Why must toxic players ruin my games?

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

11-01-2012

Roughly 6 Owls provides a stellar explanation of why it's okay to accept some of the original arguments I was making a few pages back. Now, that argument I was originally going for will more accurately describe the Elo situation than the argument I'm currently using.

But, the new argument is a purely logical argument. All it takes is for AtheistGuy1 to tell me what he believes to be the answer to the questions I answer. The fact of the matter is, even if we can use mathematical and statistical fact to prove that AtheistGuy1's answers to my questions are incorrect (to someone who understands the math and statistics), my new approach will actually logically disprove Elo hell, whether or not AtheistGuy1's answers are mathematically or statistically accurate.

It only requires minimal cooperation on AtheistGuy1's part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtheistGuy1 View Post
I can only assume you've pulled this out of your ass as well. You only have a vague idea what my stance is on the subject. So tell me- how does it feel to be able to conjure up strawmen so quickly?
And in his latest response, instead of reading the whole post and actually answering the simple questions that I asked that would further the argument, he's throwing up a strawman argument and accusing me of doing the same. My comments on your religious beliefs were merely an observation on the amazing irony present in this thread given your choice of summoner name. I don't intend to turn this thread into a debate about religion. That wouldn't be constructive for anyone.

All I want is to continue the logical argument, and all that takes is for AtheistGuy1 to answer this simple set of questions, which I restate yet one more time:

1) If Team A has 1 troll and Team B has 1 troll, if they played an infinitely large sample size of matches against each other, would the win rate approach 50%?
2) If Team A has 2 trolls and Team B has 2 trolls, if they played an infinitely large sample size of matches against each other, would the win rate approach 50%?
3) If Team A has 3 trolls and Team B has 3 trolls, if they played an infinitely large sample size of matches against each other, would the win rate approach 50%?
4) If Team A has 4 trolls and Team B has 4 trolls, if they played an infinitely large sample size of matches against each other, would the win rate approach 50%?

I'm not going to try reasoning you into one answer or another. It's a simple yes or no question. What is, in your opinion, the answer to each of these 4 questions? Please give me an answer so that I can continue with the next step in the argument. The argument can continue whether you say yes or no, it just takes different paths (and I'd be willing to go through both), but for now I'd just like to focus on disproving Elo hell existence based entirely on what your set of beliefs regarding Elo hell are without trying to convince you of anything else. Four yes or no questions, four yes or no answers. That's all your response needs to be. If your response to all four questions is the same answer, then one answer will suffice.

If you're still unwilling to cooperate, then I'm not going to continue. If you want cooperate and give answers to straight-forward questions, then you're being unreasonable obtuse for no other point than to avoid allowing me to make my point in fear that I'll disprove your belief.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

AtheistGuy1

Senior Member

11-01-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughly 6 Owls View Post
AtheistGuy1, the problem is that there isn't evidence. We aren't dealing with a statistic like "Syndra has a 27% win record." Though asking for proof is completely understandable, you're currently ignoring the fact that in this case, what you're asking for doesn't exist. And I doubt it ever will. We're making assumptions to come to a conclusion, and if our logic is sound throughout and leads us to an answer, we usually just let the assumptions be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughly 6 Owls View Post
For instance, (I'm using a science example for your benefit)
I sense condescension.Look, try not to argue science with a science major. You'll see why in a moment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughly 6 Owls View Post
quantum mechanics calculations assume a thing called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It suggests that you can't precisely know two things (usually momentum and position) about a particle exactly at any given instant. Is it true? I have no idea. There is no proof that a particle cannot have it's position and momentum exactly determined at the same time.
The data collected up until this point is insufficient to reject the null hypothesis. As such it will be accepted as tentatively true until such a time comes when it is rejected (If such a time comes at all). One does not need to prove a negative in order to dismiss an argument, study, or statistic. One must first substantiate this before they can be taken seriously in any serious circle.

I'd been trying not to get into this argument because I knew right from the start that pogo had nothing to say. Lo and behold, the moment I apply even the slightest amount of skepticism to his assertion, it all crumbles into the tired old "well I don't need to prove it" and "you prove me wrong" lines of fallacious reasoning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughly 6 Owls View Post
No one has ever done that for something on a quantum level. Is it used in calculations? Yes, all the time. Do people look at quantum mechanic calculations and ask if they have proof for using Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle? Not if they know what they're doing.
I don't know how to respond to this. It's gripping how you can make such mistakes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughly 6 Owls View Post
Essentially, you need to get over the fact that Pogogogogoog... doesn't have proof, because it's not needed. He's using an approximation (a pretty good one, though) to get a model of the real world. Will the model be exact? Probably not. Will it be close enough? Probably. This happens all the time in real life too: the ideal gas law is another example from science where assumptions are made to simplify things and get an end result that mostly agrees with real life.
A model without facts is an asspull. One does not simply make things up and act as though they represent reality without anything to back it up.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

futuresight23

Senior Member

11-01-2012

Ok so we have the framework for the argument that EloHell does not exist. Just as you lose games because of trolls you also win games because of trolls on the other team.

What exactly would be the framework for the argument that EloHell does exist?
How do we differentiate between this EloHell and being unlucky or exactly where you deserve to be?
If there is an EloHell, does this mean there is also an EloHeaven?
Is EloHell an excuse that prevents the player from asking themselves the hard questions they need to in order to improve their play and climb up the ranks?

Haven't played ranked so I do not have any experience to determine one way or another for myself.

