
Jophiel Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 16,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Any production company would be happy to pay it in order to avoid the risk of bad voice acting sinking the project.
Maybe not Bioware.

Honestly, as previously noted, most game voice acting ranges from "moderately competent" to "atrocious". The few exceptions stand out because they're legitimately exceptions.
  #211  
Old 09-14-2017, 09:14 AM
Alessan Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 22,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post
Maybe not Bioware.
Don't remind me.

I swear to God, of all the things that were wrong with Mass Effect Andromeda, I think it was the mediocre voice acting that bugged me the most, especially considering how good the work as in ME1-3.
  #212  
Old 09-14-2017, 09:21 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
For an $80 million computer game, all that extra stuff is pocket change. Any production company would be happy to pay it in order to avoid the risk of bad voice acting sinking the project.
It seems there are eleven companies that don't agree with this assessment.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #213  
Old 09-14-2017, 09:24 AM
Alessan Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 22,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
It seems there are eleven companies that don't agree with this assessment.
You don't get to be a major production company without developing a habit of arguing over every cent you spend.

Last edited by Alessan; 09-14-2017 at 09:25 AM.
  #214  
Old 09-14-2017, 10:02 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
You don't get to be a major production company without developing a habit of arguing over every cent you spend.
Which supports my point. Unless you mean to say that they will argue and then ultimately capitulate?

In which case I have to point out that the strike is entering its tenth month.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #215  
Old 09-14-2017, 10:37 AM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
All other things being equal, I'm sure a production would seek out people for precisely the reasons you outline. But when things aren't equal -- when procuring that union name actor means the company must incur costs like the requested residuals, the four hour pay time, and incur the risk of disclosing the actual title of the project and the role being hired for before signing, then I say they will willingly forgo those advantages and hire non-union talent.
...this make no fucking sense.

The advantages of name voice actors is a game made on time and on budget. The advantages of using name video actors is a production that is decidedly lower risk than one that does not. Do you understand how a negotiation works? Is this all really so new to you? Have you not ever thought you were worth more money to your employer and asked for more? Have you never thought "these conditions could be better", and bought it to your employers attention? The voice actors feel that the advantages they bring to the table have value and they have declared what that value is. The voice actors have explained that their job puts their long-term health at risk and have stated what they want to happen to minimize that risk.

All things are not equal. The employers hold nearly all of the cards. Which is why they have consistently gotten away with being shitty employers since pretty much the start of video games. The only card that the voice actors have that they can play is the decision to withdraw their labour.

The actual amount of money we are talking about here (as Alessan correctly points out) is pocket change. Residuals would not affect the indie game company, or the small game company, or the medium game company, or even most large game companies because they would only take effect after the sales of 2 million units.

So it isn't the case of games companies either choosing to incur costs or not to incur costs because incurring costs is what video game productions do.


Quote:
I started this thread knowing very little. Since then, I've read responses in this thread, I've read external articles, and I have observed one usually unerring rule: the guy in a debate who substitutes hostile attacks and passionate defenses for sound reasoning is usually on the side that lacks supporting facts. For these reasons, I feel confident -- not 'supremely' so but enough to advance my views as specific predictions -- that I'm seeing the conflict correctly.
Your "one usually unerring rule" has put you wrong here. Your unerring rule is in error. Your unerring rule is not evidence based but entirely emotional. If you are ignoring the substance of my post because you perceive they are "hostile" then you are ignoring evidence. If you believe that I am being hostile and that you are not then you need to learn what "passive aggressive" means. You can't tone-police yourself to winning an argument.

Quote:
That wasn't the result of the strike, though - was it?
Why do you need to ask me that question? This is your thread. I would think that you would know whether or not this was "the result of the strike."

But you are looking at the strike in isolation, and I see no reason to do so in the context of my response. The context was you kept pushing the ridiculous soda analogy so I offered an analogy (based on something that actually happened) in response. If the fact that this wasn't a "result of the strike" rules out the analogy, then we can eliminate your fucking soda as well.

Quote:
How does this rule out the free soda outcome?
Because I'm not a fucking idiot.

What do you believe the odds are that the SAG-AFTRA voice actors would be generally happy with a fucking soda? You've read the article that Wil Wheaton wrote about why he has decided to strike, have you not? Do you think a soda would address his genuine concerns for his health?

Quote:
That is, if the strike ends and the voice actors have gained free sodas on recording days, you wouldn't call it a win, as you strongly expressed above. But if the voice actors' union say they're generally happy with the outcome, then the strike was a success. Can you reconcile these?
Of course I can reconcile this. Voice actors are not fucking idiots either.

Quote:
Do you think that passionate belief in how things SHOULD be helps you accurately predict how things WILL be?
What part of I'm not fucking psychic, I'm not going to make a prediction, I'm not a fucking idiot, I'm not your fucking monkey, did you honestly fail to understand? If the point wasn't clear to you before, then I would hope that it is clear to you now. I have no interest in accurately predicting how things will be. I have an interest in hoping the voice actors are successful and you quoted me expressing that I hope they would be successful.
__________________
Late-ish [ley-tish] (lā'tĭsh)
An adapted spelling of latish, which includes the use of a hyphen to extenuate the vagueness of the statement.
used to express a situation where it could be seen by one party as not being late at all, and by another party as ridiculously late.

J Knudsen 2007
  #216  
Old 09-14-2017, 12:52 PM
madsircool madsircool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,538
How does being a voice actor put your life at risk? Terminal sore throat?
  #217  
Old 09-14-2017, 01:24 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
What part of I'm not fucking psychic, I'm not going to make a prediction, I'm not a fucking idiot, I'm not your fucking monkey, did you honestly fail to understand? If the point wasn't clear to you before, then I would hope that it is clear to you now. I have no interest in accurately predicting how things will be. I have an interest in hoping the voice actors are successful and you quoted me expressing that I hope they would be successful.
I'm not psychic either, but I offered a set of concrete predictions regardless.

I'm predicting that the strike won't succeed in gaining the goals I mention. I am predicting that the strike will be a failure by that measure, and in fact will be a failure by almost any reasonable measure.

I think you're saying that you hope I'm wrong, but you have no particular confidence in any outcome whatsoever. It's all a mystery to you. You're not psychic; no one can tell what the future might bring, after all.

By the time the free soda deal is on the table, I'm sure you'll have figured out a way to call that "victory."

But if you can't define conditions ahead of time that constitute victory, I'd say you're simply setting yourself up to redefine almost any outcome as "victory." That's what you're doing now: refusing to be locked into a prediction because you don't want to have to acknowledge error when the prediction fails to materialize. Instead, like John Edwards or Sylvia Browne, you confine your statements to the vague: "Each side will compromise and both will claim victory!" Sure, I expect that will happen. But the true success or failure will rest in what those compromises look like.

