text:
Down to one…
TORONTO — So the list of arbitration eligible players is down to just one Mr. Alex Rios for the Blue Jays. On Friday, Rios' camp exchanged salary figures with Toronto.
The Jays offer came to $4.535 million — exactly a $2 million raise over what Rios made in his first year of eligibility in '07. Rios' agent, Paul Kinzer, requested a 2008 salary of $5.65 million, representing more than a $1 million gap between the sides.
The Blue Jays are discussing a multiyear extension with Rios, so the exchange of salary figures was merely a procedural move. Any extension Rios garners would likely be of the four-year variety, which would cover his arb years and his first year of free-agency. Since Rios is in the fold through 2010, the Jays don't need to hurry to reach an agreement with him.
So, the two sides could very well settle on a one-year pact if the negotiation process really starts to drag on. Neither Rios nor the club will want to have talks go into the season, so if a longterm deal is to be had, it'll have to be settled before the end of Spring Training. Needless to say, there's plenty of time for the sides to work a contract out.
On Friday, after announcing new deals for Scott Downs, Marco Scutaro, Jason Frasor, Brian Tallet and Gus Chacin, Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi had this to say:
"The nice thing is we do have Alex here for the next three years and we are going to talk to him and continue to talk to him about a multiyear deal. We'll see how it plays out.
"We've got all of Spring Training to continue to talk and we've got the course of the year to continue to talk," Ricciardi said. "But we don't like to talk to a player during the year and I'm sure a player doesn't really want to talk about it during the year.
"We've got all of February and all of March to try to work a long-term deal out and, if it doesn't come to fruition, we've got him for the next two years and we can continue to try to work on it. We're putting our best foot forward."
DOWNS: Good ol' Scott said he was still in shock and in awe of the three-year, $10 million deal he signed with the Jays. Maybe he should be, considering that handing such a deal to a 31-year-old situational lefty with one really good season on his resume could easily come as a surprise to many people.
Then again, in the current market for pitchers (Brian Fuentes wants $6.5 million!), the deal that Downs agreed to might actually be below market value. Downs decided against being a free agent next winter and will now make $2.25 million in '08, $3.75 million in '09 and $4 million in '10.
Ricciardi noted that there was no language in Downs' contract about him spending any time as a starter or receiving any potential bonuses for starts. Last year, Downs settled into a late-inning role for the Jays, and thrived after the Jays decided leaving him in the bullpen full-time was the best move.
"I think with them keeping me in the same role for a whole season and not bumping me back and forth to the rotation like they did a couple years prior, I think it allowed me to get comfortable and to know the situation," Downs said.
Said Ricciardi: "I don't see him as a starter. I think it's a possibility at some point, but with what we have with [Casey]Janssen, who we'd like to have as a starter at some point, and Chacin and [Jesse] Litsch and some of the kids we have coming behind them, I think we probabably just value him more as that late-inning left-handeded guy, who's still capable of getting righthanders out."
SCUTARO: The Jays' new supersub was given a two-year deal worth $2.65 million. Ricciardi said he likes having a veteran on the bench for the next two years, especially considering David Eckstein is only wrapped up to play shortstop for one season.
"We like the player and it gives us some assurance at that position. Eckstein's here for one year and we don't know how that's going to work out down the road. He gives us a little assurance in that position. I like our bench and I like our depth. I like the security of having a veteran there. We just thought it was a nice fit for us."
OTHERS: Frasor signed a one-year deal worth $1.125 million, Tallet signed a one-year contract worth $640,000 and Chacin — injured for most of the last two seasons — nearly doubled his pay and will make $725,000 next year. Beyond the signings, Ricciardi said he should have a better indication of how the roster will set up by the middle or end of next week. So, perhaps the backup catching situation will be resolved in the next few days.
Stay tuned…
35 Comments
I am surprised at the numbers for Rios being $4.5 and $5.6 million; I would have guessed higher than that for the 1 year.
It will be interesting to see at what price they sign him for if the deal is 4-5 years.
I'm personally not as concerned about Down's age as I would be for a starter-since he only goes 50 innings a season and has been injury free.
I am surprised at Chacin's deal-it's double what it was last year. why the huge raise for a guy that only pitched 27 innings for us last year and appears destined to pitch in AAA. Although, it isn't a lot of money.
Personally I like Chacin,he had pretty good numbers as a minor leaguer. In 2004 he led all minor leaguers with 18 wins. In AA he was 16-2 with 109 SO's and a 2.86 ERA in 141.2 Innings. He was then promoted to AAA and posted a 2-0 record with 14 SO and a 2.31 ERA in 11.2 innings. His MLB stats are 25-15 with a 4.18 ERA wich is above average. If it was up to me, if he showed up healthy to spring training, Chacin would be my #4 or #5 guy and Litsch would be in AAA honing his skills. Remember Chachin was slotted to be our #3 guy last year till injured. My best memory of him was when Boston came to town at the start of last year, and it was Chacin vs Matsuzaka. I for sure thought Boston was going to win with the matchup, but Chacin out pitched him and took the win 2-1. Lets not even mention how much Matsuzaka cost…
Chacin is only 27, so he still has a little upside on an already solid start. It would look nice with a lefty in our rotation as well.
As much, as I like how Chacin pitched for us in 2005; it's been downhill ever since. Part of it is probably injury related; but I have this nagging feeling that the more teams see him, the better they hit him. I think he lives by his deceptive motion, but once batters figure it out, they hit him well. He's also had a problem with pitch count and even in 2005 rarely got past the 6th inning.
If he's healthy, I'm sure they will give him a shot for the 5th spot, but putting him 4th would eliminate either McGowan or Marcum which isn't going to happen.
I totally agree we need a lefty stater, particulary against NY and Boston, I'm just not convinced he's the guy.
I also think Chacin didn't help himself with management in getting the DUI charge in spring training last year.
Chacin went 2-1 in 5 starts for us last year, so when he is healthy, he can be effective. In reality, however, there are now better choices for the #5 spot. I see him as a starter in AAA that can be called on for injury relief. If he pitches really well, he may earn a bullpen spot with the big club as a long reliever.
He may endear himself with the coaching staff this Spring if he exercises his elbow more in the gym and less in the bar. Wasn't it Casey Stengel who said, "It's not sex that wears my guys out, it's staying up all night looking for it"?
As far as needing a lefty in the rotation, that is not apparent from the stats. Both Haliday and Burnet had a better ERA against lefties by over a full point. McGowan was very good against righties (2.71) but lefties hit him well (5.40). Marcum and Litsch were equally effective against both sides. Jansen was better against lefties but his ERA was so low it didn't matter, and lefties just killed Chacin (8.53) in his limited appearances. Go figure.
ERA is a very misleading stat when reviewing splits. The only accurate measurement is batting average against or BAA. The career numbers are as follows:
BAA lefts:.263
BAA rights: .251
BAA lefts:.241
BAA rights:.222
BAA lefts:.236
BAA rights:.276
BAA lefts:.269
BAA rights:.245
BAA lefts:.263
BAA rights:.232
BAA lefts:.308
BAA rights:.229
BAA left:.279
BAA right:.252
BAA left:.196
BAA right:.279
Accardo seems to be unique; but other than him that lefty righty thing seems to be quite consistent.
Sorry I forgot this. I find the split stat does not really work on the Blue Jays site. The best site I've seen for stats is
J.P. Riccardi get ragged on pretty hard many, but I really think he did a great job this offseason.
So far he has locked up Matt Stairs for two years at a reasonable rate, solidified the line-up and the short-stop position through signing eckstein, significantly upgraded the Jays defense and not giving up too much offense in the aquisition of Rolen and now he locked up a solid reliever in Downs for three years, signed a solid bench player in Scutaro and avoided arbitration with the exception of Rios.
If he can sign Rios to a 4 or 5 year deal, lock up Aaron Hill long term, aquire a solid back-up catcher, and either add a low investment/ high return arm to compete for the 5th starter slot OR get a solid arm via trade to sure up the rotation I will be very excited going into opening day.
I agree that with a pitcher like Chacin or League, with limited starts, BAA may give a better indication of his pitching than ERA splits because they didn't pitch that much last year. In the end, though, it is ERA that wins ball games, not BAA. The larger the sample (the more batters a pitcher faces), the more significant ERA becomes in relation to BAA. ERA is not as good a stat for bullpen pitchers as it is for starters, because of the situational nature of bullpen pitching, but for a starter with a goodly number of innings under his belt, if more lefties score against him than right handers, that is a pretty good indication of how he goes about his business out there.
As far as different stats go from site to site, I see no reason to believe Yahoo over the Blue Jays, which is really the MLB site.
I couldn't agree with you more. Just lock those guys up, and we are good for 4th in the division over the length of their contracts.
One other thing gsumner:
Even your BAA stats prove my original point, which is that the Jays right handed staff do very well against lefties, and they have no real pressing need for a left handed starter. The 8 pitchers you mentioned, using your stats, held lefties to an average of .257. That's top of the order stuff in any man's language, and even if you added 3 or 4 lefties to the lineup, I doubt you could improve on it that much.