Not certain how one would statistically prove the existence or lack thereof Elohell. A lot of variables would have to be determined just to figure out precisely what a troll is and there would be a lot of gray area on the subject.

For right now, all we are doing is theroycrafting or making some hypothesis and going through anecdotal or theoretical explanation as to why that theory or hypothesis may be correct.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

11-01-2012

lol this thread is done.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

11-01-2012

The most ironic part is Atheist talking about the burden of proof argument, given his user name.

"God doesn't exists, and the burden of proof is on the person who believes something exists!" (The typical line an atheist tells someone who believes.)

"Elo DOES exist, and the burden of proof is on the person who doesn't believe it exists!"

a) You've got to be kidding me, regarding this.
b) You've never been exposed to the math we're talking about, but you're telling us it's wrong. I tried being patient and teaching it to you, but you're going to stubbornly sit there and say it's wrong even though you clearly don't understand it.
c) You're asking for data which doesn't exist, and if you understood the argument, you'd know it doesn't exist.

If anyone logical wants to see this debate, open another thread or something and I'll walk you through it. But I'm not going to argue with pure stubbornness.

And maybe the most annoying part is the fact that AtheistGuy1 actually thinks he's right. He thinks he's won the argument by being stubborn and simply refusing to simple answer yes or no questions from the opposing view point.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

11-01-2012

Eh, I kind of hate to do this, because I wanted the discussion to be logical, philosophical, but here it is...

Here's why your Elo is what it is (because it's not Elo hell):

You've played 21 ranked matches. Of those:

9 were with Jax, you average 2.6 kills, 11.4 deaths, and 3 assists per game.
1 game with Lux, and you got 1 kill, 12 deaths, and 1 assist.
1 game with Morde, you got 1 kill, 10 deaths, and 1 assist.
1 game with Nasus, you got 4 kills, 10 deaths, and 11 assists.
1 game with Ryze, you got 0 kills, 9 deaths, 2 assists.
4 games with Singed, you averaged 4 kills, 8.5 deaths, 3.5 assists
1 game with Teemo, you got 3 kills, 14 deaths, 10 assists,
and 3 games with Warwick, where you averaged 3 kills, 8 deaths, and 4 assists.

That's the biggest explanation for your Elo. Period.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

AtheistGuy1

Senior Member

11-01-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by PogoPogoPogoPogo View Post
The most ironic part is Atheist talking about the burden of proof argument, given his user name.

"God doesn't exists, and the burden of proof is on the person who believes something exists!" (The typical line an atheist tells someone who believes.)

"Elo DOES exist, and the burden of proof is on the person who doesn't believe it exists!"

a) You've got to be kidding me, regarding this.
b) You've never been exposed to the math we're talking about, but you're telling us it's wrong. I tried being patient and teaching it to you, but you're going to stubbornly sit there and say it's wrong even though you clearly don't understand it.
c) You're asking for data which doesn't exist, and if you understood the argument, you'd know it doesn't exist.

If anyone logical wants to see this debate, open another thread or something and I'll walk you through it. But I'm not going to argue with pure stubbornness.

And maybe the most annoying part is the fact that AtheistGuy1 actually thinks he's right. He thinks he's won the argument by being stubborn and simply refusing to simple answer yes or no questions from the opposing view point.

It's over, pogo. Just get over it. There's no need to pretend as though you understand my theological position, there is no need to rant, and there is no reason to shy away from my skepticism.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

11-01-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by PogoPogoPogoPogo View Post
refusing to simple answer yes or no questions from the opposing view point.
.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Radinferno

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

11-01-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by PogoPogoPogoPogo View Post
Eh, I kind of hate to do this, because I wanted the discussion to be logical, philosophical, but here it is...

Here's why your Elo is what it is (because it's not Elo hell):

You've played 21 ranked matches. Of those:

9 were with Jax, you average 2.6 kills, 11.4 deaths, and 3 assists per game.
1 game with Lux, and you got 1 kill, 12 deaths, and 1 assist.
1 game with Morde, you got 1 kill, 10 deaths, and 1 assist.
1 game with Nasus, you got 4 kills, 10 deaths, and 11 assists.
1 game with Ryze, you got 0 kills, 9 deaths, 2 assists.
4 games with Singed, you averaged 4 kills, 8.5 deaths, 3.5 assists
1 game with Teemo, you got 3 kills, 14 deaths, 10 assists,
and 3 games with Warwick, where you averaged 3 kills, 8 deaths, and 4 assists.

That's the biggest explanation for your Elo. Period.
score means nothing tbh. you can be winning your lane and get fked over by another lane feeding. i know i had a game as teemo where i went 3/0/5 in the first 20 minutes, but their jungle, bot, and mid got so fed that i was literally able to do nothing during team fights and just got instapopped every fight and ended up 3/8/5. does that mean i was bad that game? not really, though i know i have many ways to improve. it just says that i wasn't able to do anything mid/late game.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

AtheistGuy1

Senior Member

11-01-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by NidoRad View Post
score means nothing tbh. you can be winning your lane and get fked over by another lane feeding. i know i had a game as teemo where i went 3/0/5 in the first 20 minutes, but their jungle, bot, and mid got so fed that i was literally able to do nothing during team fights and just got instapopped every fight and ended up 3/8/5. does that mean i was bad that game? not really, though i know i have many ways to improve. it just says that i wasn't able to do anything mid/late game.
We don't even have to go so far. You could be a great player and simply get smashed by one of those early game stompers (You know the ones).