No one's forcing you to answer. The fury that arises as you insist, "I'm not your monkey," is easily averted by simply ignoring the posts I make. There's even a button to do this automatically.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #218  
Old 09-14-2017, 02:07 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I'm not psychic either, but I offered a set of concrete predictions regardless.

I'm predicting that the strike won't succeed in gaining the goals I mention. I am predicting that the strike will be a failure by that measure, and in fact will be a failure by almost any reasonable measure.

I think you're saying that you hope I'm wrong, but you have no particular confidence in any outcome whatsoever. It's all a mystery to you. You're not psychic; no one can tell what the future might bring, after all.

By the time the free soda deal is on the table, I'm sure you'll have figured out a way to call that "victory."

But if you can't define conditions ahead of time that constitute victory, I'd say you're simply setting yourself up to redefine almost any outcome as "victory." That's what you're doing now: refusing to be locked into a prediction because you don't want to have to acknowledge error when the prediction fails to materialize. Instead, like John Edwards or Sylvia Browne, you confine your statements to the vague: "Each side will compromise and both will claim victory!" Sure, I expect that will happen. But the true success or failure will rest in what those compromises look like.

No one's forcing you to answer. The fury that arises as you insist, "I'm not your monkey," is easily averted by simply ignoring the posts I make. There's even a button to do this automatically.
...oh for fucks sakes Bricker. There is going to be no fucking free soda deal on the table. Because the employers, just like me and the voice actors, are NOT FUCKING STUPID.

No I don't have particular confidence in any outcome whatsoever. That is why I choose not to make a concrete prediction on the exact terms of the final agreement (if any). Thank fuck you finally figured that out. It only took you five pages. But not having particular confidence in a particular outcome does not mean this is all a mystery to me. And I've defined my conditions ahead of time for "victory." And those conditions don't set myself up to redefine almost any outcome as a victory. It will be clear if the voice actors are happy with the final deal or not. It was fucking clear that Joss Whedon was not happy with the deal they got: he was so unhappy he wrote a song about it. I'm not being disingenuous.

And you are the one who declared that there was "no point in engaging with me" back in July. Yet you felt the need to drag me back into the conversation when this thread got bumped. This board is about fighting ignorance. And I'm fighting ignorance. I'm prepared to keep going on this as long as you choose to keep responding to me.
__________________
Late-ish [ley-tish] (lā'tĭsh)
An adapted spelling of latish, which includes the use of a hyphen to extenuate the vagueness of the statement.
used to express a situation where it could be seen by one party as not being late at all, and by another party as ridiculously late.

J Knudsen 2007
  #219  
Old 09-14-2017, 02:17 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post

No I don't have particular confidence in any outcome whatsoever.
Except:

Quote:
oh for fucks sakes Bricker. There is going to be no fucking free soda deal on the table. Because the employers, just like me and the voice actors, are NOT FUCKING STUPID.
You want it both ways: some types of deals definitely won't happen, because NOT FUCKING STUPID. But, hey, anything can happen. Because you're not psychic.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #220  
Old 09-14-2017, 02:34 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Except:



You want it both ways: some types of deals definitely won't happen, because NOT FUCKING STUPID. But, hey, anything can happen. Because you're not psychic.
...are you being fucking serious?

I'm confident that space aliens are not going to intervene and broker a deal. But do I need to actually fucking spell that out to you? You presented a ridiculous hypothetical that has no real world chance of ever happening in real life. You've managed to reduce to absurdity your argument from absurdity. And you are using my decision to treat your ridiculous hypothetical with the disdain it deserves as evidence that I wan't things both ways?
__________________
Late-ish [ley-tish] (lā'tĭsh)
An adapted spelling of latish, which includes the use of a hyphen to extenuate the vagueness of the statement.
used to express a situation where it could be seen by one party as not being late at all, and by another party as ridiculously late.

J Knudsen 2007
  #221  
Old 09-14-2017, 04:11 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...are you being fucking serious?

I'm confident that space aliens are not going to intervene and broker a deal. But do I need to actually fucking spell that out to you? You presented a ridiculous hypothetical that has no real world chance of ever happening in real life. You've managed to reduce to absurdity your argument from absurdity. And you are using my decision to treat your ridiculous hypothetical with the disdain it deserves as evidence that I wan't things both ways?
Yes, I'm serious. It's very clear to me you don't want to say that the strike will fail, but also don't want to say anything that would define it as a success, so as to avoid having to admit that whatever-it-was didn't happen.

By piously refusing to define any win conditions, you want to give yourself the freedom to say anything was a win.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #222  
Old 09-14-2017, 04:39 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Yes, I'm serious.
...you seriously believe the strike could get resolved by SAG-AFTRA agreeing to soda?

Quote:
It's very clear to me you don't want to say that the strike will fail,
Of course I'm not going to say the strike will definitely fail. I'm open to the possibility it will fail, and would be disappointed if it did, but I accept its one of the two possible outcomes. What on earth is your problem with me holding that position? Why are you demanding I must accept your position?

Quote:
but also don't want to say anything that would define it as a success, so as to avoid having to admit that whatever-it-was didn't happen.
I have clearly and unambiguously stated how I would define this as a success. That you choose not to accept that definition is your problem, not mine.

Quote:
By piously refusing to define any win conditions, you want to give yourself the freedom to say anything was a win.
Except I have defined my "win condition." And my win conditions don't give me the freedom to say anything is a win. If the voice actors are not happy with the deal it won't be a win. End of story.
__________________
Late-ish [ley-tish] (lā'tĭsh)
An adapted spelling of latish, which includes the use of a hyphen to extenuate the vagueness of the statement.
used to express a situation where it could be seen by one party as not being late at all, and by another party as ridiculously late.

J Knudsen 2007
  #223  
Old 09-14-2017, 05:05 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
I have clearly and unambiguously stated how I would define this as a success. That you choose not to accept that definition is your problem, not mine.
No, you haven't. Your definition is Neither clear nor unambiguous:

Quote:
Except I have defined my "win condition." And my win conditions don't give me the freedom to say anything is a win. If the voice actors are not happy with the deal it won't be a win. End of story.
How (clearly and unambiguously) would you determine if the voice actors are not happy? If the union votes to accept the deal, would that alone be the definition? So if the union decides to simply abandon the field without gaining any meaningful concessions, and votes to end the strike, is that the proof that the voice actors are happy?

If not, what is?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #224  
Old 09-14-2017, 06:52 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
No, you haven't. Your definition is Neither clear nor unambiguous:
...I'll take this as a concession that I have provided a definition, and that your prior characterization of my position was incorrect.

Quote:
How (clearly and unambiguously) would you determine if the voice actors are not happy? If the union votes to accept the deal, would that alone be the definition? So if the union decides to simply abandon the field without gaining any meaningful concessions, and votes to end the strike, is that the proof that the voice actors are happy?

