Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 16:14:17 GMT -5
Thank you ErixonStone for a reasonable, rational, factual post that pretty much puts a lid on this, once again. boffo - I'll present your appeal to the board of in-crowd elders, who will review your original application to make sure you didn't put a check-mark in the wrong box on the clique application. I have no doubt that your role as President Ranger will be granted ASAP. |
|
|
|
Post by paulus on Sept 30, 2019 16:23:21 GMT -5
While the OP may appear to have a valid point, this discussion has been had many times, and the idea of a design clique affecting the TGCT schedule has been debunked every time. Not been party to previous discussions - how was potential in-group bias debunked previously? I partnered with Dan to assemble the CC Tour schedule for two seasons, over which period Dan and I scheduled 164 events. Not a single time was a course chosen over any other course because the designer was a friend. Not accusing anyone of doing anything consciously - and definitely not questioning anyone's probity or morals here. So, again, while it may be a worthwhile discussion to have, because in-grouping and out-grouping happens in social settings, you also have to bring the evidence that supports the idea that it is happening in this specific instance. You don't have any evidence to suggest that the TGCT schedule is affected by social grouping. Until you bring some, then please stop. This is a fair push back and I will stop. But my point has never been about specific instances or individuals. I can cite much evidence that shows that in any freely formed group - unconscious bias through in-group affinity *will* exist. If you think that's incorrect, then we'll agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by ezzinomilonga on Sept 30, 2019 16:27:55 GMT -5
Sorry to say this, but i think ( and not from today, to be honest), that a huge part of the real problem here is that between some of you there are clearly problems to solve. Old rust.
And this is poisoning every possibility of constructive debate about courses, scheduling..everything related with designing.
What I feel is a not sane, subterranean..and also a bit hypocrite "territorial fight" about some kind of status..or who knows what.
I don't know it..and I don't care to know it. Are your business. But you should start to see, recognize and admit that this thing is poisoning the community..and it happens everytime these themes are touched. At every level.
I mean..i'm here only by few months, so I can't be aware of what happened in these years between all of you..maybe any of you have good reasons to act and to react in this way..but is impossible don't see that this kind of debates becomes every time and almost immediately, in fact as I it would be a personal question and so debating became just "complaining", to propose something became arrogance..and so go on..and this is..wrong. And stupid. And sad. Really sad.
This was also the main reason why my first thought has been "shut up, stay out of this" reading this thread. Cause I already saw in other threads what happens. Every single time. And I was sure this would be the end, here.
And I can be stupid, or naive, or both of those things, but really I can't see why we can't talk about this kind of things..just normally. Without accuses, hidden insults (sometimes not so hidden, to be honest..), simply accepting the idea that everything can be improved and that dialoguing and sharing feedbacks is always the best way to improve.
Also considering that this is a bloody forum, after all.
And that the principle in which some of you seems to believe, that in some way a great designer can't create a course with some mistake (or limit) about playability and then his work is for sure EVERYTIME tour worthy..this is a total bullsh!t, for me. Sorry, but it is.
No one is perfect. No one.
And to be fully honest, i can't understand why, when the discussion touches the work of the designers, the only feedbacks really accepted are the good ones. Unless the critics don't came from another designer (if he is a respected one, otherwise is, again, war). Or a friend. And this can be fine, and could also be obvious, when the critic/discussion is about the design's quality, cause only a designer can see and understand exactly what he sees.. but is the critic about playability, that here is just a taboo.
Even the critic about a scheduled course is taboo. As if even a scheduler can't be wrong. And if even is wrong, he is a volunteer so is always offensive to move a critic (no matters if moved with the only desire to give a constructive feedback, something really easy to ask, not so much to ear and to respect, it seems) to a scheduled course.
Sorry..but this state of mind is just sad. Not only totally wrong. But sad.
To receive a critic..or an advice..when is given with education and no intention to do harm, but just for the real desire to see things go better, don't should be the most natural thing, here?
Am I so wrong to consider all these taboos just as a matter of ego, much more than caused by rational, real motivations?
We really must deal with this kind of taboo?
A taboo stupid as every other taboo always is?
About designers, I wish also to say that the surprising thing is that all of you are people full of common sense and definitely really nice people in the community. Often you are not only designers, but real columns of this community. But... if some of you receive a critic about playability by "simply" a player..i have not see a single time in 6 months in which someone accepted the critic. Never.
Never saw a "mmmmm..it could be true". Never a "yeah..i probably misjudged this thing, here" or stuff like this.
A great designer seems can never fails.
This is not just about EGO?
And is correct (and again, sad) also to say that i noted a certain number of times in which, starting from a critic made by a single guy (possibly pretty unknown..and possibly who is using even not exactly kind words, probably cause he was pissed off for an awful round or something), the only real answer has been a group's attack against the single who criticized. Using, in the end, as justification for this move, his harsh words.. or the quote "just kidding"..that after you saw 6-7 guys attacking a good number of times a single guy..it sounds pretty silly to read.
