Game 4 - MYM.Mondragon vs coL.CrunCher - TSL3 Ro16 Match 8

http://www.pokerstrategy.com/?referer=TeamLiquid - the world's largest poker school and community presents the TSL3

All VODs (spoiler-free):
http://www.pokerstrategytsl3.com/vods

About the TSL:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=199082

Category:

Gaming

Tags:

• TSL
• TSL3
• Day[9]
• Husky
• TeamLiquid
• Mondragon
• CrunCher
• Starcraft 2
• Starcraft
• PokerStrategy
• Ro16
• Esports
• teamliquid

[xthebumpx]

@gamlerik1 "Easy now. Statements are never objective, unless you are religious and the statements come from your God." This statement is so self-defeating it's not even funny. Either it's subjective itself, which makes it next to meaningless, or objective, which means it disproves itself.

[andrewkilroyable]

@tookedeamon Trololol. Random unit names lead to insta-win. Brood Lords.

Aye, you're right with the cheese thing alas.

[tookedeamon]

@andrewkilroyable

It's called siege tanks or colossus.

Also, cheese generally happens before the 4-5 minute mark.

[Casshern027]

HD is the equilibrium ;)

[PrimaVista10]

@CakeSoupy & Battleschnodder, The chicken was finger-lickin-fuckin-good. Subjective or Objective the point is it was fucking good. :P

[Battleschnodder]

@CakeySoupy if his comentating is bad or good is opinion. but does he as a comentator a good job? Numbers say yes. the qualities, a comentator should have are defined. if you like it or not, somebody with charisma, wit, knowledge and a conection with the people fullfills an objective definition of a highclass(a good) comentator

[CakeySoupy]

@Battleschnodder Even with your definition of objective being "something that is near absolute" the statement "Day9 is a good commentator" is still not objective."and is liked by many. That is no opinion. Its fact." yes its true that many like Day9, but those are all peoples opinions. Opinions are volatile and can change in a short time - so already this isn't an absolute. Again reiterating the convoluted chicken example - what is "good" in terms of commentating varies too much to be absolute.

[CakeySoupy]

@Battleschnodder "He has objec... a lot about the map" - These statements are subjective, they are all relative and based on opinion of what a good commentator should. What is considered "fast on the map" or having good SC2 knowledge? Is this relative to other commentators (Artosis/Tasteless ect.) or a viewer or a pro? What if viewers consider a more enthusiastic shout-cast (Husky) to be "good" and not an analytic one ? Many think Day9 is a good commentator, but there will be others that don't.

[Battleschnodder]

@CakeySoupy I said nothinlg is absolute. You should read. Every statement is subjective. It doesnt have to be a opinion, but only I see a chicken, and I could be halucinating, etc, etc. After your definition, "day9 is a good comentator" would be objective as well, because I dont say, Day9 is liked by everybody, but that he has objective qualities: He is fast in getting things on the map, knows a lot about the game and is liked by many. That is no opinion. Its fact.

[CakeySoupy]

@Battleschnodder Actually debating language on youtube (but I'm hella bored! =D). Statements can be objective. Example? That is a chicken. However once you add opinion it makes the statement subjective. Example? That is a good chicken (eating chicken atm). Why? What is considered a good chicken? Is it friendly ? Lays many eggs? Clucks softly? Clucks loudly? What is considered "good" varies. Thus "Day9 is a good commentator" is subjective not objective, although I do agree with your statement. =)