If not, what is?
"Hey Nolan! Are you happy with the resolution of the strike?"

"Yes I am!"

A clear and unambiguous signal the strike was a success.

"Hey Nolan! Are you happy with the resolution of the strike?"

"Nope. We were screwed."

A clear and unambiguous signal the strike did not succeed.

Gosh, that wasn't as hard as you thought! You find out whether or not people are happy with the resolution by asking them. If they are happy, they will tell you, and if they are not, then they will tell you that as well.
__________________
Late-ish [ley-tish] (lā'tĭsh)
An adapted spelling of latish, which includes the use of a hyphen to extenuate the vagueness of the statement.
used to express a situation where it could be seen by one party as not being late at all, and by another party as ridiculously late.

J Knudsen 2007
  #225  
Old 09-14-2017, 07:03 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
"Hey Nolan! Are you happy with the resolution of the strike?"

"Yes I am!"

A clear and unambiguous signal the strike was a success.

"Hey Nolan! Are you happy with the resolution of the strike?"

"Nope. We were screwed."

A clear and unambiguous signal the strike did not succeed.

Gosh, that wasn't as hard as you thought! You find out whether or not people are happy with the resolution by asking them. If they are happy, they will tell you, and if they are not, then they will tell you that as well.
Wait, what?

You plan to ask the members? .Or just Nolan?

What if Nolan says he's pleased and Wil and Ashly say they were screwed?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #226  
Old 09-14-2017, 07:18 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Wait, what?

You plan to ask the members? .Or just Nolan?
...I don't plan to ask anyone at all. Games Media will do that. Its what they do.

Quote:
What if Nolan says he's pleased and Wil and Ashly say they were screwed?
There is this thing called a "consensus." There was a consensus after the WGA strike in 2007 that the strike was a failure was there not? When this is all over the games media will be all over this. There are certain games media analysts that I follow quite closely who have their ear close to the ground, and they will give a fair assessment of the outcome of the strike. I'm willing to wait for that to happen. Why can't you?

Again, this isn't really hard to understand. Although you are trying your damndest to make it as difficult as possible.

Honestly: what is your obsession with this? I want the best possible outcome for the voice actors here. If they are happy with the end resolution, then I'm happy. Is that objectively wrong? What the fuck are you trying to prove at the moment?
__________________
Late-ish [ley-tish] (lā'tĭsh)
An adapted spelling of latish, which includes the use of a hyphen to extenuate the vagueness of the statement.
used to express a situation where it could be seen by one party as not being late at all, and by another party as ridiculously late.

J Knudsen 2007
  #227  
Old 09-15-2017, 08:21 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...I don't plan to ask anyone at all. Games Media will do that. Its what they do.

There is this thing called a "consensus." There was a consensus after the WGA strike in 2007 that the strike was a failure was there not?
I'd say there was, but the WGA declared success. I have no idea which publications might have taken which positions on the issue.

Quote:
When this is all over the games media will be all over this. There are certain games media analysts that I follow quite closely who have their ear close to the ground, and they will give a fair assessment of the outcome of the strike. I'm willing to wait for that to happen. Why can't you?
For one: because this is the first time you've mentioned this authoritative cadre of analysts whose opinions you will find dispositive.

Are you willing to share their names? I'm certainly willing to wait for their opinion if I know who to look for.

Quote:
Honestly: what is your obsession with this? I want the best possible outcome for the voice actors here. If they are happy with the end resolution, then I'm happy. Is that objectively wrong? What the fuck are you trying to prove at the moment?
I'm not obsessed; I sense you're weaseling because you want the best possible outcome for the voice actors and are reluctant to commit to a position in which you'll be forced to admit that the opposite outcome was closer to what ended up happening.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 09-15-2017 at 08:22 AM.
  #228  
Old 09-15-2017, 11:31 AM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I'd say there was, but the WGA declared success. I have no idea which publications might have taken which positions on the issue.
...which is exactly why I'm not using SAG-AFTRA as the benchmark, but the voice actors.

Quote:
For one: because this is the first time you've mentioned this authoritative cadre of analysts whose opinions you will find dispositive.
No it isn't. Read the thread.

Quote:
Are you willing to share their names? I'm certainly willing to wait for their opinion if I know who to look for.
Read the thread.

Quote:
I'm not obsessed; I sense you're weaseling because you want the best possible outcome for the voice actors and are reluctant to commit to a position in which you'll be forced to admit that the opposite outcome was closer to what ended up happening.
Or maybe I'm not fucking weaseling, and I'm simply stating my honest opinion, which for some fucking reason you refuse to accept. I think your metrics are stupid. I think that your position that if SAG-AFTRA do not get 100% of everything they are asking for the strike has failed is an asinine position. And it is asinine because it ignores the entire history of industrial relations, it ignores the entire purpose of bargaining. But no matter how silly I think your position is: unlike you I'm not demanding you change your position. I'm not accusing you of weaseling because you won't change your position. I'm not ascribing any particular motivations to you because you hold these positions.

You want me to state definitively now that the strike has failed. I refuse to do that not because I am weaseling but because the strike objectively hasn't failed. This was never ever going to be a short-term process. I accept the possibility the strike might fail, but I also accept the possibility that the strike may not.

You have not presented strong arguments in this thread that the strike has failed. You allude to "Before the Storm": a game released after the strike that was successful with non-union talent as an indicator the strike has failed, but you ignore the Witcher 3, which was also a successful game that used non-union talent that was released before the strike. Apart from that: the only other argument you have presented that the strike has failed is the fact that the strike is still on-going: which in actuality is proof that the strike is not currently in a fail state.

These arguments are simply not convincing. It is not weaseling to say you have not made your case. What is weaseling is the fact you have studiously ignored pretty much every single fact that I have introduced into this thread and have resorted to personal attacks and an obsession with getting me to say that the strike has failed. What is weaseling is your constant shifting of definitions, your unwillingness to commit to what we are actually supposed to be debating in this thread, your inability to concede when you get something wrong, of demanding cites and sources from me when the only cites you've provided in this thread have been to an online database of amatuer voice talent and a link to a fucking song. What is weaseling is having the fucking gall to accuse me of weaseling.

In this thread I've taken the time to research and link to the positions of SAG-AFTRA, I've taken the time to try and explain why voice-actors have taken a very risky action and why it is important to them, I've explained why name voice actors are important to productions, I've linked to industry experts who talk about how name voice actors can make or break a game. In this thread you've bought nothing to the table but your opinion.

To your first proposition: that "name" voice talent is/is not pivotal to the success of some video games, I think that I have proven that name voice talent is pivotal to the success of some video games. I think I have also shown in this thread the value of name voice actors over both famous voice actors and most non-union talent. To your second proposition: that the strike has failed, I think the fact that the strike is still ongoing disproves that notion pretty comprehensively.

