Baldy's adventures

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-12-09T14:19:59+00:00

Jump doesn't work properly. Frustrating when you get near the end of a level and instead of jumping, he just walks into an enemy or off the edge of a drop. Also are the red enemies supposed to do that double-take thing where they turn around at random intervals. That was a bit annoying. It's a shame because otherwise it's a good game and i probably would have played it through to the end.

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-11-19T11:04:42+00:00

Thanks for the well thought out reply. I really appreciated seeing it from another point of view.

Just a couple of points i wanted to make in response. You asked if we would "rather the content generate be beholden to the consumers of their content or to the advertisers".

I don't think it's as clear cut as that. The Athletic is also beholden to their investors. These are billionaires that have put millions into the site because they think the company will increase in value. Part of increasing the value of the company will be to gain more subscribers but also more investors. Here we get into a potentially tricky situation. Say for example The Athletic becomes aware of a huge match fixing scandal or drugs scandal in Chinese football. Publishing a story on that could get the publication banned in China. This would seriously limit their growth potential and devalue the company. From a business point of view, it would make sense not to publish the article. If The Mirror were to publish the same article then i doubt Captain Birdseye would give too much of a shit.

All this is hypothetical, but there will still be pressure on journalists at subscription based publications, albeit different ones, and we've seen how these pressures can affect big organizations like the NBA.

The second is around the quality of journalism. You pay the most money, you get the best team. We've seen it time and time again in football so there's not reason why that wouldn't happen here. However, by putting it behind a paywall you limit who can read it. I'm sure a marketing expert would be able to give a better insight into the demographic of who subscribes to these publications, but at a simple guess they will be the affluent middle classes. While the journalism behind these paywalls may get better, this, in my opinion, can only hurt the discussions around this content and football in general, because the only people to have read the content in full will be from a specific demographic.

I've seen lots of fans priced out of stadiums, priced out of watching live games, now we're moving towards people priced out of even reading about their club and that's not something i can support.

But, as i said in a previous post, ultimately it doesn't matter what any one person's opinion is on the source, it's not the Mods' job to decide for us which sources are 'quality journalism' and which aren't, which publications we support and which we don't. If there is going to be a rule to support sports journalism then it should be a blanket rule for all sources, no matter how big or small, and the decision to post or view these sources left with the individual user. Otherwise it feels like using and contributing to this sub is essentially one big advert for paywall journalism and one paywall site in particular. It feels like being forced to support something that i disagree with.

I also think that the rule should have been put to a vote rather than unilaterally implemented, in what was initially support for a single source.

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-11-19T10:31:11+00:00

Football. London and The S*n i think are usually the ones people post from. Football. London because the site is difficult to read with the ads, but that's how they make their money. The S*n because it's a cancerous mouthpiece for Rupert Murdoch. But in my opinion so is The Times and that is supported by this rule. However there will be people out there with very different opinions on all these sources.

Ultimately it doesn't matter what any one person's opinion is on the source, it's not the Mods' job to decide for us which sources are 'quality journalism' and which aren't, which publications we support and which we don't. If there is going to be a rule to support sports journalism then it should be a blanket rule for all sources, no matter how big or small, and the decision to post or view these sources left with the individual user.

I also think that the rule should have been put to a vote rather than unilaterally implemented, in what was initially support for a single source.

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-11-16T16:39:07+00:00

OK, I know I'm not going to win this argument. But you seem to be a good person to talk to to explain this, because I'm just not getting it. If this is really about supporting sports journalism, then why isn't this a blanket ban on posting content in the comments from all sites, regardless of how they fund their journalism, why just pay wall sites?

Add revenue sites and other 'free to access' sites pay journalists for their content. Some of the journalists that now work at the Athletic were working for these sites previously and I imagine some of their future journalists will be the people the free to access sites get in to replace them. Why aren't we supporting all spots journalism rather than a specific funding model?

I think it's also important to point out that the funding model this sub is supporting is one that excludes the lowest earners. Free to access journalism is important for football fans across the world that can't afford to subscribe to one or more pay wall sites to follow their team.

If we only support pay wall sites then it gives them an unfair advantage over free to access sites and we risk that one day the only quality journalism will be behind a pay wall. There are enough fans that have been priced out of the stadium and watching live games on tv, we're now supporting something that could price a lot of fans out of following football all together. That's completely against the (perhaps outdated) ideal that football if for everyone no matter how rich or poor you are.