Now, to be fair, they held right handed batters to a .248 average, but any lefty you brought in would have to be very effective against righties as well or he would swell the BAA against righties. Since the staff faces far more right handed batters that left, even a small increase in BAA against right handers would result in a lot more hits than a similar decrease in the left hand side.
ERA is calculated by taking the number or earned runs, multiplied by 9 (for 9 innings) and divided by the number of innings pitched. Total era is a good statistic. However, figure out how they calculate era for splits and you'll realize it's not that good for comparision purposes.
I'll give you a small clue. Take for example, if a left handed batter gets a hit, and is driven in by a right handed batter, which split does the earned run get charged to, the pitchers left or right? The point is, regardless of which one it's charged to, it isn't accurate because both left and right handed batters were involed in the run produced.
By the way, you can't just add up career era's for 8 pitchers and then divide them by 8 and assume you have a good stat. When you do this, you're assuming each pitcher has pitched the same number of innings, which they haven't. When you add them together like you did, you're giving overweighting to pitchers that have pitched few innings. That is not an accurate way to do a comparison.
That's why the BAA is more accurate, because it's captured very simply. If a left handed batter gets a hit, its charged to the pitcher's left handed split, if a right handed batter gets a hit, it's charged to the pitchers right handed split. Very simple and as a result, very accurate.
one other thing gnorman
All stats come from MLB, including the Yahoo site. I find the Yahoo site to be much faster than here, simpler to get to and all the web links work.
I have to disagree with you, I really think this is the deepest and most talented roster the Jays have had since 93. Great teams are built around pitching and defense and I think the Jays are amongst the top of the american league in both.
Obviously things could go wrong such as injuries or John Gibbons and Scott Rolen could have a brawl during the seventh inning stretch of the home opener, but if the majority things go right (not everyting has to) I believe this team is going to be competitive for the at least wildcard. Tampa Bay does not have the depth this year to overtake the Jays.
There is no doubt that the Angels, Tigers, and Red Sox have very strong clubs this year, But the Jays are definately competitive with Cleveland, New York, and Seattle.
I already know how to calculate ERA. If you had read my last post properly, you would have seen that I used YOUR BAA figures, not ERA, which you CAN average for 8 pitchers.
Which brings me back to my first point, which you have yet to respond to: when our staff has a BAA of .257 against lefties, why do we need a left handed pitcher in the rotation? While you are at it, you might as well tell me where we would get a guy that could match those numbers, and how much he would cost. The last quality lefty we had in the rotation was Ted Lily, and he is making $10 mil/yr with the Cubs right now. If you go by BAA, Chacin pitches well against lefties, but his average against right handers is higher than the staff mean. Since he faces a lot more righties than lefties, that would mean he would likely give up a lot more hits than he would save. Plus, we have Burnett, who is downright mean to lefties by BAA or ERA (better than against righties). So tell me again why we need a lefty starter?
Here is another question (my last, I promise) Would having a lefty in the lineup win us more games than the staff we have right now, given that the payroll would remain the same?
I agree that the Tigers, Angels and Red Sox are going to be very strong this year.
New York won 94 games last year, Cleveland won 96 and haven't gotten weaker this year, so I'd expect them to be at similar wins this year.I'm also concerned about Tampa Bay this year.
From our stand point; I doubt if we get Ryan back until June, and I'm concerned about all the rest of the guys coming back healthy and strong from opening day since we had so many of them injured. I think we'll be fine in the second half, assuming no major injuries, but I expect it's going to take that long before we are back to normal.
I think the key for us this year is to get off to a real good start. If we do and have no major injuries we should be competitive with New York and Cleveland. if we don't we could be in a fight for 3rd place in the AL east with Tampa Bay.
I am glad you said SINCE the 93 Jays, and I can agree with you there. I looked at the 92-93 team in Baseball Reference, and here it is:
In 1993, the Jays had the highest payroll in baseball, and Joe Carter was the highest paid player.
There were 2 Hall of Fame nominees in the starting rotation.
6 of the top 10 all time spots in Batting Average, OBP, and OP+S are held by members of those teams, and their names are sprinkled liberally through all the other stat categories as well.
Until recently, Robbie Alomar held the record for homers and doubles by a Jays second baseman, but he also had 55 stolen bases in 1993, equal to the team total for 2007.
Now those were baseball teams! I always pull for the Jays, but it would be really nice if the team could get their payroll at least into the $110 mil range, and we would have a much better chance of contending. Hopefully this current team can draw enough fan support to earn themselves a raise, but regardless, this is a team worthy of our support.
Well, I guess the good news is you finally agree with me that split era's is not a good stat to use for comparison, which is what you used in your origional post.
I still sense you do not understand averaging though because you can't average 8 different pitchers BAA either and use as a valid comparison.
The main reason being is that a sacrifice, walk or hit by pitch is not considered either a hit or out in calculating batting average. So although the BAA is consistent and simple for a single pitcher, you can't add up a number of pitchers with different scenarios and divide them to come to an average.
Gnorm great points about the '93 team and this years. It's a good team, but it isn't the '93 jays. None the less, I also hope that the city can show a bit more support.
As far as having a lefty in the rotation I am all for it, however, who is available right now (besides Santanna) that you would put in ahead of the guys we have now ? I can't think of anyone. So while I personally would like a lefty in the rotation I don't feel that it is a NEED. I believe the Red Sox just won the world series without a significant lefty in their rotation. Jon Lester didn't exactly contribute much in the postseason.
To clarify my origional point, I suggested it'd be nice to have a lefty against Boston and New York. The reason being in both of those stadiums the right field porch is awfully close ( Fenway-302 and NY-281.)
Both you and Gnorman are right-there is no one available. It might mean we really do not contend until either Romero, Purcey or Chacin-or a trade or signing comes through. Time will tell.
On the contrary GSummer,
I think the best thing that could happen for the Jays is a terrible start because one of the major weaknesses of the Jays is poor management.
I am a dedicated Jays fan, but I am also a dedicated Baseball fan. Baseball is a thinking man's sport about strategy and I don't see any thoughtful strategies put into bluejays games.
I love to see the Angles come to town with Mike Scioscia or the Tigers with Jim Leyland because these guys know how to manage. They take the one weakness of your team and exploit it. Whether its a catchers weak throwing arm, a pitcher who pitches too much from the strech or DH who cannot hit left handed pitching, these guys will know and take 2 or 3 games in a series because of it. At the end of the year results in the addition 10 to 15 wins the team needs to reach the playoffs and beyond.
I appologize if there are any John Gibbons fans reading this blog (or if John Gibbons reads it himself) but watching him in his after game interviews makes me want to jump through the television and throttle him.
I am not a baseball expert by any means, but it seems that the great coaches in sports are the ones that create a sense of urgency amongst players enough to make them feel like every game is the most important one they will play in their career. Gibbons lays back in his chair after they Jays lose 9 in a row and says "aw well, these things happen, we got alot of injures blah, blah, blah", its ridiculous. Riccardi keeps in the managers chair becuase he knows Gibbons will do what he says but that is not the relationship a manager and GM are supposed to have.
I hope the Jays go 2 and 18 in their first and nobody get injured, so Gibbons can't hide behind any excuse other than the fact that he is a sorry excuse of a manager and should not have been promoted higher than a bullpen coach.
wrong again, gsumner:
BAA is the number of hits divided by the total number of batters faced, or something close. You can take the total number of hits for all 8 men, divided by the total number of batters faced, or you can take the average number of hits divided by the average number of batters faced, or you can average the batting average of all 8 men, it all comes out to the same number.
BTW, the left field in Yankee Stadium is 318 feet, not 281, only 10 feet shorter than Rogers Centre at 328. So let's only count Fenway. If we play 10 games there during the regular season, our lefty would throw twice, at the most 3 times. If he allows, say 6 hits per game, there may be 2-3 hits all season that he may be able to turn away from the green monster. Plus, you have Reed Johnson out there, and he's no slouch when it comes to fielding. I also take heart from the fact that the Sox, who have played 81 games/year there since 1918, and with their enormous payroll, have not seen fit to pursue a decent lefty. I don't think it's Fenway that worries the Jays. They have been able to win some games there over the years. It's Tropicana Field and the like they should be studying on.
Litsch or Chacin for the 5th spot is largely going to be dependent upon who is pitching better. Even if Litsch makes the club out of spring training over Chacin, if he gets bomb in a couple of start, Chacin will be right back in TOR in no time.
One thing I have learnt about Chacin is to never count him out. It seems like whenever I start to count him out, he did something to prove me wrong. I hope that is the case again this year, as Chacin can be a contributor to this club in 08, just how much is still remain to be seen.
As for the need for a lefty in the starting rotation, it really is about who is pitching better, if they are all the same, then I will give the nod to Chacin start BOS and NYY have lots of left-handed slugger, and Chacin could be helpful. Come on, if JP does not believe that Chacin can help out in some regard, JP would have released him long time ago.