So no Bricker: I am not weaseling. Its a pretty distasteful allegation to make considering the effort I have actually made to turn this thread into an actual debate.
  #229  
Old 09-15-2017, 12:21 PM
Jophiel Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 16,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
You allude to "Before the Storm": a game released after the strike that was successful with non-union talent as an indicator the strike has failed, but you ignore the Witcher 3, which was also a successful game that used non-union talent that was released before the strike.
The relevance of "Before the Storm" isn't just that non-union voice acting can be successful but that a franchise can be successful even after replacing well known union voice actors with non-union ones in important character roles.
  #230  
Old 09-15-2017, 12:40 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post
The relevance of "Before the Storm" isn't just that non-union voice acting can be successful but that a franchise can be successful even after replacing well known union voice actors with non-union ones in important character roles.
...its also just a single data-point. Burch's performance in Life is Strange was no "Tiny Tina." It wasn't what made people buy the game and wasn't iconic enough to make a real difference to the franchise. Rhianna DeVries was the original motion-capture artist for Chloe in the original Life is Strange so there is continuity and Burch still worked on the production as a writer and consultant. So I don't really think that this says as much about the strike as you think it does.
  #231  
Old 09-15-2017, 01:07 PM
Jophiel Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 16,472
Huh? We're talking about voice acting. Who was the motion-capture artist is entirely irrelevant. Who wrote the script is entirely irrelevant. It's not as though people heard DeVries as Chloe's voice and thought "Wow, that sounds like the motion-capture artist from the original game! What continuity!" or "Hey, that doesn't sound like the Chloe I know and love at all but I guess it sounds like the motion-capture artist so that's cool."

Likewise, trying to wave away its importance by pretending that Chloe isn't "iconic" enough for LiS fans is just crazy-talk.

Look, I can agree on the "one data point" but it really sounds as though you're trying hard to downplay a result that, frankly, should be extremely troubling for people trying to find leverage in this strike.

Last edited by Jophiel; 09-15-2017 at 01:09 PM.
  #232  
Old 09-15-2017, 01:35 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post
Huh? We're talking about voice acting. Who was the motion-capture artist is entirely irrelevant. Who wrote the script is entirely irrelevant. It's not as though people heard DeVries as Chloe's voice and thought "Wow, that sounds like the motion-capture artist from the original game! What continuity!"
...I think the fans of the first game care. There wasn't a back-lash against this game because Burch didn't voice Chloe: something that might have happened if both Burch wasn't involved in the production and if the person who took over the voice role wasn't so closely tied to the original game.

Quote:
Likewise, trying to wave away its importance by pretending that Chloe isn't "iconic" enough for LiS fans is just crazy-talk.
You can think what you like.

Quote:
Look, I can agree on the "one data point" but it really sounds as though you're trying hard to downplay a result that, frankly, should be extremely troubling for people trying to find leverage in this strike.
I'm not trying to downplay anything. Can a franchise or a series survive and thrive after the recasting of a character? Of course it can. The Fresh Prince of Bel Air continued with a new Aunt Viv. Rosanne was successful even through they had interchangeable Becky's. Metal Gear Solid 5 recast David Fucking Hayter and the game shipped 3 million copies in the first five days.

So it isn't troubling for me to point out that the success of "Before the Storm" says absolutely nothing about the strike at all in my opinion. Nobody has claimed that games would stop selling after the strike happened, and that a very good sequel to a very good game has sold quite well should come as a surprise to nobody.

Yes: they might be able to get more "leverage" if Burch didn't do the decent thing and help out on this production, or if the union had tried to make this game a failure for using non-union talent. But you, like Bricker, are missing the point. Voice actors don't want games to fail. They don't want to be on strike. They want to work. They never had that much leverage to begin with: but in their opinion what they are fighting for is important.
  #233  
Old 09-15-2017, 04:20 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
So no Bricker: I am not weaseling. Its a pretty distasteful allegation to make considering the effort I have actually made to turn this thread into an actual debate.
Sure you are. When I claim you haven't named the cadre of authorities you're relying on, and you say, "Read the thread," instead of naming them or providing a post number, that's weaseling.

I say again that you're setting yourself up to be able to point to virtually any result and claim it was a victory. You hotly deny it, and assert you'll be willing to accept the consensus of game media analysts. . . who you won't name.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #234  
Old 09-15-2017, 06:08 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Sure you are. When I claim you haven't named the cadre of authorities you're relying on, and you say, "Read the thread," instead of naming them or providing a post number, that's weaseling.
...Jim Fucking Sterling son. Leigh Alexander. Nathan Grayson. Ben Kuchera. Laura Kate Dale. Arthur Gies. John Walker. Stephen Totilo. Katherine Cross. Susan Arendt. Andrew Todd. Anthony Burch. Carolyn Petit. Anita Sarkeesian.

No not all of those names were listed in the thread. Because honest-to-god I had no idea you were actually this fucking interested in the games journalists that I follow. Would you care to provide for us the list of games journalists that you follow for the rest of us?

I wasn't fucking weaseling. I'm just tired of having to do your homework for you. I'm just tired of having to provide you cites when all you've bought to your table is your (uninformed) opinion.

I both look forward to your withdrawal of your accusation of weasling and your apology.

Quote:
I say again that you're setting yourself up to be able to point to virtually any result and claim it was a victory.
And I'll say again that I am not doing that. I have set clear parameters on what I consider would be the success or failure of the strike. For some absolutely bizarre reason you think that I am incapable of calling the strike a failure if it turns out to be a failure. Why the fuck do you think that? I've been on these boards since 2002. When have I ever previously exhibited that sort of behaviour here?

I refuse to call the strike a failure now because the strike is not currently in a state of failure. I refuse to use your metrics for the success or failure of the strike because your metrics don't take into account the nature of bargaining, and the essentials of how industrial relations work. We don't look back in history and declare strikes successes or failures because the union got a 5% pay increase instead of 6%. Compromise is an essential part of negotiations. Your metrics ignore this.

Your metrics also do what you are accusing me of doing. They've been set up in a way that it is almost guaranteed the strike will be "declared a failure": because any attempt at compromise will bring the strike into the fail state regardless of context. You've set yourself up so that virtually any result (except complete and utter perfection) will deem the strike as a failure. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. (Which, by the way, I am not doing.)

Quote:
You hotly deny it, and assert you'll be willing to accept the consensus of game media analysts. . . who you won't name.
No this isn't what I meant.

Quote:
Quote:
What if Nolan says he's pleased and Wil and Ashly say they were screwed?
There is this thing called a "consensus."
The consensus I'm talking about is not the consensus of games media analysts: but the consensus of voice actors who went on strike. The games media analysts will report on the result of the strike. They will interview the voice actors, the production companies, they will form a picture of what happened, it will very quickly become apparent if the outcome of the strike was a good one or a bad one for the voice actors.

