When someone tells you to just "Play better"

Akesgeroth·Oct 8, 2015·234 votes·7,376 views

http://i.imgur.com/pEcpGqn.png

92 Comments

MimyOct 8, 201567 votes

+1 for trueness

Old Man TeetoOct 8, 201554 votes

Teammate A types out thought filled well detailed way on how to deal with scenario currently and in future similar situations.

Teammate B: stfu %%%got

blacktornado21Oct 8, 20154 votes

{quoted}

Teammate A types out thought filled well detailed way on how to deal with scenario currently and in future similar situations.

Teammate B: stfu %%%got

True as it gets m8. Cant deal with feeders who cant even listen to advice that are 100% going to keep them alive.

Nunya BezwacksOct 8, 20156 votes

Sorry to tell you boy but no advice you give will keep them alive 100% stop acting like you know everything, even them leaving the game doesn't save them from death.

TussOct 8, 201512 votes

Barely anyone gives solid advice like that. When I make a bad play, all they say is "Why", like that's supposed to give me a hint about how I could have not died.

AuroramancerOct 8, 201516 votes

"Why" = why would you to that

The hint there is that what you did was wrong. "I just initiated and died, no one followed up...oh, they mean it was a bad time to engage. They were asking why I engaged at a bad time." "The enemy was chasing us and I turned around into them to die....oh, they mean it was stupid for me to suicide into the enemy..." "I died trying to kill a ward that 4 enemies were defending...oh, they mean that it was the wrong time to kill that ward..."

Use your head man, this stuff is not rocket science.

TussOct 8, 20154 votes

I can understand I screwed up, but they never elaborate. I can tell my decision was wrong by the grey tinted screen, but they don't give any tips on how I could do better next time. If I had known the ideal course of action, I wouldn't have screwed up in the first place.

And the answer to "Why" is always "I thought it was a good idea at the time". If I didn't think it would have helped, I wouldn't have done it. Asking why I did something just ticks me off because they never elaborate, so it has the opposite effect. If you want to critique me, then just do it. Don't play stupid infer games.

LeeDarkOct 8, 20152 votes

But WHY did you think it was a good idea? Why was going to push a wave up in the top corner of the map when we have no vision and no towers to back you up something you thought to be a good idea? Why was that moment the moment you decided to initiate a 4v5 teamfight? Why did you think your opponent wouldn't dive the tower when you were at less than 25% health?

Trias000Oct 9, 20153 votes

And if I give you the answer, will it make you sleep better. Or "I thought it was a good idea, but I was wrong" is what you want to hear?

TussOct 9, 20152 votes

Why can't you just spell out your question instead of leaving me to fill in the blanks? Maybe I think you're asking why I bought a Fiendish Codex with the money I got from pushing that lane now that I'm dead, or perhaps you're having a personal crisis as to why you find yourself unable to die as fabulously as I do.

The OasisOct 8, 201524 votes

What's the purpose of even asking "why" aside from tilting your teammate more? They obviously realize it was a bad call when it turns out poorly. The only reason people bothering typing those 3 letters is to vent frustration.

LeeDarkOct 8, 20156 votes

It's called the Socratic method. YOU should be asking yourself "Why?" when you make a mistake. WHY did you think whatever you did was a good idea, and what did you fail to consider?

8rRa2h0505Oct 8, 20159 votes

That is hardly Socratic.

LeeDarkOct 8, 20152 votes

It is. You ask why, and they must figure the answer out. They learn by being forced to justify their own thought process, revealing the flaw in their thinking to themselves.

The OasisOct 8, 201511 votes

That's not how it works. If you ask someone "Why" during a discussion it may make them think about their answer or force them to elaborate on their reasoning, but the simple statement "why?" after a failed baron isn't stimulating their thought process - it's simply one step below flat out BMing your team.

The OasisOct 8, 20153 votes

And other people asking you "why" after a bad play is part of the Socratic method.....how exactly?