In regards to Gibby (whom I've nicknamed Abner)you're preaching to the converted. I think almost all here share that sentiment. I don't see this team going 2 and 18, though; four of the starting 5 are potential stoppers.
On the other hand in the first month they play 6 against Boston, 3 against NY, 4 against Detroit, 5 against Texas and 3 against TB. So 21 of the first 28 games are what one might call character builders.
They will need to come out of this stretch of games strong and roll into May. If they really flounder, we all might get our wish, sooner than later.
Please do us all a favor and go read up on stat averages. I give up trying to point something out to you. Obviously, stats and math in general is not your strong suit. It's pointless.
I guess you also have a problem reading because I posted right field not left field. DUH
gnorman-One last point
Our little debate started as a result of your claim that comparing era spits was a valid way of comparing pitching staffs.
I'm still waiting for that response.
my advice is that you should just ignore this gsumner guy.The guy is simply an i*d*i*o*t!!!who spends his whole life on this blog looking up stats on the internet.Really knows very little about baseball other than statistical websites and loves to insult people because of his own personal shortcomings.Who is he to say you **** at math and reading.
wrong again gsumner:
If you meant right field, then Yankee Stadium is 314 feet, Fenway is 380, and Rogers centre is 328.
It is you that doesn't know his math. When you calculate averages, you take (hits a + hits b, etc.)divided by (batters faced a + batters faced b, etc) times the number of pitchers. You can multiply each batters faced by number of pitchers faced, then add them up and divide that number into the total of the top numbers, or you can add up the batters faced then multiply by the pitchers faced. It always works out to the same result. Understand now? Can anybody else tell me where I am wrong? I am always willing to learn.
Our debate actually started when you said that we needed a left handed pitcher in the rotation. I originally posted using ERA splits to show that our pitchers pitch well against left handed batters. I still maintain that with a large enough sample, that ERA is a valid number, because ERA wins games, not batting average. You posted that BAA splits are better. I looked at your figures and said, OK, they still show the same thing, that we don't really need a lefty in the rotation. Yes, our rotation has a slightly better BAA against righties, but Burnett has a better BAA AND ERA split against lefties, and Halliday, McGowan and Marcum certainly hold their own.
You then weasled out, saying Oh, I only meant against Boston and New York. Well, it turns out that Yankee Stadium is only a bit smaller than Rogers Centre, so that leaves Fenway. Granted, a lefty moves the ball away from right handed hitters, so it is harder to pull the ball. You also have to hit a homer the equivalent of 350-380 feet to get it over the Monster, and the left fielder has to cover a lot less ground there than in other parks. That's why Manny Ramirez, who is an average fielder at best, is usually near the top of the league in assists. Fenway is not a hitter's ballpark.
My original point is still valid. We don't need a lefty in the rotation, no matter how you approach it. If you are going to get mad and post insults, please feel free to ignore this post and get on with your life. This discussion is over.
Hi everyone , My 1st post this year,say what you will I think it is going to be a very interesting year, gsumner keeps this blog going lots of times , so i for one am more than happy to read what he is saying, I think Rolen is an upgrade over Glaus , and we won't get the logjam on the base paths so there won't be the pressure on guys to hit the big blast all the time.Ian
while i do agree with you on the fact that ERA is a better stat then BAA, i cannot agree that Fenway is not a hitters ball park, Fenway is the the best park to hit in in the Majors. Take a huge wall in left, a Pesky pole in right that is actually 290, not 380 feet away, and center field that juts out to about 434 feet (i think), and you get a hitters dream. extra base haven? no, not unless you hit to center field. other thoughts, Manny Ramirez is not even close to an average fielder and yes, we do not need a lefty in the rotation
Sorry, i don't get it: Why do we need a lefty in the rotation ?
Is this some weird way of setting up the inevitable failure of Eckstein this year ?
"Oh Eckstein wasn't to bad, what the real problem was the lack of a lefty in the rotation !"
Ha Ha ! Take that Eckstein !
Plus who would we get ? Baseball prospectus has already told us what to expect outta Romero and Purcey, so we can't count on them =)
More importantly ! Who might we trade for as our backup catcher that JP and Jordan seem to allude to ? Who's even avaiable ? Any chance we could get Kurt Suzuki from the athletics ??? everyone of them is for sale right ?
I must say something about the two G's,
I have never seen two grown men fight as passionatly about statistical analysis as much as you two have.
You two would have been welcome editions to my stats class back in the day, you two would really have livined things up. =)
Dave, I couldn't agree with you more. But let's not forget that we don't know for sure that they are grown men. That's what I would assume because of their knowledge of baseball, but even a 10 year old can access this site and post logical comments. So let's all be careful what we say, and try to avoid another comment war.
or better yet…maybe it's the same person. Arguing back and forth to himself…haha
haha, touche' freedom fighter, i shouldn't assume they are grown men.
Kids nowaday are getting better and better at this computer stuff. I just miss the old days when men fought about manly stuff, and not stuff like math; it makes me sad when i see two guys fight over what the last 4 number of pie are.
haha, i hope the G's don't mind these light jests.
At im trying to be more clever then rshobie's oh so intelligent insults where he points out how he way smarter then everyone else in the world … it must be hard for him being that smart.


text:
China's quest for diving perfection looks on the verge of fulfilment in London, where they are favorites to complete the first eight-title sweep and unite every Olympic and world gold medal.
It is four years since the "Dream Team" fell agonizingly short in Beijing, where only a breathtaking final 10m platform dive by Australia's Matthew Mitcham stopped China from winning all eight Olympic categories.
However, the intensively drilled squad, marshaled by military-trained team manager Zhou Jihong, have looked unstoppable since they grabbed all 10 titles at last year's world championships in Shanghai.
That success raised expectations of a flawless medal haul in London, the first since Olympic diving grew to eight events in 2000.
It is a result which seems pre-ordained after they won five in 2000, six in 2004 and seven in 2008.
Since China returned to the summer Games in 1984, their divers have claimed 27 of the 40 gold medals, making it the country's most successful Olympic sport ahead of gymnastics (24 gold medals), weightlifting (24) and table tennis (20).
Their exploits, honed by eight hours of training, six days a week, compare with the US divers who won every Olympic title between 1928 and 1952, when only four events were contested.
Yet relentless team manager Zhou, the 1984 Olympic platform champion, is demanding even more from her squad.
"Our opponents are progressing day by day. Chinese divers also need much higher standards, both in techniques and minds," Zhou told Xinhua news agency.
"Olympic Games are different from the championships," she added. "Divers will get more pressure than in championships, and self-control is difficult."
Wu Minxia, 26, a two-time Olympic synchronized springboard champion, gave an insight earlier this year into the Chinese team's training regime as they pursue perfection.
She is part an elite group of Chinese sportsmen and women who eat, sleep and train at state-run facilities in Beijing.
"For people like us who live in a small circle, we meet people from similar backgrounds and have very simple lives," said Wu, who has been in training since the age of six.
All-conquering Qiu Bo underlined China's unwavering dedication when he reeled off 25 perfect 10s to score an historic 609.20 in the 10m event at last year's FINA Diving World Series in Beijing.
Qiu, 19, FINA male driver of the year last year, says his biggest challenge ahead of the Games is meeting his own exacting standards, rather than worrying about his rivals.
"The biggest challenge is from myself to beat myself. The aim is to win everything," Qiu said. "I enjoy the pressure. That is the pressure that moves me to get stronger and stronger."
In the face of such dominance, resistance has been fitful among China's rivals, and home hopes in London will rest on British poster boy Tom Daley, 18, who lost his 10m platform world title to Qiu in Shanghai.
The Briton knows he is up against it at the Olympic Park's Aquatics Centre.
"Qiu Bo at the moment seems unstoppable, to be honest. He's winning by such big margins ... he's very much the gold medal favorite," Daley said.
Australia's reigning 10m champion Matt Mitcham, who has been battling abdominal injuries, will be hoping lightning can strike twice after he produced the highest-scoring dive in Olympic history to snatch gold in 2008.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
There is a few lessons going up on some of your favorite characters from the very popular video game League of Legends. I will start the series off by showing you "how to draw Fiddlesticks", step by step. Fiddlesticks, the Harbinger of Doom is a League of Legends Champion. His bio information is a bit confusing for me to understand because I don't know anything about the game or the characters from it. I do know from reading that he was stuck in a chamber of the Institute of War for almost twenty years. No one knows what he went through or what happened so that part of his tale is still a mystery. Drawing Fiddlesticks might be a bit challenging if you are a novice artist, but I'm confident you will pull through. So go ahead and have fun, and I will get the steps done for the rest of the lessons I have prepared for you all.
DragoArt members upload artwork and drawing tutorials! They are also allowed to leave comments on tutorials, profiles, etc. Many more features, as well; it's way better than just being a boring guest! Register Now!