On re-read what I wrote was unclear, so here I am clearing it up for you.
  #235  
Old 09-15-2017, 06:57 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...Jim Fucking Sterling son. Leigh Alexander. Nathan Grayson. Ben Kuchera. Laura Kate Dale. Arthur Gies. John Walker. Stephen Totilo. Katherine Cross. Susan Arendt. Andrew Todd. Anthony Burch. Carolyn Petit. Anita Sarkeesian.
That first guy has a really unfortunate name.

But thank you for naming them all now, for the first time.

Quote:
No not all of those names were listed in the thread. Because honest-to-god I had no idea you were actually this fucking interested in the games journalists that I follow. Would you care to provide for us the list of games journalists that you follow for the rest of us?
I don't, but since I also didn't claim to repose any particular authority in any game journalists' analysis, that's understandable.

Quote:
I wasn't fucking weaseling. I'm just tired of having to do your homework for you. I'm just tired of having to provide you cites when all you've bought to your table is your (uninformed) opinion.

I both look forward to your withdrawal of your accusation of weasling and your apology.
As you can see from the remainder of this post, I still believe you're dodging any specific, clear, unambiguous standards by which the eventual outcome can be measured, so at present, in my view, you're still weaseling.
Quote:
And I'll say again that I am not doing that. I have set clear parameters on what I consider would be the success or failure of the strike.
No. "Clear," still eludes you.

A clear parameter would be one in which a neutral observer could unambiguously reach the conclusion you reach.

Quote:
For some absolutely bizarre reason you think that I am incapable of calling the strike a failure if it turns out to be a failure. Why the fuck do you think that? I've been on these boards since 2002. When have I ever previously exhibited that sort of behaviour here?
Never, but since you continue to dodge my effort to draw from you a clear and unambiguous standard of judgement, I guess that makes you a first offender.

Quote:
I refuse to call the strike a failure now because the strike is not currently in a state of failure.
Absolutely reasonable.

Quote:
I refuse to use your metrics for the success or failure of the strike because your metrics don't take into account the nature of bargaining, and the essentials of how industrial relations work. We don't look back in history and declare strikes successes or failures because the union got a 5% pay increase instead of 6%. Compromise is an essential part of negotiations. Your metrics ignore this.
Understood, and no objection from me.

Quote:
Your metrics also do what you are accusing me of doing. They've been set up in a way that it is almost guaranteed the strike will be "declared a failure": because any attempt at compromise will bring the strike into the fail state regardless of context. You've set yourself up so that virtually any result (except complete and utter perfection) will deem the strike as a failure. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. (Which, by the way, I am not doing.)
Not exactly. I'm willing to call it a success if any one of those goals is achieved.

In other words, if they get the requested residuals and nothing else, I believe they won. If they get the two hour vs. four hour condition, and nothing else, they win. If they get the title/role disclosure and nothing else, they win.

Quote:
The consensus I'm talking about is not the consensus of games media analysts: but the consensus of voice actors who went on strike. The games media analysts will report on the result of the strike. They will interview the voice actors, the production companies, they will form a picture of what happened, it will very quickly become apparent if the outcome of the strike was a good one or a bad one for the voice actors.

On re-read what I wrote was unclear, so here I am clearing it up for you.
Thank you for clearing it up, but now we're back to the question I asked: what if some striking actors opine that the strike was a failure, and others aver it was a success? Suppose you were to learn that, post-strike, an informal straw poll of the strikers revealed that 70% believed the strike was not successful and 30% believed it was. You claim to have described clear and unambiguous criteria, so how would you treat that outcome?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 09-15-2017 at 06:59 PM.
  #236  
Old 09-15-2017, 07:59 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
That first guy has a really unfortunate name.
http://www.thejimquisition.com/im-ji...r-limited-run/

Quote:
But thank you for naming them all now, for the first time.
...this isn't a withdrawal nor an apology. I was expecting better from you than this.

Quote:
I don't, but since I also didn't claim to repose any particular authority in any game journalists' analysis, that's understandable.
And neither do I.

Quote:
As you can see from the remainder of this post, I still believe you're dodging any specific, clear, unambiguous standards by which the eventual outcome can be measured, so at present, in my view, you're still weaseling.
And at this particular stage, considering the lengths I have gone to clarify my position, you are no longer using the word "weasel" as a descriptor of my behaviour, but as an insult. I would ask that if you intend to stand by that characterization that you do it in the pit. There is no way that you could read what I wrote and still continue to think my intent is to weasel. So just stop it already.

Quote:
No. "Clear," still eludes you.
No it does not.

Quote:
A clear parameter would be one in which a neutral observer could unambiguously reach the conclusion you reach.
And a neutral observer could unambiguously reach the conclusion I reach.

Quote:
Never, but since you continue to dodge my effort to draw from you a clear and unambiguous standard of judgement, I guess that makes you a first offender.
I haven't dodged your efforts though. I've given you my parameters. These parameters don't meet your standards. :: shrug :: So what the fuck do you want me to do about that then? Your parameters don't meet my standards. But I'm putting zero effort into getting you to change your standards because I'm not obsessed with making you do my bidding. So why don't you just stop trying to get me to change my parameters. As I've already told you I'm not your fucking monkey, I'm not going to dance for your amusement.

Quote:
Absolutely reasonable.
Of course it is fucking reasonable. Why did it take you until now though to accept that?

Quote:
Not exactly. I'm willing to call it a success if any one of those goals is achieved.

In other words, if they get the requested residuals and nothing else, I believe they won. If they get the two hour vs. four hour condition, and nothing else, they win. If they get the title/role disclosure and nothing else, they win.
Which is why your metrics don't work. If they get the residuals but don't get anything to relieve vocal stress or stunt co-ordinators then the voice actors won't see it as a win. Your metrics lack context, they lack nuance. Your metrics will declare the strike a success even if every single voice actor declares the strike a failure.

Quote:
Thank you for clearing it up, but now we're back to the question I asked: what if some striking actors opine that the strike was a failure, and others aver it was a success?
CONSENSUS.

Quote:
Suppose you were to learn that, post-strike, an informal straw poll of the strikers revealed that 70% believed the strike was not successful and 30% believed it was. You claim to have described clear and unambiguous criteria, so how would you treat that outcome?
If the majority of voice actors thought the strike was not successful, who the fuck am I to disagree? (And in case you try to characterize that response as "weasling" again, let me make it clear for you: if the majority of strikers believe the strike was not successful, then as far as I'm concerned the strike was not successful. And a neutral observer would come to the same conclusion.)