LeeDarkOct 8, 20151 votes

I get the impression you don't have any idea what the Socratic method is, or you'd already have the answer to your own question.

The OasisOct 8, 20158 votes

True it was the first time I've heard of it.

Socratic method, also known as method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is named after the >classical Greek philosopher Socrates. It is a form of inquiry and discussion between individuals, based on asking and >answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas.

Doesn't change the fact that when people ask "Why?" after a failed baron attempt they aren't interested in intelligent discussion - they're just venting frustration on someone else. If you think they aren't then you don't know people.

LeeDarkOct 9, 20151 votes

That's an interpretation on your part. Granted, given the attitude of most League players, it's very often an accurate interpretation, but let's ignore that for a moment.

As the RECIPIENT of the "why?", aren't you better off assuming it was the Socratic method instead of assuming they are insulting you? If, theoretically, it could be legitimately interpreted to be either, why not choose the more beneficial interpretation?

The OasisOct 9, 20155 votes

You're really stretching it man. I could theoretically pretend thats what they meant. I could also pretend the statement "This fucking guy" is my teammates praising the enemy rather than bashing me but that doesn't make it true. I'm perfectly capable of analyzing my own mistakes without other people's "help" and, quite frankly, I can't think of any situation where saying that (with no kind of positive context before or after) to your teammate could result in any positive reaction.

But I feel like we may have derailed a bit. Are you advocating that simply saying "why?" to randoms in solo-que will make them play better and realize their mistakes or was your original riposte slightly off mark from what my post said and you're actually just advocating constructive feedback and self-analysis? If the latter, the middle of a game when emotions tend to run high isn't the time to try forcing your feedback onto others (unless they ask for it).

LeeDarkOct 9, 20151 votes

I'm simply saying that "Why?" is short for "Why did you do that?" I am about as convinced that players reflect upon their own mistakes of their own will as you are that such responses aren't meant to be insulting... that is, not at all.

You say they obviously realize it was a bad call when it turned out poorly. But is that really true? If it is, why do they continue to make the same mistake repeatedly, even in the course of just one game, even immediately after the first instance of that same mistake?

Why is it that the person asking "why?" pisses you off more than the person making the same stupid mistake over and over?

TussOct 9, 20152 votes

It's not C getting ticked off at B for asking A "Why", it's A getting ticked off at B for asking "Why". C might also get ticked off because they have also been on the receiving end of the same pointless question and doesn't like seeing someone else receive it either.

LeeDarkOct 10, 20151 votes

Why is anyone getting pissed off at a simple question? Seems like you might have a bigger problem that needs addressing.

You just said, "OMG, how DARE he ask me a question!!! Let me respond with insults and insinuate that he's a worse player than me! That'll show him for asking a QUESTION!" Do you not see the problem there?

CBRPkzBzliOct 10, 20151 votes

Thats just how the environment on league is, i've been reported for toxic after asking my adc why they rushed t2 boots instead instead of building pickaxe, BF or even a doran for dmg. People who play this game just seem to be extremely sensitive while also being extremely critical to others.

The funny part about that particular game that i feel further supports that is, that the same guy who told everyone to report me asked me why i built a Righteous glory instead of a frozen heart. Instead of become upset i simply explained to him that I was the only form of engage on that team and we had multiple people with ninja tabi and i felt it was more valuable at that time.

When i questioned soemones build i was met with a "stfu" by both him and his quo Q partner, this is the typical solo q environment. I could have taken his question as in insult in the same way as he took my but i just explained my reasoning instead, if he'd done the same, the game would have been much better and might have won what was a pretty close game.

TussOct 10, 20151 votes

The way the comment I responded to phrased his comment made it sound like he was asking why the previous poster is getting upset at him for asking why and not the person making the mistake. I was giving an example saying that either the person he was responding to is A, the receiver of the question, or C, the player who is not currently the receiver of the question but has been before and dislikes anyone else being the receiver of the question and coming to A's defense.

I believe you may be referring to something else about the discussion, in which case I'd request you reply to a more relevant comment.