Sorry..but this attitude has an exact name in any situation..that is not "to defend a friend or a mate"..but is "squadrismo".
I mean..c'mon..i don't think here can be seriously someone who is not aware and absolutely thankful for the unbelievable work of designers, rangers, schedulers..all the people who decided to actually work for free..for simple passion. So..why to talk about this things, about anything, with kindness and education, in a constructive way, should ever be considered as a taboo?
Some post above, there is a quote from Reebdog that if it wants to mean exactly what it seems to mean, is really terrible to read. Cause that quote sounds more or less as if the courses made by the top designers are picked more easily on the tour cause people has the right to play the best courses.. being so implicit that their courses are ALWAYS the best possible courses to play on tour.
And if the sense of the quote is really this..again..this is a bullsh!t.
Geiranger, played this week on CC and made by a fantastic designer, just to give you a fast recent example, suffers for an issue that is devastating, if it happens to a player while he plays on tour. On the hole 3 (or 4 maybe?), if your ball falls from the fairway into the creek at the right, it don't goes OB, but rolls into the fairway of another hole. 90 meters downhill. There is no way to recover from there. But then, if you ask for the unplayable lie, the stupid game places your ball always in that fairway. You can only end that hole with 7 strokes over par and your tournament is dead and gone.
Is fault of the designer? Of course not..but is an issue, a flaw of the course.
All this just to say that :
1) even a course made by a great designer can be not perfect.
2) even assuming that the course is a great course to play, in any case, could not fit necessarily with the specific tour's needs. For various reasons.
3) and most important thing, a great design don't means necessarily a great course. Are two different things. Different as can be art from architecture and/or engineering.
I fully understand that there is an elite of designers. Is not only a right thing. Is a beautiful thing. And is a great luck for all of us. Is our treasure.
But if elite means "we can't be wrong and we need no dialogue"..this is another thing. And is not about elite. Is about to live in an ivory tower.
And it means also that improvements are not possible. Never.
We have a problem in our community about this. We can pretend to don't see it..we can deny that sometimes ego pushes things in the wrong direction..ok. We can do it.
But if we forget or lose the desire to confrontate our ideas, actions, doubts with other guys..if we are not in condition to say, sometimes "yes, I'm wrong" about what we do here, on every level, I mean, after a critic (when this happens in a fair, healthy way..not with accusations or arrogance or things like this..), if we start to believe that something is not arguable, that experience and to be involved more than other people give us some kind of different "status" between all the other guys who are part of this community, this community will be a bit more poor every day.
Just this.
Sorry for the verbosity.
|
|
|
|
Post by boffo on Sept 30, 2019 16:31:02 GMT -5
Thank you ErixonStone for a reasonable, rational, factual post that pretty much puts a lid on this, once again. boffo - I'll present your appeal to the board of in-crowd elders, who will review your original application to make sure you didn't put a check-mark in the wrong box on the clique application. I have no doubt that your role as President Ranger will be granted ASAP. I hope it won't be too tough to find new rangers when they find out their membership dues far exceed the annual pittance they receive to thank them for a job well done. |
|
|
|
Post by Oscar C on Sept 30, 2019 16:32:41 GMT -5
How do I get into the clique?
I have a puppy and a mother in-law ready to go!
|
|
|
|
Post by rhino4life on Sept 30, 2019 17:21:30 GMT -5
What guys like David and other who may feel they way they do about course selections need to realize is that back in the old days you had a certain number of designers who were really top notch. Now it seems everyone is coming out of the box swinging with the first designs, we have endless contests out there to be a part of which only adds to the numbers of quality courses out there. Its a dog eat dog world (no pun intended).
I am actually a little disappointed this escalated to what it did even with some of the good comments by Justin and Reeb. Nothing against you Eric but you could of likely diffused some of this right away by moderating instead of tagging the schedulers while getting that popcorn ready which is only going raise the level of drama. Maybe this was a personal thing between DAM and DAWG or whatever. I don't know. Just seemed much to do about nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Celtic Wolf on Sept 30, 2019 17:59:09 GMT -5
ezzinomilonga Designers do get constructive criticism about their courses via private messages or on streams, I think they prefer it that way as it's not aired in public. Sometimes if you go on the different flight threads you'll see players just flat out criticising a course with no offer of a solution to improve it. When you put a lot of work into a course and someone calls it 'a joke' or 'crap' without explanation it can make you defensive. If I get such criticism then I will confront them and ask why, because if you don't then more will jump on the bandwagon and it would be a reversal of what you described in your post. I'll take criticism if I find it fair and hopefully learn from it, but if I think it's just someone looking for something to blame then I'll react. I've probably left myself open now if my latest course gets a tour spot. đ
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 18:02:04 GMT -5
Fair points Ezzino and David, I apologize.