text:
Drought Impacts Map: Use this interactive map to see how the drought has affected agriculture, energy, plants and wildlife, water supply, industry and fire hazard.
How Much Rain Do We Need?: This tool calculates how much precipitation is required to end current drought conditions.
California Drought Monitor: A weekly update on drought severity in California, including a drought monitor map and short- and long-term outlooks.
Report Water Waste: Become a water watcher today. Find out how to report wasteful water use.


text:
The Air Quality Flag Program alerts organizations to the local air quality forecast and helps them to take actions to protect people's health, including those with asthma.
Here's how it works: each day your organization raises a flag that corresponds to how clean or polluted the air is. The color of the flag matches EPA's Air Quality Index (AQI): green, yellow, orange, red, and purple.
On unhealthy days, your organization can use this information to adjust physical activities to help reduce exposure to air pollution, while still keeping people active.
Adopt the Air Quality Flag Program -- use the Get Started tab above to begin!
Miss the May 10 webinar on the Air Quality Flag Program?
Webinar recording | Webinar slides
Flag Program Story Map


text:
Got Junk is timely... they call when they say they do. The guys that come and load up the truck are great! They communicate and are just so nice.
Junk removal for your home or business including offices, retail locations, construction sites, and more.
Our friendly team is happy to meet all of your junk hauling needs


text:
RPC.RQUOTAD(8) NetBSD System Manager's Manual RPC.RQUOTAD(8) NAME rpc.rquotad, rquotad -- remote quota server SYNOPSIS /usr/libexec/rpc.rquotad DESCRIPTION rpc.rquotad is a rpc(3) server which returns quotas for a user of a local filesystem which is NFS-mounted onto a remote machine. quota(1) uses the results to display user quotas for remote filesystems. rpc.rquotad is normally invoked by inetd(8). rpc.rquotad uses an RPC protocol defined in /usr/include/rpcsvc/rquota.x. SEE ALSO quota(1) NetBSD 8.1 June 22, 1994 NetBSD 8.1
You can also request any man page by name and (optionally) by section:


text:
SMEs get Data Protection Act guide
Never forget the DPA scamsters
The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has published a new guide for small businesses (SMEs) concerning their responsibilities under the Data Protection Act (DPA).
The guide - Getting it right - is supposed to provide a straightforward explanation of data protection and what businesses need to know to meet the requirements of the DPA.
Under the DPA all businesses need to follow the Act's eight principles including making sure that records held on employees and punters are stored securely, used for the right reasons and are always accurate and up to date. Some businesses that process personal information may also need to register with the ICO.
Said Assistant Information Commissioner Jonathan Bamford: "Small businesses can have a lot of legislation to comply with and we are trying to cut out the jargon. Our simple guide has been designed to help businesses understand and easily follow data protection rules."
Anyhow, SMEs unsure about their responsibilities can have a gander at the guidelines on the ICO's web site.
Separately, the Information Commissioner is still warning businesses throughout the UK to ignore bogus data protection agencies which continue to send notices demanding money to register under the DPA.
More than 200 businesses a month in the UK fall victim to fake data protection agencies posing as official government bodies. The letters, which request sums of between £95 and £135 to register under the DPA, often use threatening language and are on official-looking headed notepaper.
The statutory fee for notification is just £35 a year and businesses that need to do so should go directly to the Information Commissioner's Office.
Said Bob Turnbull, assistant commissioner for Scotland: "If you receive a letter demanding more than £35 to register under the DPA this will be a scam. Our simple message to businesses is to throw the letter in the bin and don't pay the fee." ®
Related stories
OFT fingers Bristol man over misleading data protection ad
Freedom of Information means grief for small biz
Watchdog mauls internet directory for bogus invoices
Data Protection getting it right
Sponsored: Beyond the Data Frontier


text: One of the last interviews we did in India for The TEXT Program was with Geshe Dorji Damdul, the Director of Tibet House in New Delhi. He is a deeply intelligent man, with sharp and considered opinions, and well practiced at handling the questions of Westerners. This year, we ended every interview with a simple question: "What are your hopes for the future of Tibet?" Though simple, and even obvious, the question was warmly received and enthusiastically answered by all of the Tibetans we spoke with, but Geshe Damdul's answer was surprising, and delivered with his characteristic wit and panache. We are currently assembling a montage of all the answers we received to our closing question, but I wanted to circulate Geshe la's answer now, before we release the full film.


text: Thursday, November 14, 2013 Researchers Identify Widespread Use of Opioids in Nonsurgical Patients A study of more than 1 million adult hospital admissions has revealed a high rate of opioid prescriptions for nonsurgical patients, with over 43% receiving the medications during their stay, and over half of that population receiving opioids on the day of discharge. Researchers also identified a pattern of high-dosage prescription and significant regional variations. In the study, researchers reviewed records of nonsurgical admissions between 2009 and 2010 from 286 nonfederal acute care hospitals. Authors found that 43% of the 1.14 million nonsurgical patients received opioids, with the average dose equivalent to about 68 milligrams of oral morphine per day. Additionally, researchers identified spikes in use: of the patients receiving opioids, 23% received dosages of 100 milligrams or more on at least 1 day of hospitalization. The research was conducted by a team from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and published online November 13 in the Journal of Hospital Medicine. The use of opioids was not confined to the days of hospitalization, according to the research, which found that 26% of patients were also administered opioids on the day of discharge. Authors believe that the common practice of tapering patients off these drugs means that as many of half of these patients also received a prescription for opioid medication to be taken after discharge. The study also identified variations in use among hospitals in different parts of the country, with hospitals in the West reporting an opioid use rate about 37% higher than use rates in the Northeast, which reported the lowest rate. In addition, researchers found a correlation between frequency of prescription and risk of opioid-related complications. A significant portion of nonsurgical hospital admissions are for patients with musculoskeletal injuries, and physical therapists (PTs) must often assess the impact of opioids and other pain medications on early mobility in the hospital as well as on later interventions. APTA offers several resources on this topic, including a 2-part course on the drugs used to treat pain and inflammation, and research on opioids and exercise available via the PT Now portal.


text:
Call Us: 877-786-5373
4101 Mobile Hwy. | Pensacola, FL 32506
This is not an offer for credit and should be used for estimation purposes only based on the information you provided. You should not base your decision on this estimate alone. Title, registration, tax and other fees, and personal circumstances such as employment status and personal credit history, were not considered in the calculations.
Are you looking for a boat with great visibility and fishability? Our Panfish boats may be what you are looking for. Ranging from small and simple to larger with more features, check out our stick steering boats today.


text:
Chicago — Last month's closures of 26 Bally Total Fitness clubs as part of the Chicago-based company's bankruptcy reorganization created several opportunities for its rival clubs.
Wendy Yellin, spokesperson for 24 Hour Fitness, San Ramon, CA, says displaced Bally members can bring their membership card to any 24 Hour club and receive a free 14-day pass.
Gold's Gym, Irving, TX, also voiced a strong interest in helping displaced Bally members and has been exploring a variety of options, says spokesperson Dave Reiseman, who declined to give further details.
The markets most affected by the Bally closures were Dallas-Fort Worth, which lost six Bally clubs, and Houston, which lost three clubs. 24 Hour has more than 30 clubs in each of the Dallas and Houston areas. Gold's Gym, headquartered in the Dallas area, has eight Dallas-Fort Worth clubs and four Houston-area clubs, according to its Web site. Another company that could benefit from Bally's closings is Life Time Fitness, Chanhassen, MN, which has eight clubs in the Dallas area and five in the Houston area, according to its Web site.
The New York, Boston, Seattle, Indianapolis and Kansas City, MO, areas lost two Bally clubs each. The rest of the clubs that closed were in Atlanta; Chicago; Los Angeles; Cleveland; Portland, OR; Charlotte, NC; and Hartford, CT. Bally still has clubs in all those markets, including Dallas and Houston, says company spokesperson Larry Larsen.
"As part of the reorganization process, we evaluated all of our leases at current locations and tried to negotiate with our landlords to the terms of those leases," Larsen says. "Where we couldn't come to terms, we are ending those leases."
Members of clubs that closed received complimentary upgrades worth $250 that allows them to use any Bally club nationwide.
The 26 closed Bally clubs brings the total number of closings to 47 since Bally filed for bankruptcy in December. The first 21 clubs that closed after the filing were part of a review of Bally's real-estate portfolio, Larsen says. After the latest round of closings, Bally has about 300 remaining clubs.
Under Bally's restructuring plan filed last month, Bally's senior lenders, including J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Anchorage Advisors LLC, will provide financing and cut Bally's debt by at least $660 million. Secured lenders who are owed $242 million will get 94 percent of the reorganized company's equity.
JP Morgan and Anchorage Advisors, which are providing a $39 million loan to finance the restructuring, will essentially become the new owners of Bally, although sources say both companies could sell their stakes once they recoup their losses. A hearing was scheduled for July 15 in bankruptcy court. The agreement requires court approval by July 30 and plan confirmation by Sept. 15.