8rRa2h0505Oct 28, 20152 votes

An example of the Socratic Method in League would be:

When you're talking with fellow players about theory-crafting: team comps, tactics, builds, etc., and they make a claim that doesn't obviously follow, such that you find it suspect, you respond with a query, questioning the logical path leading to their conclusion. If you're trying to do that in the middle of a game, especially using the least effort possible, you're effectively a troll for trying (and failing miserably) to distract them from more urgent matters.

To show you how your understanding of the method is flawed, imagine if I had responded to your comment here only with "why?". What question would you have assumed that I was asking? What other questions might I have been asking? What does the one-word question "why?" most remind you of (where is it most often heard / by whom)? How much time did you spend considering the first of these questions? What was your greatest possible margin of error?

Those questions are, together, an example of the method. Hence my previous remark that the one-word question "why?" is "hardly Socratic." Furthermore, the method is intrinsically sincerely inquisitive, where you admit freely that you ask the question starting from a "know-it-all" perspective; a mentality that brooks no challenge and is thus inherently Anti-Socratic. ("Getting them to fix their mistakes," to paraphrase your own words; where Socrates would not assume there even was a mistake). One cannot be simultaneously Socratic and Anti-Socratic.

LeeDarkOct 28, 20151 votes

Context isn't that hard to figure out. If, in response to my post, you merely asked, "Why?" then, from the wording of my rather short post, you'd likely be asking "Why would I already have the answer to my own question?" (In this instance, it is actively searching for an answer, and thus the question, "Why?" would not be Socratic.)

In the context of the situation I was discussing, as I said elsewhere, which you must have read, since you poorly paraphrased the same post, "Why?" means "Why did you do that?" It could also mean "Why did you die/lose that tower/etc.?" but those all boil down the more basic "Why did you do what you did?" Simply put, while the actual context of the question has to do with understanding how the question is Socratic, a misunderstanding of that context, IF SUCH HAD EVEN OCCURRED, would not constitute a flaw in one's understanding of the Socratic method itself.

Fortunately for me, no such misunderstanding even occurred, given that the first and second mention of the question in this conversation BOTH explicitly state that meaning of the question "Why?" In fact, THROUGHOUT this entire thread, you can clearly see myriad posters confirming that they do, in fact, understand the context of the one word question. The only dispute is about the question's intent, and intent is impossible to determine solely from that one word question.

Being unable to determine the intent one way or the other, one is better off assuming an interpretation of the question that does NOT cause tilt. Is that so fucking hard to understand?

8rRa2h0505Oct 28, 20151 votes

I understand you clearly; you're simply wrong. It's not impossible to determine intent. Just as one can deduce meaning logically, so can one determine intent.

You answered the first question, but none of the others. From the context of my comment, it should be obvious that, while your analysis of the question would be logically sound, that would in fact be very far from the question I was actually getting at. Thus the answer to the last question: very significant possible error.

Which ties back to how you're wrong: since there can be very significant error in the interpretation of the meaning of a single word question (the fault of the questioner), then there can also be error in determining intent as well - likewise the fault of the questioner.

My argument (as presented in the first part of my response) stands: trying to spark Socratic Analysis with a minimum of effort in the middle of a game is trollish at best.

LeeDarkOct 28, 20151 votes

Wrong, the two questions are not analogous. I have no need to answer your other questions because your analogy is already inaccurate. As shown throughout the thread, the context of the single word question at hand is not disputed. Only the intent is. Both sides, those who argue ill intent and those who suggest no ill intent, agree that the full question would be worded the same.

Again, I can only reiterate the central point here. Since the intent is disputed, with two possibilities, and neither possibility can actually be proven solely on the evidence given, why are you willfully assuming the worse possibility? Why is the glass half empty for you when it could just as easily be half full? If you assume a Socratic interpretation to the question, you improve your own gameplay and are unlikely to go on tilt. If you assume your teammate it trolling you, then you are likely to get upset and go on tilt. Do you actually desire to increase your chances of losing the game? Or are you perhaps so intent on feeling justified in reporting your teammate for abuse over one word that isn't inherently offensive that you are willing to risk an increased chance at losing the game? I cannot fathom why one would purposely choose the worse of two equal paths.

