Talking Footy

Yeah, so give me Newcastle, England and ANZAC day.

NSWAFL wrote:

No comment on the Rioli/Beetson medal for the smart award?

Not a bad suggestion. What do others think?

Beetson yeah, sorry and this is the truth and I don't mean to disrespect anyone, but I have no idea who the other guy is.

Old AFL player, digger?

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

Beetson yeah, sorry and this is the truth and I don't mean to disrespect anyone, but I have no idea who the other guy is.

Old AFL player, digger?

Ahh ok, I'll watch it later.

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

Yeah, so give me Newcastle, England and ANZAC day.

You are getting none of them.

OK, here's a big tip for all you keen BS file players!

Do not challenge a claim that could have multiple meanings until you know the context of the claim!

All the claimant has to do is prove their interpretation of the claim to win! The fact the challenger has a different interpretation of the claim, or that the claim could have more than one meaning is irrelevant. This may not be the interpretation that was used when the claim was made!

I would suggest in cases such as these the potential challenger asks for clarification of the meaning of the claim before challenging it.

Example 1: Beaussie made a claim about how the storm's ANZAC day game format is copied from the AFL's ANZAC day concept. Parra challenged the claim before understanding exactly what Beaussie meant. In fact he even asked a question of Beaussie about RL v AFL, but did not wait for Beaussie to answer this question before challenging. Bad move Parra! If he had simply waited for and requested clarification he either would not have challenged and lost, or alternatively, would have challenged under the correct interpretation and potentially won.

Example 2: NSWAFL claimed AFL is played in Newcastle. We all know what this means and we all know it's true because Newcastle has AFL clubs that play in a competition. Parra jumped the gun again . If he had asked for clarification from NSWAFL such as "are you saying Newcastle is a team in the actual AFL, or that there are AFL clubs in that part of NSW?" he would have collected the information required to make an appropriate challenge. Unfortunately he did not and it will result in an easy Best and Smartest point to NSWAFL.

Remeber the BS file isnt there to trick people with ambiguous terms! It's there to challenge legitimate BS claims.

Well I hope this handy tip has helped all you BS file players out there! Happy playing! :D

Xman wrote:

OK, here's a big tip for all you keen BS file players!

Do not challenge a claim that could have multiple meanings until you know the context of the claim!

All the claimant has to do is prove their interpretation of the claim to win! The fact the challenger has a different interpretation of the claim, or that the claim could have more than one meaning is irrelevant. This may not be the interpretation that was used when the claim was made!

I would suggest in cases such as these the potential challenger asks for clarification of the meaning of the claim before challenging it.

You first learnt this in BS File one didnt you!? Not from the examples you gave.

Tell me Xman, what does Heartland mean again? Is it 'the core or most vital area' by any chance? My interpretation the Earth is RL Heartland is hence very easy to prove, and it dont matter if your interpretation of Heartland is different. Next time I suggest you take your own advice before "jumping the gun" Xman Bestest and smartest points to me! :D

Xman wrote:

OK, here's a big tip for all you keen BS file players!

Do not challenge a claim that could have multiple meanings until you know the context of the claim!

All the claimant has to do is prove their interpretation of the claim to win! The fact the challenger has a different interpretation of the claim, or that the claim could have more than one meaning is irrelevant. This may not be the interpretation that was used when the claim was made!

I would suggest in cases such as these the potential challenger asks for clarification of the meaning of the claim before challenging it.

Example 1: Beaussie made a claim about how the storm's ANZAC day game format is copied from the AFL's ANZAC day concept. Parra challenged the claim before understanding exactly what Beaussie meant. In fact he even asked a question of Beaussie about RL v AFL, but did not wait for Beaussie to answer this question before challenging. Bad move Parra! If he had simply waited for and requested clarification he either would not have challenged and lost, or alternatively, would have challenged under the correct interpretation and potentially won.

Example 2: NSWAFL claimed AFL is played in Newcastle. We all know what this means and we all know it's true because Newcastle has AFL clubs that play in a competition. Parra jumped the gun again . If he had asked for clarification from NSWAFL such as "are you saying Newcastle is a team in the actual AFL, or that there are AFL clubs in that part of NSW?" he would have collected the information required to make an appropriate challenge. Unfortunately he did not and it will result in an easy Best and Smartest point to NSWAFL.

Remeber the BS file isnt there to trick people with ambiguous terms! It's there to challenge legitimate BS claims.

Well I hope this handy tip has helped all you BS file players out there! Happy playing! :D

Thanks for the clarification Xman. =D>

Yes thanks for the clarification also Xman :D

Well in about 24 hrs our first BS file claim will pass the specified 7 days of debate. Therefore it's almost time to adjudicate the winner and award some points.

However, to date no RL fan has agreed to join me in the adjudication process despite a few receiving personal invitations via pm. Personally I am very keen for a RL fan to be invovled as it will add some balance to a somewhat subjective concept. But I can not twist your arms. If you genuinely dont want to be involved then so be it.

Therefore, as the claims reach their 7 day expiry I will judge them myself in as objective manner as possible, taking all the presented evidence in to account. In the mean time if a RL fan member changes his/her mind I will be happy to involve you if I feel you possess at least some objectivity.

Xman

You're speaking BS, I've agreed to join you in adjudication, you ignored it cause you likea da powa.

King-Eliagh wrote:

You're speaking BS, I've agreed to join you in adjudication, you ignored it cause you likea da powa.

I pm d you and u ignored me : (

If you want to join in then pm me

oh. I didnt see the pm, i'll just check it.

Cant say I received the pm Xman. Although i did notice an extra message a few days ago and thought I'd lost an arcade title but hadnt so dont know where your pm has gone. Resend please.