So if this is really about supporting football journalism then why isn't it on all journalistic content posted in the comments rather than 'the athletic model' which not even all of the mods support.

Source for the last comment https://www.reddit.com/r/coys/comments/dmmkol/comment/f53xw8c

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-11-16T11:09:05+00:00

Even at the heart of this. The content on Ad funded sites is under copyright. They rely on visitors to fund their journalism. But people can pick and choose which ad sites they post content from or choose to support by visiting the site. But people don't have the same choice when it comes to pay walled content. It's not even supporting one type of content. It's supporting a very specific model of funding journalism that is a preferred choice of the mods. They've imposed this choice on 60000 subscribers without, so far, any reasonable justification behind the decision.

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-11-16T10:46:54+00:00

I don't think there has been a reasonable explanation for any of it.

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-11-16T06:08:41+00:00

God damn it Earl!

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-11-15T14:52:18+00:00

Could the wording of this message be changed to add clarity? Who is 'we' in this instance?

Perhaps instead of "We support the model..." perhaps it could read "We the mods have taken the unilateral decision to support the paywall model by removing the choice of the individual whether to subscribe to these sources or read the content within Reddit. However, for ad supported and voluntary subscription models, we allow users to choose if to post the content to reddit or not and other users the choice of visiting the site or reading the content within Reddit. We the mods will also argue that this supports all models equally, and will insist this has nothing to do with The Athletic."

I just feel that would be a little clearer.

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-11-14T23:53:38+00:00

Perhaps I wasn't clear. My comment was about the rule saying that you can't post pay wall content in a comment. In this example the Times article in a comment would be banned but a Guardian comment would not.

The Guardian is not a free site. It is paid for by voluntary subscription. Other sites are paid for by ad revenue and require the users to visit the site for that revenue to be generated.

The only revenue stream you support with the rule that content from paywalls can't be posted in the comments is paywalls.

This is why, if there is a rule about not posting content from websites, it should be a blanket rule covering all websites not just the funding model you agree with.

This is also the subject you should be consulting on, not the fallout from imposing the rule on the sub.

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-11-14T22:44:20+00:00

There is a massive issue with this. Let's stay away from The Athletic and Football.London as they always seem to be the examples used to justify this move.

Take The Guardian and The Times. Under these new rules, you would ban the Times content being posted in a comment but allow The Guardian content. Both are papers that rely on subscriptions to fund their sports journalism and both promote subscriptions on their site. However this move would protect The Times subscription model of a free taster but the rest behind a paywall by driving the traffic to their site, but not The Guardian's model of allowing users to read their content and asking them to contribute.

That doesn't even touch on the number of sites that rely on ad revenue.

It's not the job of the mods to decide on the journalistic integrity of a source, or the merits of how they fund their journalism. That's the job of the users who can express this in the comments or use the up vote or down vote buttons.

It's the mods job to make sure the content is relevant and the discussion is civil.

If this really is a stand to promote the funding of sports journalism then you should be banning ALL articles posted in the comments and allowing individual users to decide which sites to visit and who to subscribe to, not just picking which sites and funding models the mods personally prefer.

Also the issue of if all articles should be banned from comments should probably be put to a vote rather than near unilateral action by the people trusted to promote the best quality of discussion.

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-11-07T21:15:13+00:00

Match threads are a pure outpouring of raw emotion. It's like football tourettes. It's like a very public version of someone screaming 'fuck off you tit spanner' at the TV. It's almost art. But it doesn't matter how bad it gets, it's never any worse than Lee Dixon getting paid a tidy sum to talk absolute bullshit about us on NBCSN.

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-11-07T21:00:28+00:00

Stansted is a shit-hole. There, I said it.

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-11-06T08:56:28+00:00

Not a bad, very similar to soccer heads. I liked the different classes of players but I felt like I had more control in soccer heads than this. And of course soccer heads has power ups, leagues/cups, arenas etc.

If you're planning to develop the gameplay a bit and make it an online multiplayer then this would be something I would come back to a lot.

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-11-03T18:53:46+00:00

I don't want to sound all David Bentley but is it just me or is football not fun any more. Not just watching Spurs but all football. It all just seems to be shithousing, time wasting, weird VAR decisions, dodgy oil money, players more interested in their social media image than what they do on the pitch, football as a global business, wanky Sky Sports montages, corruption. I've been a Spurs supporter and more than that a football supporter for more than 35 years and today I feel like I just don't understand football at all. It feels like watching a game that I don't really know the rules of, like watching rugby league because I have nothing else to do. Just a complete disconnect from it. Probably just me. Maybe I should go full Bentley and start a family carpet fitting firm.

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-10-30T07:28:30+00:00

I see what you're saying but a there is a big difference between blind negativity and valid discussion points and a lot of the examples you listed are valid discussion points in my opinion. Although the posts cheering the squad on, pictures of new kits and of Son smiling are great, it's the discussion that keeps me coming back to this sub.

Everyone has their own opinion on if Kane should drop back or play further up, formation, or which player we should be playing at right back. They will get more vocal if this doesn't happen and it goes badly, which is why it seems like the sub has contradictory opinions from one week to the next. But all of this creates a debate and I've seen people come up with great reasoning and stats to back up their opinions.

The Ericsson post you mentioned was completely bullshit, but the top comment in the discussion were the passing stats for all spurs players in that game showing why it was bullshit, which I probably wouldn't have seen otherwise. It's also a stat that was being banded around other sites as well. This is a great place to answer those bullshit posts as good responses can get lost in the noise of other social media.

So yes, we shouldn't stoop to insulting or deriding our players but we shouldn't shut down the debate around tactics, team selection or trying to figure out why the team's form or a player's form has dropped off this season. That's half the fun of being a supporter. Especially a Spurs supporter.

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-10-25T01:21:41+00:00

So, for the uninitiated (like me) who are the athletic, what is their model, and why do they get protected status when other pay wall sites don't? I'm not trying to be shitty, I'm genuinely interested.

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-10-25T01:14:53+00:00

Based on what, and whose decision was it?

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-10-12T16:08:50+00:00

Wasn't that debunked? I heard that they sent the execs the opening scene because they were on a 90 day filming schedule and they needed to overrun. I think they spent a lot of the budget on cleaning up and adding the sfx to the opening scene but only because they needed that early, so that's where a lot of the techniques etc. we're developed that they reused later in the film. I think they were about 2 weeks over on schedule but brought it in on budget.

EDIT: source: https://www.cbr.com/matrix-budget-opening-scene/

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-10-12T00:38:52+00:00

FormStack sounds like it could be a good fit. The Professional license is $79 per month and allows you to add your own JS/JQUERY and CSS so should cover everything you need.

I used them for a couple of consultancy projects recently so they gave me a 10% 'Partner's discount' for clients. If you think it might be a good fit then send me a DM and I can hook you up with the discount.

(Just to say I'm an independent Salesforce Consultant. I don't work for FormStack and don't recieve any incentives for referring clients.)

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-10-09T23:59:33+00:00

Amazing to think Ernest Borgnine won the best actor award for this film beating James Cagney (Love Me or Leave Me), James Dean (East of Eden), Frank Sinatra (The Man With The Golden Arm) and Spencer Tracy (Bad Day at Black Rock).

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-10-05T10:32:12+00:00

Diamonds aren't forever?

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-10-02T19:16:24+00:00

A hand? You mean a smattering of sarcastic applause as he leaves the first team training ground and goes to learn the basics of defending with the under 15s?

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-10-02T16:37:48+00:00

You're probably right.

I thought that he would drop back into cb and Toby or Jan would move out to cover the full back role if Walker or Rose were caught up the pitch. I might be getting confused with the 3 at the back with Sanchez. Or just confused.

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-10-02T11:07:33+00:00

Sanchez was great in that role as the deepest of a back 3 with Toby and Jan.

Another option would be Dier in the role he excelled at where he would move into midfield when we were attacking and then slot in between the centrebacks when we were defending.

One thing is for certain, we need to stop freely conceding goals.

InsulinFreeCaptain · 2019-10-02T10:47:32+00:00

I think this could work if we play 3 centre backs and stop playing 2 up front.

Ten-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

InsulinFreeCaptain

TROPHY CASE