In the unlikely event of a "50% 50% split", that would simply mean that the result of the strike would be "mixed." Because another problem with your metrics is that the only possible result are either a "win" or a "loss": but in the real world "you win some, you loose some." The real world is nuanced. The real world is not binary. The goal of this industrial action isn't to "win": but to come to a conclusion that is satisfactory to both parties in the dispute. You are looking at this whole thing wrong and you've been looking at it wrong since the opening post.
  #237  
Old 09-15-2017, 08:14 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...this isn't a withdrawal nor an apology. I was expecting better from you than this.
For reasons explained in my immediately preceding post (#235), I don't agree that you've provided a clear, unambigous metric before now.
Quote:
And at this particular stage, considering the lengths I have gone to clarify my position, you are no longer using the word "weasel" as a descriptor of my behaviour, but as an insult. I would ask that if you intend to stand by that characterization that you do it in the pit. There is no way that you could read what I wrote and still continue to think my intent is to weasel. So just stop it already.
I'm sorry, but it's not an insult to you: it's an accurate description of your reluctance to accept or share measurable standards. You keep saying "consensus," without any indication of how that consensus is to be determined.

Quote:
And a neutral observer could unambiguously reach the conclusion I reach.
How, specifically, would that neutral observer learn what the majority of the strikers felt?

Don't say "by reading game journalists," unless you believe that game journalists will publish a controlled survey.

Quote:
Which is why your metrics don't work. If they get the residuals but don't get anything to relieve vocal stress or stunt co-ordinators then the voice actors won't see it as a win. Your metrics lack context, they lack nuance. Your metrics will declare the strike a success even if every single voice actor declares the strike a failure.
I suppose that's true, but my metrics are drawn from the very web page upon which SAG-AFTRA explains their desired outcome. For this reason, I am comfortable saything that I'm entitled to rely on it as an accurate description of their goals.

Quote:
If the majority of voice actors thought the strike was not successful, who the fuck am I to disagree? (And in case you try to characterize that response as "weasling" again, let me make it clear for you: if the majority of strikers believe the strike was not successful, then as far as I'm concerned the strike was not successful. And a neutral observer would come to the same conclusion.)

In the unlikely event of a "50% 50% split", that would simply mean that the result of the strike would be "mixed." Because another problem with your metrics is that the only possible result are either a "win" or a "loss": but in the real world "you win some, you loose some." The real world is nuanced. The real world is not binary. The goal of this industrial action isn't to "win": but to come to a conclusion that is satisfactory to both parties in the dispute. You are looking at this whole thing wrong and you've been looking at it wrong since the opening post.
Yes, see, this almost unambiguous. In fact, strike that -- it *IS* clear and unambiguous.

But it's stlll not complete, because it's unclear to me that such numbers will ever be available. So the adoption of this standard does nothing to dispel my prior characterization: you pick this, I think to myself, because no definitive poll of voice actors will be done, and this will allow you to claim defeat never occurred. "Cite that more than 50% are not satisfied," you'll say to me, and I won't be able to.

Is that your plan?

Where will the numbers come from?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 09-15-2017 at 08:15 PM.
  #238  
Old 09-16-2017, 05:25 PM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
For reasons explained in my immediately preceding post (#235), I don't agree that you've provided a clear, unambigous metric before now.
...my metrics haven't changed for the entire thread.

Quote:
I'm sorry, but it's not an insult to you: it's an accurate description of your reluctance to accept or share measurable standards.
If you were being "accurate" then your commentary would be reduced to "I disagree with how you measure the success of the strike." But you aren't being accurate. You state I show a "reluctance to accept or share measurable standards" when I've been doing just that: and you are now starting to concede I am doing just that. By characterising my posts as "weasling" you are accusing me of trying to achieve something by use of cunning or deceit. Of being a deceitful or treacherous person. Of behaving or talking evasively. None of that is remotely accurate. I'm not doing any of those things. I gave you a pass while I elaborated on my position. But I honestly can't explain myself any more than I have. If at this stage you still think I'm trying to achieve something though cunning or deceit then yes: you are insulting me. Because I'm being open and honest with you. We have a disagreement on measureable standards. I'm not trying to weasel out of anything.

Quote:
You keep saying "consensus," without any indication of how that consensus is to be determined.
You never asked.

Quote:
How, specifically, would that neutral observer learn what the majority of the strikers felt?

Don't say "by reading game journalists," unless you believe that game journalists will publish a controlled survey.
The thing is Bricker we live in the real world. The stakes for me simply aren't that fucking high. If a neutral observer wanted to find out what happened with a relatively obscure event in the games industry they are going to turn to games journalism to find out the answer. The only person in the world who requires a controlled survey is you. The rest of us are more than capable enough to be able to read a range of coverage and be able to figure out what happened.

Quote:
I suppose that's true, but my metrics are drawn from the very web page upon which SAG-AFTRA explains their desired outcome. For this reason, I am comfortable saything that I'm entitled to rely on it as an accurate description of their goals.
Its an accurate description of their opening position. Its a negotiation. Just the other day I was asked to provide a quote on a job. I quoted about $500.00 more than I normally would for the job. They bargained me down $300.00. They walked away happy because they saved themselves $300 bucks. I was absolutely stoked because I made $200.00 more than I normally would.

This is how the real world works. You quote high, they quote low, you meet in the middle. Sometimes you quote so high they walk away. And sometimes they quote so low that it is uneconomical to take the job.

So if you are measuring the success of the negotiations based on "the high quote" then you ignore the fact that they've probably quoted high knowing the employers will come to the table with a low bid. And if you start negotiations at your "goal rate" then you are nearly always going to end up with less than what you wanted.

Honest to goodness Bricker this is real basic stuff.

Quote:
Yes, see, this almost unambiguous. In fact, strike that -- it *IS* clear and unambiguous.

But it's stlll not complete, because it's unclear to me that such numbers will ever be available. So the adoption of this standard does nothing to dispel my prior characterization: you pick this, I think to myself, because no definitive poll of voice actors will be done, and this will allow you to claim defeat never occurred. "Cite that more than 50% are not satisfied," you'll say to me, and I won't be able to.

Is that your plan?

Where will the numbers come from?
No Bricker. There is no fucking plan. I'm not trying to trick you. I'm not trying to game you. There is no agenda. I don't have a clue why you are so suspicious of me. I can't for the life of me understand why the fuck you would think that I am trying to avoid calling the strike a failure if it turns out to be a failure. I don't have a fucking clue why you would think that I am trying to claim a "defeat never occurred." I just don't get it. I'm reading your words and I'm thinking "what the fuck are you talking about?" How on earth are you getting that from any of my posts? If you would simply stop with the assumption I'm trying to weasel out of anything, and simply read my words exactly as written, then it all should become crystal clear.

If the strike fails it will be fucking obvious. There will be no need for "objective measures" because the sound of disappointment from the voice actors would be deafening.