"Bally is poised to exit Chapter 11 later this summer, and our future looks extremely bright," Bally CEO Michael Sheehan said in a statement sent to Club Industry's Fitness Business Pro. "The reorganized Bally will be a stronger, leaner organization with a healthy balance sheet. We are very excited about the opportunity for Bally to grow and enhance our brand from this point forward."


text:
RIP, Bob Probert
There are reports that legendary NHL tough guy Bob Probert has died, at the way-too-young age of 45. We all know Probert did some hard living, but this is just awful.
Condolences to his family. He was a true legend of the game, the best fighter ever. Just texted with old friend Ian Laperriere and he said Probert was the "scariest player he ever played against, for sure" and he meant that as a sincere compliment.
I also just got off the phone with another legendary fighter, Stu Grimson, and I had the displeasure of being the first to pass along the news to him. He is shocked and saddened and said he needed time to compose himself before commenting further.
Later, Grimson told The Post: "Bob was a friend and a foe. Above all, he was a very nice man."
Grimson was drafted the same year as Probert, 1983, by the Detroit Red Wings. Grimson remembers meeting team officials from the Wings as he, Probert and another '83 pick – Joey Kocur – all gathered together.
"I think some of them thought we were with the Detroit Lions instead," said Grimson, who re-entered the draft two years later and signed with Calgary.
Grimson said he got to know Probert better when their careers were both over. Together, they were part of a contingent of ex-players who went to Afghanistan to visit with Canadian troops several years ago.
"We got to sit down and talk more and it was good. We played a lot of ball hockey with the troops and had a good time," Grimson said. "I locked horns with Bob probably more than anybody else in my career. We always had a kind of unspoken connection, that most fighters do."
Grimson, who today is an attorney with the Nashville firm of Kay, Griffin, Enkema and Brothers, was known for his generous hand to players off the ice – when he wasn't using them to rough them up on it. He knew of Probert's ongoing drug and alcohol problems, but never probed too deeply with him on them.
"He dealt with things in his life, as we all do, and I know he loved his family. That's the sad part," Grimson said.
Here is a YouTube tribute to Probie:


text:
Thank You, But It's Still Not a Game
Pages 1 2 NEXT
Thank You, But It's Still Not a Game
"Gamification" has hit a new low.
Every time you write McGonigal, I think of William McGonagall. He is widely regarded as one of the worst Poets ever. I wonder if they are related. It would explain a few things
I'm sorry, but I simply cannot trust the opinion of a man that would turn down free pizza.
I agree wholeheartedly. Games have always had this type of skinner-box compulsion elements, but right now we are flooded by apps that are nothing but compulsion-driven money suckers. They're not games, they're elaborate slot machines. Either that or things like this thank you button.
I would disagree on one point though, and that is that the experience crafted by the game must be enjoyable and delightful. I'm not too sure horror games fit particularly well with either of those adjectives, yet Amnesia or Silent Hill are definately games. I'd look for another adjective, perhaps engaging. However, I'd also add the game must exist in and of itself as an engaging activity before adding on social networks or point incentives. If it is designed the other way around, it's a fancy-shmancy interface for an activity that wasn't gaming in the first place.
I liked this post, thank you jeremy, i'll try and remember that definition you gave. ;)
I'm sorry, but this isn't an article.
Here, I'll provide a review:
I read a guy whine about a thing he didn't think was a thing that other people think is a thing. 2/10
I would add "With criteria for success or failure". It doesn't have to be win/loss conditions, but some kind of distinction between doing well or not doing so well.
When I was a kid games was kind of an exclusive thing. Most people didn't play games. Some people might have found it boring to try to learn the rules, others had an upbringing that considered games to be a bad thing. Games in general sometimes had a bad reputation because they were compared to games played for money.
I think some new gamers, what the industry sometimes classify as 'casual' gamers lack the tradition of games. Some people never played Chess, Checkers, Monopoly or card games. I think MMOs attracted some of these people due to the less gamey nature. MMOs are often more like toys. But since they are generally classified as games, people get the impression that anything done without a clear purpose can be a game.
Today games don't have the negative connotations they used to have. It's ok to play a game even for adults or religious people. I think this development is great. But it also means that all these new people have a different approach to gaming which causes the meaning of the term to change.
There's some positive and negative aspects to this development. On the positive side broadening gaming can be a good thing, since it can open our minds to new developments. On the negative side consumers are less critical about what makes a game, and what can be expected. This sometimes results in bad 'games' like click a button or buy virtual cows.
I actually think "Games are unnecessary obstacles that we volunteer to tackle" is an amazing definition for a game. The operative word being "volunteer". If work makes you play a stupid 'game', it's not a game. It's a chore. If you choose to participate in the same activity, it becomes a game.
Why you would want to participate in a game you don't find entertaining is perhaps something you should study about yourself. Trying to show to people that a game they enjoy is stupid and boring shows very poor time management skills. Wouldn't you prefer to play a game you enjoy to trying to prove to others they're not having fun?
"Games are unnecessary obstacles that we volunteer to tackle" already includes all those additions. "Obstacles" are rules and goals. Surpassing those obstacles implies success, failing to do it implies failure. If you are volunteering to tackle these rules and goals, you must find something worthwhile in doing them, thus covering any possible genre, from horror games to more traditionally 'fun' experiences.
While it isn't a "game", it's still a better game than Duke Nukem Forever...
I personally don't think anyone should be able to tell anyone else what a game is. If someone creates a game where all you do is push a button on a site, why can't that be a game? Whether it's an enjoyable game or one you'd want to play, that's up to the player. And that's the magic. "Sports" also has this dilemma, and the people who complain that bowling or cheerleading aren't sports are usually the people who play "real" sports that require a lot more athleticism. They feel threatened by the idea that a cheerleader or bowler or golfer might be considered an "athlete" along with them.
The good thing about a game is that it has no walls. Thing about the word in general, away from video games, and anyone with a small child could tell you that literally anything can be a game. Even things that aren't games to adults, like clean-up or cooking. So what's a video game? Anything like that that you interact with in some kind of video format.
So I disagree with both McGonigal (I hope she doesn't transfigure me into a toad) and the author of this article, there is no definition of a "game" and that's how it should be. The individual can decide whether it's a game or not for themselves. But the exercise of trying to define it for everyone is not only misguided and ultimately meaningless, but also a somewhat elitist and egotist approach, that only games that you personally deem games by some arbitrary definition are actually games.
Last time I had Pizza Hut, I ended up tossing out the pizza and eating the cardboard box, at least the box tastes better.
So I don't blame a guy for not wanting free that!
Ehhhh... By that logic, I don't have to recognize any video game I personally don't enjoy as "a game." There are many things I enjoy that other people might not understand as "enjoyable."
"Gamification" is extremely problematic, and I hate it more than most, but the problem isn't how they're using the word "game." They are games. The tack on reward structures to existing obstacles in order to distract us from the usual tedium of these common tasks. Distraction. Diversion (which in many languages is the word for "entertainment").
It's just that they are bad games. Not because of their simple mechanics, but because they are openly manipulative in how they use those mechanics. They reduce the audience to rats in a maze, caring only for the cheese and not the satisfaction of besting the maze.
(Similarly, The Notebook is a movie. It's just a bad movie. Not because it's ineffective -- I cried like a baby -- but because of how it achieves its effect. It runs down a shopping list of emotional triggers and checks each one off to produce teary eyes.)
It might just be that I feel you're too protective over the word "game," like those people who try to say that That's My Boy "isn't a movie," because of how awful a movie it is. Or it might just be that I'm not sure about how you're drawing this distinction.
The Avengers is a great, fun, entertaining movie. The Notebook is a transparent, manipulative crap-fest of a movie. But both are movies. They're intended to grab my attention for a couple hours and draw some emotional reaction from me. A movie's goal is to get me to enjoy itself.
Now, you know what isn't a movie? A commercial. It uses the same audiovisual medium, but its entire purpose is to get me to want something (and eventually buy it). A commercial's goal is to get me to enjoy something other than itself.
And then there are grey areas. How about educational movies (like Planet Earth), designed to "sell" something immaterial and free (knowledge, enjoyment of nature, environmental awareness)? Or movies that have a clear political message underneath the plot? Or how most 80's kids cartoons were really just a commercial for the toys, but fleshed out into a show -- which is it: good commercial, or bad show?
That grey area is where I see most "gamified" experiences. There is clearly an ulterior motive -- to get you to enjoy work, or to enjoy cleaning, or to enjoy surgery or something -- but people can also enjoy the reward structure itself. To me, they are games being used badly.
As for this one: Push button, receive warm fuzzies. Boring, crappy game trying to manipulate people into feigning gratitude at each other? The case could be made. Most games are based on a "push button, receive widget" structure. Or we could argue that, because it's only goal is to promote something outside itself, it is "using game mechanics to manipulate people," and as such is not a game. (I'm more in the latter camp, myself. It uses the parts from a game, but it doesn't use them as a game.)
