diamond_ace

If you commenting on my activity wasn't personal, then neither is my commenting on your penchant for retiring. It is absolutely a thing you do, "I am just stating facts"

My primary point was that regardless of what you think of my activity, it has no bearing on the discussion at hand and is completely irrelevant as I'm still a member of the league and can discuss the issue on the same level as anyone else. You chose to bring up something irrelevant and a bit of a personal shot, so I did the same. It's not suddenly fine just because you're doing it, and then become a problem when I do it.

You can't really change your mind after the fact though, without completely working your ass off for months, and even then it's only to a certain point. If I built said player, then realized he was ass without skating, I'd be permanently stuck never getting him over 80 - even then, pouring loads and loads of TPE into him to even get to 80 - until I recreate.

While we're on that particular topic, you'll retire and recreate before you hit the cap too, so I guess by your logic you don't get to discuss it either

I don't know, I've already surprised myself with how much I've done since I came back. Nonetheless, are we doing voter suppression tactics in here? I am a member of the league, therefore I can have a role in discussing the issue, even if you want to silence me because I disagree with you.

There's a reason I only came back here and no other leagues.

Absolutely not. No one should ever be told they can't put anything more into a skill. I'm all for differences in build, but the differences in build should be at the player's discretion. I could get on board with something that said maybe "Until you get one stat to 85, you can only have 3 stats above 60" or something like that to influence making a player more specialized rather than balanced (and obviously more than one gate put up along the way, rather than just this one), where the individual gets to choose which skills in particular are upgraded as opposed to fitting into a cookie cutter mold, and that eventually everything can be unlocked (no permanent capping of a skill). If I want to build a guy that makes no sense, and put in scoring, puck handling, and checking with no defense, passing, and skating, I should be able to do so, even though there would never be an archetype built like that. I should then be able to fix that by adding more to a few other things, even if it requires unlocking them in some way. The biggest gripe I have is that you NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES should permanently cap a skill.

I don't necessarily know what I think of this, but it gives me a thought experiment: if this was a thing in the 20s, would Ottawa and Saskatoon (under me for Ottawa, under Coach for Saskatoon) have lasted a decent chunk of time in the VHL under their replacement VHL GMs? This is the type of history I might actually bother looking up and doing an article about, as much as I typically don't like history articles

Is it on ps4

Your fine is 30 TPE. Pay the guard (me) or go to jail. (Seriously though, I keep hearing good things about Witcher, and especially people comparing it favorably to Skyrim, but it seems like a completely different type of game, rather than a similar-but-better thing - almost like comparing either of them to NHL or Cod or something, rather than being clearly in the same genre. Not as much choice in certain areas too - one of the few things I do know is that everyone keeps saying your romance options are two characters, which would never have been a thing in Skyrim, although admittedly that's a minor aspect of the game and something I doubt I'd bother with unless there were perks or it was required. I've never played Witcher though, so it might just be the impression I've gotten. Nonetheless, I'm looking forward to TES6 if Bethesda ever actually bother making it)

I suppose since I've commented on the thread, and presumably gotten Beketov's attention, I owe him some questions. As one of the few people that's been here long term, what did the league look like in its inception? What era would you consider the "heyday" or kind of the peak of the league so far? Which teams do you like best now? Which teams did you like best then? Is there a team (especially if it's not Quebec or Cologne) that you've consistently liked or disliked the whole way? What do you think about the M? I know a lot of people don't like it, but I've always enjoyed it, sometimes excessively so.

You have committed crimes against Skyrim and her people. What say you in your defense?

ASSIST! 5 HITS! Somehow only 2/8 FO. Weird - I keep getting a little over 50% in most of the games, then having the occasional game like this where I shit the bed and kill the entire average from the other games...

ASSIST!

7/9 FO

4. Big system-wide downtime tonight at work (7pm to 5:30am I'm here, system a is down 12-2, system b is down 12-5) because of daylight savings time, so I'll be too pissed off while I'm here to want to do a media, and then I'll be sleeping most of the day tomorrow.

Vaclav Hrdina Forward Points FO Won

Looking a little more like Shawn Gretzky now. Earlier on you looked more like Shawn Fata.

STHS is fantastic it is the best sim program in the world Please give Hrdina some good assists and faceoffs

I'm still sitting on 0 points for Ottawa. I was nearly a point per game player for Vegas Happens - just a product of being on a more densely packed team

Better analytics are quantifiable. That can be wrong, so that particular statement is as you just said, a wrong statement of value. Judgment is not quantifiable. That can't be wrong and is an opinion.

It would be, if Fong stated a fact incorrectly.

Fong's statement wasn't something that can be verified by facts. He thinks Drouin has been less good than you do. Stats can support one or the other side of the argument (and as far as I've seen, stats support your side) but it's simply not a factual debate. He didn't say Drouin has had 30 goals when in reality he has 50 (quantifiable and able to be proven). He's judging a player's ability, which is subjective. It must necessarily be subjective or no one would ever argue ratings in NHL video games, as it would be marking the quantifiable, true ability level of a player. He can think a player is at a certain level. Even if stats tend toward implying said player is better than that, skill levels aren't set in stone. Therefore it's an opinion. Perhaps misguided, but not wrong, as it's not a factual debate.

No, that's just what they're called. When a statement is made that can be proven true or false, it's a statement of value. That doesn't have anything to do with having a value.