When the strike finally ends I'm going to log onto twitter, and I'll have a pretty clear idea of the outcome of the strike within minutes. I follow a lot of voice actors on twitter. And they follow other voice actors. And it won't take long to hear what happened directly from the "horses mouth". I'll read what they have to say. I'll listen to Jim's bonus Jimquisition that he will most certainly put out that day. I'll read the various takes on Kotaku and Polygon. And I will have a much clearer picture of what happened than you will with you and your metrics. Your metrics allow for the strike to be determined a "victory" when every single voice actor might be lamenting its failure. If that were to happen: would you consider the voice actors were lying?

You are simply over-thinking this. You are thinking in abstract, and not in the real world. I've been up front and honest with you. I want the voice actors to succeed. That doesn't mean that if the strike fails, I'm going to pretend that it didn't. The only person in this thread who is emotionally invested in the "win/loss" state of this strike is you.
  #239  
Old 09-16-2017, 10:44 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
By characterising my posts as "weasling" you are accusing me of trying to achieve something by use of cunning or deceit. Of being a deceitful or treacherous person. Of behaving or talking evasively.
Yes, the latter: you are being evasive when it comes to answering specifics.

Look:
Quote:
The thing is Bricker we live in the real world. The stakes for me simply aren't that fucking high. If a neutral observer wanted to find out what happened with a relatively obscure event in the games industry they are going to turn to games journalism to find out the answer. The only person in the world who requires a controlled survey is you. The rest of us are more than capable enough to be able to read a range of coverage and be able to figure out what happened.
No, I don't agree that this is true. I suppose it's possible that the strike will end so monolithically clearly that all commentators agree, but it's far more likely that if ten people write about it, at least one or two will find something positive to say, and you will, I suspect, latch on to those as though they had been handed down to Moses on Mt. Sinai. "The rest of us" business is the kicker. This is a series of evasions as to what constitutes success. You were willing to claim percentages in prior posts but now admit hat there won't be any particular way to measure those percentages.

That, my ursine friend, is evasion.

Quote:
This is how the real world works. You quote high, they quote low, you meet in the middle. Sometimes you quote so high they walk away. And sometimes they quote so low that it is uneconomical to take the job.

So if you are measuring the success of the negotiations based on "the high quote" then you ignore the fact that they've probably quoted high knowing the employers will come to the table with a low bid. And if you start negotiations at your "goal rate" then you are nearly always going to end up with less than what you wanted.
That's why I agreed that if even one condition was met, they're in reasonable shape to declare a win.

But how would it work to "lose $300" on the demand that the role and title are disclosed before contracts are signed? They'd only reveal every other letter of the title? They'd reveal the role, but by interpretive dance instead of words? See, that condition doesn't really have a compromise position. It's a yes-or-no proposition, is it not?

Quote:
I don't have a fucking clue why you would think that I am trying to claim a "defeat never occurred." I just don't get it. I'm reading your words and I'm thinking "what the fuck are you talking about?" How on earth are you getting that from any of my posts?
Because of your continued efforts to avoid saying anything that would allow a neutral observer to definitively lock in an answer.

Quote:
If the strike fails it will be fucking obvious. There will be no need for "objective measures" because the sound of disappointment from the voice actors would be deafening.

When the strike finally ends I'm going to log onto twitter, and I'll have a pretty clear idea of the outcome of the strike within minutes. I follow a lot of voice actors on twitter. And they follow other voice actors. And it won't take long to hear what happened directly from the "horses mouth". I'll read what they have to say. I'll listen to Jim's bonus Jimquisition that he will most certainly put out that day. I'll read the various takes on Kotaku and Polygon. And I will have a much clearer picture of what happened than you will with you and your metrics. Your metrics allow for the strike to be determined a "victory" when every single voice actor might be lamenting its failure. If that were to happen: would you consider the voice actors were lying?
I'm saying that you ignore the possibility that the "every single voice" thing doesn't happen, that a few voices speak favorably and most don't, and this will give you the escape rope to claim victory.

Quote:
You are simply over-thinking this. You are thinking in abstract, and not in the real world. I've been up front and honest with you. I want the voice actors to succeed. That doesn't mean that if the strike fails, I'm going to pretend that it didn't.
I think you're invested strongly in this being a win, and because of that, you'll seize on very thin rationales to declare that it was a win, such seizing made possible by your failure to specify a clearly falsifiable win metric.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #240  
Old 09-17-2017, 12:57 AM
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 3,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Yes, the latter: you are being evasive when it comes to answering specifics.
...stop accusing me of being evasive. Having a fundamental disagreement on terms is not being evasive and is not weaseling.

Quote:
Look:


No, I don't agree that this is true. I suppose it's possible that the strike will end so monolithically clearly that all commentators agree, but it's far more likely that if ten people write about it, at least one or two will find something positive to say, and you will, I suspect, latch on to those as though they had been handed down to Moses on Mt. Sinai.
You don't have a fucking clue about the video games industry and you don't have a fucking clue what I'm going to do when the strike is over. You can't even name a games journalist that you follow. So stop pretending you have a clue how games journalists would react to this.

I listed a bunch of video game journalists before. They are not a monolithic bunch, they have opinions all over the spectrum and the reason I follow them is because many of them don't agree with each other.

So how about you wait until the strike is over before you attack my character even more? If I do as you suspect then you will have cause to point it out. But until that happens would you kindly keep your suspicions to yourself.

Quote:
"The rest of us" business is the kicker. This is a series of evasions as to what constitutes success. You were willing to claim percentages in prior posts but now admit hat there won't be any particular way to measure those percentages.
No you introduced the percentages. I only used them to illustrate a point. That wasn't an evasion.

Quote:
That, my ursine friend, is evasion.
You are not my friend, and that wasn't fucking evasion.

I'm going to go back to what I said a while ago: something that obviously you didn't understand. I'm not your fucking monkey. I'm not going to dance to your tune. I'm not going to play to your rules.

I've plainly told you my criteria for how I would consider the strike a success or not. My criteria are entirely reasonable and it is the same criteria that many, if not most reasonable people would adopt. If the headlines the next day say "Voice actors happy with the deal" then a reasonable person would consider the strike to be a success. If the headlines the next day said "Voice actors distraught as strike fails" then a reasonable person would consider the strike to be a fail.

It is not evasion to disagree with your criteria and to offer my criteria up instead. You can disagree with my criteria, you can try and point holes in my criteria, but you cannot make claims of evasion. Because I am not evading jack-shit.

Quote:
That's why I agreed that if even one condition was met, they're in reasonable shape to declare a win.
Nope. You said that if one condition was met then they can declare a win.