But when we say "It's not a game," it's not because of how it's played or how it looks. It's because of how it's used.
Uh oh, watch out Oprah!
Well that entire read was unnecessary. Not sure if I'm more angry for wasting my own time or just bewildered that this exists here. The whole thing was just an arrogant opinion piece on the use and definition of a word. The author goes so far as to tell you, the reader, what you can and cannot find personally entertaining. On top of it all, it was also written and formatted rather poorly.
Okay, so you don't like small tasks being called a game and suggest the definition of game be changed--as if somehow you get to decide what entertainment is. What has been achieved? Pretend no one on Earth from now on will refer to small tasks as games. Instead of saying "game," they will say "activity." Got it in your mind? Okay. Now, what's next? What's the grand result of the word game no longer being used in that context? Suddenly the heavens part and the world over regards the electronic products you refer to as video games as some form of legitimately important element in human history?
This article may well be the best example of rhetoric I've come across. Never in all my time has someone argued so incorrectly for a word over its subject.
Well, start from an incorrect premise, reach an incorrect conclusion. Because that definition includes "Helping someone move."
Eh, the button sounds like lazy feel-good slacktivism with even less activism than normal.
Heh, reminds me of a Reddit thread last week about lousy contest prizes.
Because they weren't before? This is like watching a Christan metal band.
"Prospective", perhaps?
Eh, if hers was too broad, that is too specific. Not to descend into the games-are-art pits AGAIN, but if you said that a movie was a series of images designed to entertain and delight an audience, someone would whack you over the head with Schindler's List or something of similar gravity. From what I've seen, reviews of Spec Ops: The Line are similarly sparse on words like "entertaining" and "delightful" while still recommending it and certainly not questioning its status as a game.
I have a better game, let's count Oprah's photos on that page you linked. I counted 7. Even Chairman Mao wouldn't have had that many.
Hey, I never said I turned down the free pizza. I just would have preferred the cash value of the pizza.
...To purchase pizza from Papa John's.
Interesting article. It's really hard to create a precise definition of a game, and I think the spectrum of games is narrower than Oprah thinks, but wider than you think, Jeremy. That's about all that I feel I can confidently say.
Now THERE's a man a can work with.
Entertainment isn't definition for a game that I would use, it sounds logical but only because games are young. It would be easy to make a similar definition about films or books and then realise that you're no longer counting The Hunger Games or The Road or Holocaust films, because they're less entertaining and more thought provoking.
Spec Ops: The Line by all accounts isn't necessarily an entertaining experience but it is a meaningful one and the objectives thing is a limiting idea too because we have objectiveless games like Minecraft, you're software toys etc. Entertainment is also very subjective, you're ruling out boring games from being games.
I think defining gameplay by your definition would be fine, the thing is games and gameplay aren't the same thing by any means (well it's complicated, videogames/board games aren't necessarily games in gameplay terms but clearly aren't other things). Gameplay is stuff like Snap! and Tag! and Chess, contextless relying purely on rules and objective filling.
Whereas games are anything that anything that falls into the space created by the three axis of art, narrative and gameplay, where gameplay is involved in some form however diluted.
Actually the Thank You button would still count as gameplay I feel, even under your defintion. Their are clearly rules. Press button when you've thanked someone, whatever, their are clearly objectives, do something to press button, try to be able to rightfully press the button as much as possible and theirs even some feedback through the data collected by the button. It's clearly meant people feel positive for completing the goal, so it fills your criteria of being for the purpose of entertainment.
It's just not very good gameplay.
The button isn't the game... the challenge to say "thank you," is.
If I challenge you to go through a whole day speaking only in song titles, is that not a game? It's a game you probably won't participate in, but it sure sounds like a game.
The "unnecessary challenge" thing is pretty accurate if you don't go into a semiotic rage over exactly what "necessary" means. If your car needs to be repaired, that's pretty necessary, regardless of what idiocy you went through to put it in such a condition. If you help your friend move, that's pretty necessary, at least to them. That guy is on the right track, and going much further would just get annoying because overly long definitions tend to be annoying.
"Challenges primarily meant to be fun," might be the best way to say it.
And language divides. Gamification and game are allowed to split in meaning. Menu, minute, and minutiae all have the same root, but no one freaks out and claims that menus shouldn't be large because it's root meant "small" for millenia.
I suppose... but if you X-ify something, you are adding the qualities of X to it. If someone use the word smallify, I would certainly assume they meant to make something smaller. Gamification is sold to people that want things to be more like games. It is implied that if things are more like games, they will be perceived as fun. If there's any disconnect in the meaning of that word, it's in the minds of the ones selling it, not the ones buying it.
I think the "unnecessary obstacles" definition is too broad. If I volunteer at Habitats for Humanity, I'm creating unnecessary obstacles in my goal of going from work to couch to bed, but I don't think that anyone would describe it as a game. I think Bostur's definition is much more focused.
The "session of play" is important because it separates what you normally do with the act of playing the game, an activity with separate rules and goals. "Success and failure" is important because you need some sort of metric to judge how far you are from your goal. The only thing I have a problem with is the word "delight". "Entertain" is fine, because it lacks the happy connotations, but still implies enjoyment; I know people who would be entertained by a horror movie, but not delighted.
On a semi-related note, I think that Minecraft does count as a game, using our definition. There are sessions of play, rules (the games physics and AI), but also some goals. They are very broad, but they are described right in the world type: Survive or Create. If you survive in a Survival world, you have achieved success, and if you create something in Creative, you have also achieved success.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but did someone make "Cow Clicker" again, but this time do it NOT as a joke?
"Adding qualities of X"... or perhaps it'd be better to say "aspects" of X is right on the nose for gamification right now. Meaningless points and economies have been an aspect of games since at least Monopoly... probably longer, probably since the first time someone used chips instead of money for poker. Maybe they added up points for whatever lost games they played with dice in ancient Egypt.
Gamification doesn't have to actually makes things into games. I could glue feathers to something and say I birdified it and it'd be a weird as hell thing to do, but people would mostly understand the words I was saying.
I guess the real question is: Would birdification be a game or just a fun activity?
This exactly. People saying that the Thank You Game isn't a game seem to be confusing the term game with video game.
I would say that the Thank You Game isn't a video game, because the primary mechanic of the game occurs outside of an electronic interface. Same thing with things that have been gamified. But seeing how many times you can say "thank you" and then click a button on a web page is just as much of a "game" as Call of Duty is.
I am almost always able to count on my good buddy Dastardly to chime in on these topics! Sweet! ;) Let the bro-mance begin!
Raph Koster defined "game" once as "Playing a game is the act of solving statistically varied challenge situations presented by an opponent who may or may not be algorithmic within a framework that is a defined systemic model." Now that being said I suppose I would add, specifically, video games and the fundamental system structure required to fashion an executable program with a defined beginning and end.
If I add those couple words to it, then it would make sense... in that a software product must "run" as it where, to be sold as software. Now when we look at this "button", it rides on a preexisting framework, and really is nothing more than a loop counter. So I am thinking, as a video game, as software, it's not really much of anything on it's own.
It is a delivery system though... but for what?
What has occurred here though? In one sense in it's ontology, it is a game, or at least looks like one. Looking a little further to define how it is a game with an epistemology, it crumbles. I'm sure we can figure out the issue though as we move forward.
May pull a Plinkett on this one and say that it (Notebook) is very "efficient" at what it does.
Part n' parcel of the issue that I see coming up over and over again as it relates to games, art games, social games, persuasive games, and by that token movie analogies are the reliance upon ludology and often times an ontological ludology (similar to narratology).
Where I myself run a ground "it is not a game" is in applying systems logic, as found in game theory and often times overlooking the game study (ludology).
Folk who are not particularly "systems" people frame positions from ludology or narratology about as regular as an atomic clock. Many many of the proponents of these "games" hold degrees certainly... almost without fail... liberal arts degrees.
Example 1)
As a quick note to what this implies, chess is an explicitly strongly interactive (with respect to it's systems), that offers itself easily to a games theory definition as to it's status as a "game in theory and practice" in very fundamental and simple language. It is implicitly "weakly interactive with respect to the opponent".
Success in chess begins with a strong understanding of the rules of the game, far more than the disposition of my opponent. While that may be a factor mono-a-mono, clearly a computer "chess" system is one tough hombre' and couldn't give a metaphysical shit less about who I am.
Example 2)
Now I kick a ball around and the dog chases it, dog brings it back, and we start playing "keep away" from each other. There is certainly "play" involved, it is interactive physically perhaps even emotionally... (playing with a happy dog is very authentic), but the "game" aspect is demonstrably "weakly" interactive.
So playing ball with the dog is implicitly weakly interactive with respect to the game system, but explicitly strongly interactive between the opponents.
