Forums
Most Recent
- dealing with pawn-pushers
- 4/25/2018 - K.Begley, 6th Prize, Mat Plus 2008
- If you love Chess
- How useful is it to play chess against the computer to improve?
- best opening for beginner
- How to leave a club
- Do Drinks help in Chess?
- Square Off - Chess Set
- 3/3/2018 - Mislav, 2005
- Why does Kramnik play 1.Nf6 instead of 1.c4
Forum Legend
- Following
- New Comments
- Locked Topic
- Pinned Topic
Gentle reader I am forced to make this thread because i was blocked from another. Lets see if reality can make any inroads.
Now to answer the questions that I was prevented from doing so that were directed at me, personally.
1. So, you apparently think John should just do it for the feels? - Martin Stahl
This is what is termed a straw man argument, that is assuming values that have not been explicitly expressed in order to attack the fabricated values.
Dear Martin Stahl what is it about, I don’t care why John Bartholomew streams, who he streams for or if he is being renumerated for his efforts that you are having difficulty with? I have not said that he should do anything for free, you simply made it up. Why you feel the necessity to fabricate values that have not been explicitly expressed nor implied is known only to you. I suspect it was because you could provide no evidence for some other unsubstantiated claims that you made. Who can say?
he now has the opportunity to produce even better content than he could before when he still had to think about how to earn more money to support himself. That would seem to me to be self evident. David the moderator
What you think is self evident is known only to you, what you have done is make an appeal to your own authority, it amounts to, 'he will produce better content because I say he will produce better content', a vacuous and logically fallacious argument.
Martin Stahl was asked why being paid for producing content would result in better content and he was floundering around the forum like a well spanked bottom, I suspect that its futile to try to ascertain from you even a semblance of reason. If you can provide evidence or a compelling argument why he will provide better content them please do so. I provided evidence and reason to the contrary, if you cannot assail the logic then fine.
As for capitalism vs altruism, I don't want the thread locked so...I will keep quiet. I'll only say that they aren't mutually exclusive. - ArgoNavis
No one is claiming that they are mutually exclusive. What was actually attempted was a 'no true Scotsman' argument by Martin Stahl, that is they are not really doing it for altruistic reasons. How he is aware of what motivates someone I would really like to know. Perhaps he is clairvoyant?
weird , as you know robbie i also was commenting in the thread you was neither abusive or offensive , i didnt see david or martin from staff upset by your posts even though you had differing viewpoints , as you all treat the thread maturely , cant see why you have been blocked from it either
weird , as you know robbie i also was commenting in the thread you was neither abusive or offensive , i didnt see david or martin from staff upset by your posts even though you had differing viewpoints , as you all treat the thread maturely , cant see why you have been blocked from it either
I don't know either, some people are petty mamas boys with hypersensitive sensibilities, if you dare to confront their logic its like their world view crashes to the ground, either way I had no recourse to make any defence of the points that were directed towards me.
It might have been the Op, he was online about 2 hours ago, contributed nothing and left.
Chess.com's competitors aren't doing it - David the Mod
this is a demonstrably false statement, chess dot coms competitors most certainly are streaming content.
there that seems to be about everything. nothing really more to say and will say nothing more unless its directed at me personally.
Now the question at hand is really an interesting one, it was claimed that renumeration produces better results than altruism, i challenged that perspective and to date have received no rational reason why it should be the case. infact it appears to me that it is not the case. The reasons I cited were the open source software community which produced superior software than closed systems simply because of a much broader range of expertise and a rival chess site that works flawlessly, is beautifully programmed and advertisement free, built for purely altruistic reasons. If anyone can provide reason why renumeration is better than altruism I for one would like to hear it.
Did John Bartholemew miss getting a GM norm in Reykjavic?
yeah, it was not even close really
it depends , a person not lacking money but with loads of time and energy might commit to something for the love of it , id argue though that most need income and we get that by trading our effort , im not here to argue what is a fair pay you know where i stand on that , but as an example , for the love of it i admin no one pays me , but i get rich of working with a cracking bunch of ccers , but i also have bills like us all and barring winning the lottery marrying a royal or robbing a bank to get enough to do more than just get by its graft for pay
ok let me explain, no one is contending that we need to earn a living, the idea was proffered by Martin that renumeration produces better results for more people. If i do something of my own violition, not because I expect renumeration, but because I want to contribute something then I think this is greater motivation than money. We shall be free of every expectation, absolutely, free from pressure, just doing it for the kicks. It depends what motivates you, but even so, there has so far been no argument expressed why re-enumeration produces better results.
Its the same difference between buying the one you love a gift because you want to and doing it because its expected of you due to social convention.