At times, itâs unfortunate to have the role of âglobal moderatorâ on topics that I also have a personal opinion about, and I sometimes fail to leave my personal baggage at the door. Again, I think thatâs a fair point.
To that end, however, it can be equally as frustrating to refrain from conversations for which I do have a stake in, simply because I have a moderator role. Iâm no better than anyone in this community just because I volunteer in the ways that I do, so I donât want my voice as a community member silenced, right? But I need to do a better job with my tone in those conversations.
|
|
|
|
Post by rhino4life on Sept 30, 2019 18:57:39 GMT -5
No worries man. I get it. I dont think i would have the mental fortitude to stay silent or neutral in some discussions either.
This just kind of reminded me of last season when every so often someone usually from xbox started a thread about how unfair or pointless the tours were because of the ps4 dominance. These posts were generally met with ridicule, practice more, or some other kind of utter nonsense from the masses not on xbox. Fast forward further into the season and Andre makes mention how unfair the tours are or we need to consider changes, ect....and its met with fanfare and applause, some blowback, but got to the point where it seemed to gain traction for consideration.
Now this is not a question for anyone in particular to answer but between these similar situations was the messenger more important than the message?
Shouldn't be, but the optics didn't look great in the past and did not look good here today when several DAM guys jumped into the fray. While they have every right to chime in here it makes it easy to use the term "cliques" in TGCT debates....right, wrong, or indifferent.
|
|
|
|
Post by ErixonStone on Sept 30, 2019 19:18:48 GMT -5
how was potential in-group bias debunked previously? As it relates to TGCT event scheduling, I discussed, at length, the selection process that Dan and I used. I listed the names of all designers who had multiple courses appear on CC in season 4 (88 events, 80 of which Dan and I scheduled). It turned out that the designers appearing the most often on tour were the ones with the highest volume of quality courses over that span. That's exactly what you would expect from a fair process. my point has never been about specific instances or individuals. The suggestion in the OP specifically addresses a perceived problem in scheduling courses for TGCT events. To show that any fix is needed, one would need to demonstrate that such a problem exists in this specific case. Outlining how something could potentially be a problem is far from showing that a problem exists. If you don't demonstrate a problem, you're quite literally fixing something that isn't broken. I think this is the core of the disagreement; you're talking about what could be - and you're not wrong - but not talking about what is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 19:30:54 GMT -5
Again, fair point, but the DAM is meaningless as it relates to TGCT. The Admins of TGCT, and the schedulers of events, do not recognize the DAM as anything of preference, nor should they.
I understand where youâre coming from, but a silly little goat picture on our banners doesnât mean we arenât all individuals, too. We are definitely a group of friends who enjoy designing together, but we donât conspire to gang up on people. Itâs more probable that we just think alike on some of these topics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ray on Sept 30, 2019 19:56:13 GMT -5
Wasnât even my fault this time đȘđ»đ
1) If you donât think thereâs cliques, youâre probably in one.
2) If there werenât, why is it the same group ALWAYS come out defending them when itâs mentioned
3) If you change nothing, nothing changes đ
4) See 1)
|
|
|
|
Post by mattf27 on Sept 30, 2019 21:06:28 GMT -5
Again, fair point, but the DAM is meaningless as it relates to TGCT. The Admins of TGCT, and the schedulers of events, do not recognize the DAM as anything of preference, nor should they. I understand where youâre coming from, but a silly little goat picture on our banners doesnât mean we arenât all individuals, too. We are definitely a group of friends who enjoy designing together, but we donât conspire to gang up on people. Itâs more probable that we just think alike on some of these topics. At this point the DAM is mostly just a group of guys making jokes about each others wives, sending bird emojis, and whining about their digital and real life golf games. On the occasions we talk design at all, we mostly just make fun of each other once again.
I suppose I'm as guilty as anyone of being the "insider tour regular," so I can vouch for the fact that any sort of in-group is pure fiction. I don't push my courses, I don't talk to the rangers, I just publish, and if they're good, someone picks them up sometimes. If you make consistently well-executed courses that are playable, you're going to get on tour, end of story. Being completely honest, a lot of the guys who go complaining about how they can't make in roads on the "clique" and get their courses noticed aren't as good as they think they are, and generally make the same mistakes repeatedly. The top guys are usually happy to share technique, strategy, etc. all you've got to do is ask.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terry Grayson on Sept 30, 2019 21:32:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by xEB50x on Sept 30, 2019 21:56:08 GMT -5
actually the tunes not bad if it was 1972. Much better then I thought it would beâïž |
|