This activity fails "game in theory and practice". This is due to the game offering some serious challenges if I were to really attempt to quantify a winner or looser in a game that has no discernible structure or rule set. I suppose one could say "everyone, everything" wins, if fun-entertainment was had.
Now that said is it not easier to simply refer to "playing with the dog" as "playing with the dog".
What is the game though? What facilitated the play?
The ball.
A ball is not a game. It's a tool in which games/play are facilitated.
Does it hold then that the "button" is not a game. Yet a tool in which a game is being played?
I think so.
Same page different explanations. The movie is the strongly interactive element, it has structure, a beginning and an end. It's complete... for better or for worse as it is, for what it is.
A commercial... is a ball.
As I have gotten older, and my sanity and patients have been eroded away by the Alzheimer, I tend to go with "there is some grey area in this". Pretty much just leaving it at that. Maybe a cost benefit analysis, simply looking at the trade offs of the good and it's associated bad. Star Ship troopers has some pretty strong political messages in it... but the movie is also entertaining for what it is... it's "layers" of complexity... or simplicity are creative, and creativity "executed well" is (to me) "Creative".
As I said, same page. It's not a game, it's a tool. How a tool is used is a reflection of the person using it... not the tool itself.
I actually don't see a mechanic in this particular "button". Such a thing is so thinly implicit that it could just as well be facilitated with a chain letter... which for all practical purposes, that IS what THIS is. A new spin on the chain letter.
So if the button isn't a game, but just a tool... what is the real game being played?
I agree that this "Thank You" button isn't a game. To me, a game is an unnecessary obstacle that one chooses to surpass. An obstacle that tests you and competes against you. This obstacle can be anything from a series of floating platforms, a boss fight, a high score or even another player. I'm not just talking video games, either; I'm referring to sports or athletic competitions, too. However, there is no test, no competition, to this dumb button. It would be a game if it was "type out 'Thank You' as many times as you can within a minute" or "press this button as many times as you can within 30 seconds". I'm not saying that it would be fun, but it would be a game.
I'm all for thanking people, but this just isn't a game. Not to me, at least.
Bah I hate that woman... and on the topic of hate...
OT: I didn't like that article because there was not enough hate and discontent for the f-ing button...
Big fan of Raph Koster's stuff. Basically all he's saying here is that games require opposition, goals, and rules, and that the opposition may or may not have free agency (as to include human and automated opponents). And I can agree with all of that. The challenge comes in just how esoteric we allow interpretations of some of these terms to get.
When I play 1-on-1 basketball against someone, let's say to 10 points, it's clearly a game. There is opposition, and there are rules and goals. But if, say, I choose to play basketball by myself to 10 points... what now?
One might say there's no opposition. Another might say that the opposition is between my Skill and the Forces resisting it -- gravity, exhaustion, limits to my concentration or hand-eye coordination. Basically, physical and mental calisthenics (You are your own resistance/opposition). What's more, forces like gravity have predictable rules, and my goal is clearly to put ball in hoop.
Playing Solitaire makes the deck, or perhaps the notion of "probability," your opponent. If probability can be an opponent, why not gravity? See where they line can get cloudy? (As an aside, both gravity and probability -- or even the concept of "a deck of playing cards" -- are "existing frameworks" these games are built upon, so I'm not sure how much weight that particular nugget carries.)
Similarly, "systems" people can often overlook intent. Two identical mechanical experiences can differ greatly in their intent, and I feel that can greatly shape whether or not the system holds a particular label... but that being said, it can also introduce a grey area (which "systems people" tend not to like).
If I take an experience that is profoundly not a game, but I make it a game through my own intent, is it? If I take something that is definitely a game, and I use it with some other intent, does that remove its "gameness?"
I think "fetch" can often become an example of "game emerging from play." Play that has no 'point' is rarely classified as a game... but it also rarely stays that way. Goals and structure tend to emerge during the course of play.
You throw the ball, the dog brings it back, and you think, "Nah, too easy." So now, you throw it further, or around a corner or something. Or you do the old "pretend to throw, hide it behind your back" trick. Your goal just became to fool the dog, and his goal is not to be fooled.
(In a sense, it's a game, but you've taken on the role of the automated opposition, rather than the player-challenger. You're the rules.)
And coming back to the "playing with," we don't want to bog ourselves down in terminology. Most folks I know call it 'playing Fetch,' too. It's just we don't usually say, "I'm playing Fetch with the dog" all in one sentence. We tend to emphasize either the game (We're playing Fetch) or the company (I'm playing with the dog).
I agree completely. But no one has, to my knowledge, posited that the button is the game. There's a clear recognition that the button is the tool on which the game is played. Better to attack this would-be game based on the activity, not the interface.
There we go: We're back to one of the major differences being intent. If the "goal" portion of our trinity (opposition-rule-goal) is something outside the experience, we might be looking at a commercial... or we might be talking about a prize... and that means we have to dig deeper to draw that distinction. Or someone does, 'cuz I'm not doing it right now.
But part of the "gameness" of an experience may just be tied to intent. The creator's intent, the player's intent, it can play a huge role.
While I might look at the button and think, "Not a game," someone else might say, "The opposition is my own self-preoccupation, the rules are 'hit the button,' and the goal is to be one of the people that did." Another person might think the goal is to see how many people we can get to hit the button.
The button is a tool in a game, and the game is a tool in attempted social manipulation. Maybe it's an attempt to get people to think about gratitude... maybe it's an attempt to get people to simulate gratitude... maybe it's just there to allow people to feel they've met their 'gratitude quota' by proxy.
All I'm saying is that we're better off placing this in its own category of (bad) games than we are trying to argue that it is not a game. For all its ridiculousness, "gamification" has a point -- with the right intent, a person can turn nearly anything into some kind of game.
The reason "gamified" things bother me isn't because they somehow sully the good name of gaming by taking up the label of "game." If I take someone's hunting rifle and I use it to commit a crime, I haven't made it "not a gun." I've just misused it.
Gamification misuses gaming, in my opinion. It uses gaming to manipulate a person's behavior for someone else's reasons. To me, that is a more worthy direction to take this, as it puts the focus on what its results rather than its structure.
I like this idea. We shouldn't need unnecessarily restrictive so-called "definitions" for the words we use. Now, excuse me while I turn on my toilet roll so I can spend some time writing my turnips.
I knew you wouldn't let me down! Good show ole' bean!
Fan of Raph as well... (tip of the hat for Ultima Online), and I like your assessment of his definition. As far as esoteric, what I attempted to do with the Chess analog was too begin a dialog that states that as far as:
Explicitly strongly interactive game systems exhibit a "system" that entails that all rules are demonstrably present in the structural framing of the product/itself.
That is to say that all the rules of chess must be present in the codified structure of the program. If we where to program a chess game, all the rules would have to be sufficiently represented. If we leave out or modify rules, it's no longer chess.
While chess leverages a strong system, it's opponent structure is implicitly weak to the point of near irrelevancy. We may react to an opponent, but that reaction is in opposition to the field not necessarily the opponent. The optimum response is not opponent driven, it is system driven to the field of play. That is to say that the best chess game one could play, is played arithmetically. As you mentioned, one is calculating the maze, not another rat for the cheese.
I may go a step further and state that a strong systems game has a finite amount of "games" as may be "played" that is calculable. There is a limit to the number of Chess games that may ever be played. Something like 10 e 120 games... most of which are fail, 10 e 100 ish are potentially solutions.
Going to pick on hentropy real quick... "the good thing about a game is that it has no walls."
Ever play Final Fantasy 13? More walls than the movie "The Wall".
As I mentioned above, chess is decidedly a game, and it is demonstrably finite as to any game played, with respect to any movement of any of the pieces.
Clearly it is a box with 4 walls. Now one could make a "game" out of just about anything, but the intent would not be a codified game (or to codify a game), it would be something "other" than a game. Making it structurally less game (as theory) and more game (as study). The game is then a "device", "tool", "toy", in which the "other" thing happens.
My email is not a "game". It's email. If I write a thank you letter to someone, it's a thank you letter to someone. Where is the game?
Clearly it is "outside" of the context of the email.
The button in question here... has the same issue. Sure, one could "interpret" it's "game" aspects... but... internally, within it's own code structure, none of that "interpretation" would be present.
I could not simply reverse engineer "the button", and discern the "point" of the game. I would have to be told outside of the context of "what it is", as to "it's point".
Thus, it's not explicitly a game. It's a tool that requires extraneous information in which to define it's "game" aspects. That makes it as a system "weakly interactive". As ludology, perhaps strongly interactive. It is akin to narratology because it needs a substantial amount of "context" in which it would be defined as "a game".
The game can't tell you. Cause it's not in the game. Because it's not a game. The "game" is everything but "the game or the button" whatever they want to call it.
I agree with all this. So much in fact that what you have described is potentially codify-able in an interactive simulation. I wouldn't have a problem with calling such a systematized product a game. However, until it has been systematized, it is (to me) a narrative of what "could be", not "what is".