8rRa2h0505Oct 30, 20151 votes

I didn't claim analogy between discernibility of meaning and intent; however, the parallel I did establish. It's irrelevant if everyone in an arbitrary sample agrees on the meaning of the word in question. That doesn't preclude a player mid game from interpreting it to mean any of a variety of equally logically valid alternatives, including questions such as, "why are you so bad?," or "why don't you just kill yourself?," or "why do I always get matched with noobs/bads?"

Likewise the intent of the question is also able to be misinterpreted, which you have already conceded at this point, and thus my argument stands: "trying to spark Socratic Analysis with a minimum of effort in the middle of a game is trollish at best."

Now, given the obviousness of the answer to the "Socratic" question (namely, that if you realize something is a bad idea, you're generally not going to do it), it is but natural to assume that the feedback "why" (or "y") is intended as a complaint about oneself, and/or an insult of oneself.

And thus we go back to the original post: asking "why" is tantamount to saying "die less," "play better," "l2p," "noob feeder," and a host of other tilt-inducing epithets.

A person capable of speech is responsible for the clarity of said speech, and, knowing that it's likely enough that "why" will be taken as offensive, it's on you to be mindful of that and adjust your communications accordingly. And if you don't know what you're saying, you should strongly consider saying nothing at all.

LeeDarkOct 31, 20151 votes

Wrong again. The general consensus on the meaning of the question is every bit as valid as the general consensus of the meta including a support and adc bot. There is a clear context for the question within the game, and the altermatives you present are not equally valid, as NO OTHER PERSON HERE has assumed those alternatives. Even you don't actually assume any of them; you've merely imagined them for the sake of argument. Since nobody else here accepts those alternatives, I don't feel that I am forced to accept them, either.

More importantly, you STILL have not answered the actual overarching point of my post. You haven't even addressed it a little.

"Again, I can only reiterate the central point here. Since the intent is disputed, with two possibilities, and neither possibility can actually be proven solely on the evidence given, why are you willfully assuming the worse possibility? Why is the glass half empty for you when it could just as easily be half full? If you assume a Socratic interpretation to the question, you improve your own gameplay and are unlikely to go on tilt. If you assume your teammate it trolling you, then you are likely to get upset and go on tilt. Do you actually desire to increase your chances of losing the game? Or are you perhaps so intent on feeling justified in reporting your teammate for abuse over one word that isn't inherently offensive that you are willing to risk an increased chance at losing the game? I cannot fathom why one would purposely choose the worse of two equal paths."

Either explain why you purposely choose the worse of two paths or there can be no further conversation.

8rRa2h0505Nov 7, 20151 votes

Except that people in this thread have postulated alternate meanings to the question, and I am "assuming" them, among others. I explicitly said so.

Furthermore, you yourself subconsciously admit the likelihood of confusion, referring to the differentiable possibilities as "equal paths," even while openly denying the possibility of confusion between them (odd, since equality implies interchangeability).

Further still, the notion that an arbitrary sample proves a point by majority vote is nothing more than pure Bandwagon Fallacy. Even with the Meta, there are people who are ignorant of the prevailing theory, or who reject it, or who actively seek to break it. So too with one-word questions.

And you still haven't addressed the main point I made: that trying to spark a Socratic Analysis with the least effort possible is trollish behavior (and also not Socratic). Yet I have addressed your point: namely with my own.

Sidenote: Socrates was a self-avowed troll - though he used the word "gadfly."

If you can make any credible argument that exercising the least effort possible is indicative of genuine concern for another's edification, I challenge you to do it. For example: a rich man saying "God Bless!" to a starving homeless man and offering nothing more.

LeeDarkNov 7, 20151 votes

Nope, none of that answered the question of why you CHOOSE the worse possibility consciously.

AuroramancerOct 8, 20151 votes

Well, in my experience, I use it as a chance to understand what my teammates are thinking.

When I say "why", they usually say "i don't know" or "i thought you guys would follow up"

Then I'll respond with "we can't take those kinds of fights"/"let <other champion> engage for us", or "we can't follow up on that when we are so far away, wait for us next time"

TussOct 9, 20152 votes

Why don't you just start with the advice instead of just asking "why"? Even if you're just assuming their reasoning, at least you're trying to help instead of just effectively asking "Remind me why you suck again".

AuroramancerOct 9, 20151 votes

Because starting off with "stop doing that" or "stay with the group" ticks off more people and can be unwarranted advice.

Throwing "why" out there puts the discussion in their hands. Do they want to talk about it? Great, respond to the why, then I'll give the advice. Do they NOT want to talk about it? Then they don't have to respond, and I'm not giving unwarranted advice.

8rRa2h0505Oct 30, 20151 votes

It's true that nobody likes a boss, especially a self-appointed one, but there are diplomatic ways of making the same suggestions. For example, "we need to stick together," or "let's make sure we're all on the same page next time." Or "beware of/advise against going solo where we have no vision." A "public service announcement" style of message should go over relatively well, even when only one player seems to need it, and even when everyone - including the player - knows it.

RalanrOct 9, 20151 votes

{quoted}

"Why" = why would you to that

The hint there is that what you did was wrong. "I just initiated and died, no one followed up...oh, they mean it was a bad time to engage. They were asking why I engaged at a bad time." "The enemy was chasing us and I turned around into them to die....oh, they mean it was stupid for me to suicide into the enemy..." "I died trying to kill a ward that 4 enemies were defending...oh, they mean that it was the wrong time to kill that ward..."

Use your head man, this stuff is not rocket science.

To be fair, you could be making a heroic sacrifice to let your teammates live.

I mean it's usually a really stupid move, especially when they follow you to your doom.

AuroramancerOct 9, 20151 votes

Yeah I actually do that a lot when I'm playing a tank. I run into the enemy and spam retreat pings on my team so that there are no misunderstandings

RalanrOct 9, 20151 votes

I still need to learn the pings beyond the ones involving warning and enemy missing.

Yes I am really not good at some of the mechanics in this game.

AkesgerothOct 8, 20151 votes

Personally, I have a tendency to go "why", but if I do that it's because you did something horrendously stupid, like walk away from a 2v1, wait for me to die, then go in 1v2 right afterwards.

TussOct 9, 20152 votes

Then just elaborate "Why did you back off so far from the fight and then come back after I died?" instead of leaving them not knowing why you're ticked at them.

BergkOct 8, 201523 votes

lol kind of like when a middle class person tells a homeless person to "just get a job"

ZrozexOct 8, 20155 votes

{quoted}

lol kind of like when a middle class person tells a homeless person to "just get a job"

Or when the upper class says everyone needs to get an rich as them because they're superior

Players have what I call "Trump Syndrome"

esmelarOct 8, 201517 votes

Sounds like my swimming lessons

SPOILER: I failed twice :(

HdtvThOct 8, 20152 votes

{quoted}

Sounds like my swimming lessons

SPOILER: I failed twice :(

You don't take lessons for swimming, you usually learn when you are a kid by yourself. If it doesn't come to you naturally don't do it, unless you want to drown.

disregardableOct 8, 201522 votes

In the US, swimming lessons for kids are a thing. It's basically a bunch of 4-7 year olds have fun pool time once a week.

DazedOnlookerOct 8, 20154 votes

^ In elementary school it was required that we swim like 1-2x a month at least...i always hated swimming because each time, they would immediately make all of us hop into the deep end of the pool(with an instructor already sitting in the middle of the deep end to make sure we don't sink the moment we jump in ofc) and swim for a bit before letting us play in the shallow end for the rest of the time that we were there.....i was scared every single time. xD