Quote:
But how would it work to "lose $300" on the demand that the role and title are disclosed before contracts are signed? They'd only reveal every other letter of the title? They'd reveal the role, but by interpretive dance instead of words? See, that condition doesn't really have a compromise position. It's a yes-or-no proposition, is it not?
Does this sort of ridiculous deconstruction of an argument actually work in a court of law?

Here is what is asked for:

"Transparency

Actors need to know more about the projects that they are working on. SAG-AFTRA has proposed that the actual title of the project and the role being hired for should be made available to at least our representatives before signing a contract. We have also heard stories of actors coming into a session and being asked, without prior consent, to do content that contains simulated sex scenes and racial slurs. To be placed in a session, and asked to do a sex scene and racial slurs that will be forever tied to an actor’s name should be a choice made by an actor prior to booking."

The compromise might be a non-disclosure agreement. The compromise could be the title and the role might be withheld, but full disclosure of any sex scenes or racial slurs would have to be made. So it isn't a yes-or-no proposition at all.

Quote:
Because of your continued efforts to avoid saying anything that would allow a neutral observer to definitively lock in an answer.
By refusing to accept my word that I am not going to pretend that the strike is a win when it is a clear fail you are calling me a liar. Just stop it. Accept me at my word and stop claiming I'm going to do something that I'm not. I don't appreciate being called a weasel, and I don't appreciate being called a liar.

Quote:
I'm saying that you ignore the possibility that the "every single voice" thing doesn't happen, that a few voices speak favorably and most don't, and this will give you the escape rope to claim victory.
Can you stop with this strawman already? How many fucking times do I need to tell you that I'm not looking for an escape rope? I am not going to seize upon the slightest positive and claim victory. And I'm not going to do that because that would be fucking stupid. Only a moron would do that. I'm not a fucking moron. I'm not lying to you. Stop treating me like I'm a fucking moron and a liar.

Quote:
I think you're invested strongly in this being a win, and because of that, you'll seize on very thin rationales to declare that it was a win, such seizing made possible by your failure to specify a clearly falsifiable win metric.
And I'm telling you that you are wrong. You don't fucking know me. Stop making this debate about me. If you want to accuse me of being a liar, then take it to the pit.

I have done my damndest not to make this thread about you. I could have talked about how disingenuous the thread OP was, how I don't think you actually want to talk about video games and how the actual point of this thread was so that you could point and laugh at the union. But instead of that I've kept this thread on track, talking about the actual demands of the union, what voice actors bring to the table.

But you can't stop attacking my character. And the reason you are doing that is you've got nothing else to bring to the debate. I was right in my first post in this thread. "Its too early to tell." If you want to talk about what voice actors bring to the table, or about the strike, then I'm ready to go. But if you want to talk about what you "suspect I'm going to do when the strike is over" then do it in the pit.
  #241  
Old 09-17-2017, 07:41 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
You don't have a fucking clue about the video games industry and you don't have a fucking clue what I'm going to do when the strike is over. You can't even name a games journalist that you follow. So stop pretending you have a clue how games journalists would react to this.
You ever hear of a guy named James Randi? He's not a games journalist -- he's a retired stage magician. But his relevance to this discussion is his post-retirement career as a skeptic with respect to paranormal claims, and his debunking of those who purport to have paranormal powers. He's most famous for his offer of a million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate those powers.

The central aspect of that million dollar challenge is simple: the claimant must be able to describe, specifically, ahead of time what he can do, and then Randi will propose a set of monitoring or test parameters, to which the claimant agrees in advance are valid. This prevents the claimant from failing when under observation and then saying, "Well, it's all the negative energy from disbelief that's foiling my telekinesis," or "The studio lights create an electric energy field and that dampens my telepathy."

In other words, Randi explains ahead of time that there will be studio lights, and the claimant then has every opportunity to explain the negative effects of studio lights. If there are, the test will be done in a greenhouse, under natural light. The point is: Randi knows that post-hoc rationalizations are cheap; the only way to show an actual valid prediction is to be able to agree, in advance, on how to measure success.

The same principle holds true here. It's true that I don't know what you'll do. But that's the point: I don't. So defining ahead of time what types of outcomes are legitimate indicators of success is precisely the way to rebut any accusations of post-hoc rationalization.

Quote:
I listed a bunch of video game journalists before. They are not a monolithic bunch, they have opinions all over the spectrum and the reason I follow them is because many of them don't agree with each other.
Even worse for your claim that "it will be obvious," after the strike ends, then. I absolutely believe that they have opinions all over the spectrum, but if that's the case, how can they lend an authority to this question?

Quote:
So how about you wait until the strike is over before you attack my character even more? If I do as you suspect then you will have cause to point it out. But until that happens would you kindly keep your suspicions to yourself.
No, because then I'd be guilty of exactly the sin I ascribe to you: waiting until after the events have happened to claim I had some problem with using them as evidence.

I'm saying, NOW, ahead of any actual outcome, what I predict will happen. You're waiting until after you see what happens to decide which reactions or evidence will be dispositive. If A, B, C, D, E, and F all opine that the strike was a failure, you have all wriggle room to point at G and H's opinion that it was a noble success. But if A, B, C, G, and H come down on the side of failure, you're just as free to piously claim that it was always D and E that were the most insightful commentators, and it's THEIR opinion that's truly captured the ways this was a win.

That tactic -- the unwillingness to commit to a standard ahead of times -- is evasive. It was evasive when Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller used it with James Randi, and it's no less evasive now.

Quote:
And I'm telling you that you are wrong. You don't fucking know me. Stop making this debate about me. If you want to accuse me of being a liar, then take it to the pit.
I'm not making any such accusation. I am talking about your argument, here, and how it evades the setting of goals in advance.

You're reading that as a personal attack, but it's not. I don't think you have a plan for deception. I think you're passionate about the subject and you're human, and that brings with it the very human thought habits that tend to create the end results I mention . . . not as result of deception or dishonesty at all. Confirmatory bias is the thought pattern, the selection bias, in which decent and honest people have been shown, decently and honestly, to nonetheless seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and to ignore or underweigh evidence that would weaken or disprove their hypothesis.

It's not a matter of deception, or something done by people who are trying to be deceptive or dishonest. It's a bias, an unconscious thought pattern.

And it's defeated by the agreement, in advance, on what the meaning of given test results will be.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 09-17-2017 at 07:42 AM.
  #242  
Old 09-17-2017, 09:22 AM
Bone Bone is offline
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 7,569
Moderating

[moderating]

There is way too much personal sniping for this forum. I do think there is a worthwhile debate topic here, so rather than simply move this thread to the Pit I'm going to put it on time out and close it. Hopefully in time, cooler heads will prevail and it can be revisited.

For now, I think each has said their piece about the existing fact pattern. If there are new developments to add to the debate, please PM me and I will re-open the thread in the future. Be sure to include a link to the thread if that happens.

[/moderating]
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017