I would propose simply 2 sliding scales, one of system interactivity, one of self referential narrative. As the game becomes more systematized and the interactivity falls onto calculation the reliance on "contextual" narrative falls away. Let's say, it transitions from meta-esoteric-transcendental to a more formed structural system (gives rise to internal context and consistency). This helps us get away from wallowing in the metaphysical or metastructural (is that even a word?).
Again though in a game of Solitaire there is a finite result of the number of games that could ever be played. It's deterministic, the probability is a hidden factor from the agency interacting with the game structure. It's not random in play (only in the shuffle - and that is probably debatable), the player just doesn't have access to the what I call "total systems knowledge". It's uncertainty in the agencies approach to a finite system's problem.
A maze looks like a maze from the top down. 1st person... it's a totally different ball game. That is inconsequential to the maze though.
Probably relate it to an old problem with Artificial Intelligence, in that the computer opponent is often structured to have complete access to everything in the field, and as such, is not hindered by the myriad unknowns.
When player agency circumvents this "fog of war", it is often referred to as "cheating". It has diminished the systems side in exchange for a narrative approach by the agency. I'm simply proposing that sliding the scale all the way over to narrative, makes the system's transparent to the point of not existing. That is, it stop's "being" a game, and starts "being" something else... lets say... "a tool"... a narrative game emerges that is existential to the agency rather than to the tool. It's a context shift.
Again, I certainly agree... I miss this all the time! Running down framing of various people and discerning how and why they believe thus and such is always a concerted effort. That being said if and when I do work on projects I find it valuable to have people from different perspectives offer their input on the project. It's an old philosophical problem, figuring out "intent" and conversely how something will be "perceived". As with anything though, intent must be met with solid work and delivery. I don't think anyone ever engages in, let's say school, with the intent of failure... yet failure does happen.
Heck, I think if I were to discuss this any further I would be waxing vainly on "risk -assessment and management". ;)
Sadly I am the asshole who wants focus groups, product samples, rapid prototyping... I hate unknowns... especially when loot is on the line.
I do think I have been working around that idea some above and in the previous post, as the codified rule structure becomes or is non-existence, the "game" shifts contextually/existentially to the player agency. I would just use the term "pretend".
I think the dog understands interactivity, but not necessarily the game "fetch", the person does... but the person is also in a "pretend" mode when it comes to the nature of the game being played. I don't know how to ask the dog if it understands what a game is. It's just interacting with the field, one being modified by the player. So in that sense, one is not only the rules, but the computation machine keeping the rules, making all the decisions, deciding what is fair and not... thus, there is no structure outside of self reference. Which sounds an awful lot like "pretend"... smirk... as in pretending it's a game.
That's just it though, one has to pretend it's a game, because the button cannot tell you in the course of it's nature. Kinda liking this... wonder how much traction I can get off it...
Yeah, but that is just it though. That is existential to the player agency as to it's purpose and it's merit as a game. The button, as codified, cannot nor could ever "tell" us this upon an examination. Thus the game, is the one that the player is concocting in the player's own mind, the button, a tool, just facilitates that internalized "what if". I suppose it is an interesting approach to the chain letter. I also question how internalized that "what if" was before the "intent" of the game was written out to the side of the button.
It's like a lot of nonsense, it needs a philosophy paper to describe what it is... because what it is... is a button. The game, is the philosophy paper next to the button and the imagination of the participant that is stirred by the paper.
I have no idea either... that's that whole "intent" aspect which is very difficult to discern especially when the creator is "at liberty" to change what they say at any given moment to suit the breeze. See: Cheating.
I agree again, although I am of the mind to say it doesn't need it's own category... because (for me) it clearly has not demonstrated sufficiently "anything" that merit's it as "a game". To call it a bad game, is still calling it a game. It's no more a game than my email is a game.
It's a tool, with a philosophy paper tossed next to it. I suspect it data mines and all sorts of unseemly rubbish.
It's no more a game than some software one would write to phish for peoples account information. I mean, there is a game being played... more like a confidence trick... but it's (the button) is not a game.
I mean... what's wrong with calling shit "fraud"? Whatever happened to that word? ;)
All I'm going to add is I've dabbled with Godfather: Five Families on yahoo, until I realised the hundreds of dollars you'd have to invest to get anywhere, and it just keeps on harrassing you.
Personally I hate any game where you can gain advantages just by throwing cash at the game, as it reduces that game to the crushing inevitability of real life, where the rich get all the breaks, and if you do catch a few breaks and start advancing, don't get noticed or someone powerful will use their advantages to smack you back down where they feel you belong.
Bleak, but that's exactly what I don't want reminding of in game, I want to forget it all and imagine that skill would have a part to play in my success.
EDIT: also, the idea that Oprah designed this game for the site...hmm.. closer to the truth that she said 'how about a button on the site?' and someone else retro-created all the BS surrounding it?
Lastly, how about just actually saying 'thank you' to people who help you or deserve it instead? It'll do a fuckload more good for the world than pressing a button.
That or press the button on that other site that donates rice to the starving for each click. Not the one that incrementally makes Oprah even more rich.
|Pages 1 2 NEXT


text:
For Express Booking
Call us now 02 8866 3054
We also repair all of the surrounding suburbs
Hebersham - Dharruk - Bidwill - Blackett - Emerton - Shalvey - Whalan - Mount Druitt - Rooty Hill - Lethbridge Park
Why should you get AC repaired?
Air conditioners, when properly maintained, are a wonderful thing that keeps you and your household comfortable all year round. However, like many things, they can break down. Our expert technicians are here to repair whatever cooling system you have, the moment it stops working the way it should.
We recommend that you call for assistance at the first sign of trouble, to ensure that your unit is repaired quickly and efficiently. Then you can go back to enjoying cool, clean air inside, even when the temperature is climbing outside.
When should you get it repaired?
There are several signs that it might be time to get your unit repaired by our team at Quick Cooling. Some of these are that the unit is leaking water or has a strong unpleasant smell when in use if the unit does not respond or your controller does not seem to be working, and of course, if the air conditioner can't seem to cool the room.
Our customer service team is available 24/7 to help answer your questions and send one of our highly trained experts to your door when your cooling system is letting you down.
No one can beat us for fast and affordable air conditioning repair
We repair every air conditioning brand
We repair every brand of cooling unit on the market. This includes all the major brands such as Actron Air,Aqua Breeze, Bonaire, Braemar, Breezair, Brivis, Carrier, Celair, Coolair, Daikin, Fujitsu, Hitachi, LG, Midea, Mitsubishi Electric, Panasonic, Rinnai, Samsung, Sharp, Toshiba, Vulcan, and many more!
Important Links
We repair every air conditioning system!
All Split Systems
All Ducted Systems
All Evaporative Units
Get your air conditioner repaired
369 satisfied customers this week
Reserve your appointment now!
Call 02 8866 3054
24 hours / 7 days a week


text:
If you're looking for an excuse to wear knee-high socks and suspenders, Germany's Oktoberfest will give you so much more than you imagine.Parties, pork, playgrounds of amusement rides - this is a festival like no other. Crash out each night in the comfort of a hostel & keep things flexible by meeting us in Munich.
Let's start our day with ateam scream at the Bavarian capital of Munich this morning. Get comfortable in our new digs, and use the remainder of this day to catch up on rest or start joining the festivities, depending on your level of determination to make every minute count. But first, an orientation of the city, and your chance to pick up a dirndl or lederhosen for those keen to dress like the locals. Here are some facts to get you in the know: There are 14 main tents, the biggest holding 11,000 party people, so get your checklist as you make your way through as many as you can. It's been said that each year over 7.5 million litres of beer are guzzled, 500,000 roast chickens are eaten, and approximately 50,000 pork knuckles are consumed. So help those statistics and get eating!
This is your chance to experience first hand the famous antics of a 200 year old beer fest. Over the next few days hop between festival tents and amusement rides & sample the many beers that make this such a loved affair. Take advantage of the additional activities up for grabs to mix things up and ensure you see the full picture of the city. You can get a fix on the ins and outs of the city with an optional bike tour of the city to get all new views (and take a break from the beer tents). They say that the more you learn about the past, the better prepared you are for the future, and with this in mind we include a trip to Dachau concentration camp, to pay tribute to the victims of some horrific acts that took place so many years ago.
Well, wasn't that the most wildly wonderful week of your life? From endless beer tasting to satisfying your inner explorer with a bit of culture on the side; this has been an amazing experience to remember. Say auf wiedersehen to your new buddies and hug it out, anyone for St. Patrick's Day in Ireland?
Trusted by travellers since 1979
We guarantee to beat any price
Low deposits, Book now. Pay later.
24/7/365 Help on the road
Trip Name: Oktoberfest
Duration: 5 Days
From Price: $764
Supplier Tour ID: 1.13/211789
We will be in touch shortly
First Name:
Last Name:
Date of Birth:
Email Address:
Telephone Number: