Fifth Avenue Forum

I have been destined to create this thread since the Big Bang.

Momentous

predestined

Is this like cancer

predestined

Speaking of, my daughter has been getting into my old Calvin and Hobbes books. They're pretry philosophical dudes.

Speaking of, my daughter has been getting into my old Calvin and Hobbes books. They're pretry philosophical dudes.

Awesome. I re-read most of the C&H books every couple of years. They never get old, even though I remember nearly all of them.

Speaking of, my daughter has been getting into my old Calvin and Hobbes books. They're pretry philosophical dudes.

There is some pretty seriously deep stuff in those comics, which is one of the beauties of C&H.

predestined

Well done!

Sports ethics/gaming a system related case study:

University of Cincinnati's ultimate frisbee team was scheduled to play in a tournament this past weekend. As it stood last week, they were ranked 14th in the nation and were slated to gain the Ohio Valley Region (covering PA, WV, OH) a second, strength bid to nationals (because Pitt was ranked #1, and every region gets at least 1 bid).

Where's the problem here? Well, Cincinnati decided to drop from their tournament at the last minute to save their perfect 6-0 record (which, when the total games played are compared to other teams, is highly insufficient, but that's another story). Because of "key" wins, their power score in the USA Ultimate ranking algorithm was keeping them at 14th. Had they gone to the tournament they were scheduled to play at, there was a possibility that, if they did not win games by a big enough margin, this power rating would go down and they would potentially lose the strength bid for the region. The final rankings came out today, and they are now ranked #3 in the nation due to sitting out the past weekend.

In your opinion, do you believe that was an ethical move? Is Cincinnati in the right for gaming the system in order to benefit themselves (or potentially another team in the region)?

TL;DR: UC gamed the USA Ultimate ranking algorithm by only playing 6 games (only 2 were considered "key"), winning them, and dropping out of tournament they were scheduled to play in while ranked #14 in the nation, which may have lost them/the Ohio Valley region a bid to Nationals. Is it ethical to intentionally drop out of a tournament at the last minute in order to game the rankings system? Is it fair to the other teams who put their records and rankings on the line to get some playing time in the last weekend of competition before conferences and regionals?

Curious to see how you guys interpret this, especially because you're a true 3rd party observer in this case.

(and before you ask, I have 0 clue as to how the ranking system works)

If it is within the rules...more power to them.

Despite your leading presentation of the story, I'm fine with this. To me, that's what you get for having what sounds like an idiotic ranking system.

ethical/non-ethical depends on the culture of the ultimate frisbee circuit.

like when greg schianno tells his defense to pile on eli manning when he's in victory formation. it's just an effort to win the game, but it wasn't "right" because of the culture of football.

ethical/non-ethical depends on the culture of the ultimate frisbee circuit.

like when greg schianno tells his defense to pile on eli manning when he's in victory formation. it's just an effort to win the game, but it wasn't "right" because of the culture of football.

In hindsight, I probably left a few things out.

There was an issue a few years back with Whitman College in Washington, where they gamed the system by showing up to tournaments, winning games on Saturday, and forfeiting everything on Sunday, because forfeits didn't affect standing at the time. USA Ultimate responded by adding a rule that gave them the right to disqualify teams from either the series or the rankings should they attempt to do what Whitman did. So, there's already some sort of precedent with teams dropping games to maintain their spot in the rankings, it's just that Cincy dropped out prior to the tournament instead of during it.

I also may have misspoke regarding their record, as they were 8-3 (the rankings I looked at last night said 6-0 for some odd reason). However, when compared to other teams in the top 20, they have the least amount of games played (1 above the bare minimum required by USAU). They are/were ranked above teams that had records like 23-4, 20-3, 16-4, etc.

Ultimate is a sport primarily based on sportsmanship. There always has to be some level of it on the field, because there are no officials most of the time. Games are called by the players, and thus there is a level of respect between teams when it comes to playing. People who attempt to "cheat" or game the game through poor sportsmanship (bad foul calls, bad travel calls, etc.) are looked down upon because they hurt the game. It's to the point that at sanctioned events, teams give a "spirit score" or integrity ranking at the end of each game, because of how much good sportsmanship is emphasized (read more here: http://www.usaultimate.org/about/ultima ... _game.aspx).

Cincy dropping out of a tournament at the last minute to save their rankings, in some people's eyes, violates the Spirit of the Game. It shows, to them, that Cincy didn't want to go out on the field and prove that they deserved the spot. In a sport where integrity and respect for others is a top priority, this shouldn't fly.

If it's legal, then oh well.

The thing is, it's only "legal" because the rankings system is not perfect and they've never had to deal with a situation like this before, because teams are expected to play with integrity.

Just like the Whitman thing. They hadn't considered the possibility that teams would forfeit their Sunday tournament games after winning on Saturday until it happened, and they quickly fixed the situation.

I think ethics do not really apply in sports. Take a typical major sports game. A player dives, draws an undeserved penalty, or outright does something illegal and gets away with it. What do the commentators say? Something like, "He helped his team there." Or, more cynically, "Good play there to get that call."

Right vs. wrong rarely matters. It hardly ever comes into the picture except for maybe an occasional eye-roll. That's the state of things and maybe always has been. Winning is the only important thing. These are the virtues we teach children through sports.

That is what is so disingenuous about that commercial from a few years ago about the young basketball player honestly reporting that he touched the ball before it went out of bounds. The coach congratulated him for his integrity. Yeah, right.

Personally, I don't particularly care. i have no children, want no children, and am completely indifferent about the ethical future of the world after I go.

For the strong skeptics of free will, how much of that belief is rooted in the absolute randomness of what happens in your life?
Everyone can come up with 50, 100, 1000 different instances in their own experience, which they can point to.
"If I hadn't gone to that party a week for graduation, I never would have met my future wife", etc.

To me, these random chance events are indeed a pretty strong argument for the lack of control over what happens to you.

For the strong skeptics of free will, how much of that belief is rooted in the absolute randomness of what happens in your life?
Everyone can come up with 50, 100, 1000 different instances in their own experience, which they can point to.
"If I hadn't gone to that party a week for graduation, I never would have met my future wife", etc.

To me, these random chance events are indeed a pretty strong argument for the lack of control over what happens to you.

I think there's a difference between free will and a sense of control. I may want to "control" certain things in my life like getting a raise this year at my job, but there are scenarios that could prevent that from happening. Or I may want to go to the baseball game tonight, so I do what I can to control the situation so that I arrive at my seat at a reasonable time. But what if somebody wrecks into my car on the way or the game is cancelled due to rain? Those are things I can't control, but it doesn't take away my free will to decide to attend the game.

I do think certain things in life are put into place for a reason, but it's not as straightforward as one may believe. In your scenario above, sure you attended the party and your future wife also went to the same party. But what if you didn't approach her? Is the above scenario not considered purposeful just because you didn't do your part in taking action?

Personally, I believe in free will but I came to that conclusion not through experience but more through my own internal philosophical reasoning. More accurately, it came through spiritual reasoning, but that's more for the Religion thread

i agree that's more of a "control" issue. the complexity of the universe had no bearing in me abandoning the notion of free will. we have no free will because there is no randomness. everything that happens is a result of the determining factors that precede it. and those determining factors are a constant, so we are merely playing our roles in a giant equation...or a pre-written story.

These are Numberphile vids which normally I would post in the science thread, but since there's much interest in free will, I thought I'd post them here. (Plus I hate to see the philosophy thread languish for so long.)

They're kinda long, since the professor seems to say the same thing a lot and uses too many words to say it. But I love his accent. Obviously Russian, but at times it sounds like a caricature of a Mexican accent.

Professor Frenkel makes an interesting point about the difference between a thing (in this case, a vector) and the representation of that thing. His larger point, however, seems to be vague. Moreover, if you watch the extra footage vid, Brady (the filmmaker) asks a question that clearly stumps the professor. His argument seems to fall apart and devolves into "that's what I believe, so there."

watched half. gave up. us not having free will takes about 10 seconds of explanation, and there's no math involved.

I like listening to Brady on Hello Internet, but he sucks at making videos. I feel like I'm in a college math class


and it has nothing to do with I don't understand what they're talking about because I took a Linear Algebra class (along with classes that require Linear Algebra like Quantum Mechanics and Differential equations). It's just incredibly boring

Saw this and thought of @shmenguin