ImageImageImageImageImage

Ted's been approved, it's official!

Moderators: nate33, montestewart, LyricalRico

User avatar
tontoz
RealGM
Posts: 20,919
And1: 5,391
Joined: Apr 11, 2005

Re: Ted's been approved, it's official! 

Post#221 » by tontoz » Thu Feb 3, 2011 4:31 pm

DallasShalDune wrote:did anyone catch this?

http://www.nba.com/wizards/video/2011/0 ... index.html



I liked the interview too. Cool that he is so accessible. I dont see him as a guy who is going to duck tough questions like so many other owners/front office people.

I was surprised to hear him mention that Wall's defense needs to improve. He is right obviously but it just surprised me to hear him say it.
"bulky agile perimeter bone crunch pick setting draymond green" WizD
User avatar
Illuminaire
Veteran
Posts: 2,970
And1: 606
Joined: Jan 04, 2010
 

Re: Ted's been approved, it's official! 

Post#222 » by Illuminaire » Thu Feb 3, 2011 5:35 pm

I greatly appreciate Ted Leonsis. He won't do everything right. But he is willing to listen and to learn, something very few other owners can claim. His rebuilding philosophy is sound and realistic, and he appears to really care about the team and, gasp, the fans.

It's almost enough to give me hope again. :-)
verbal8
General Manager
Posts: 8,354
And1: 1,377
Joined: Jul 20, 2006
Location: Herndon, VA
     

Re: Ted's been approved, it's official! 

Post#223 » by verbal8 » Thu Feb 3, 2011 6:12 pm

Illuminaire wrote:I greatly appreciate Ted Leonsis. He won't do everything right. But he is willing to listen and to learn, something very few other owners can claim. His rebuilding philosophy is sound and realistic, and he appears to really care about the team and, gasp, the fans.

It's almost enough to give me hope again. :-)


That will definitely put him ahead of the Skins owner :)
User avatar
Nivek
Head Coach
Posts: 7,406
And1: 959
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Contact:
         

Re: Ted's been approved, it's official! 

Post#224 » by Nivek » Thu Feb 3, 2011 7:52 pm

That interview made me glad that Ted's the owner.

Well, I was already happy about it -- now that feeling is reinforced.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
fishercob
RealGM
Posts: 13,922
And1: 1,571
Joined: Apr 25, 2002
Location: Tenleytown, DC

Re: Ted's been approved, it's official! 

Post#225 » by fishercob » Thu Feb 3, 2011 8:04 pm

verbal8 wrote:
Illuminaire wrote:I greatly appreciate Ted Leonsis. He won't do everything right. But he is willing to listen and to learn, something very few other owners can claim. His rebuilding philosophy is sound and realistic, and he appears to really care about the team and, gasp, the fans.

It's almost enough to give me hope again. :-)


That will definitely put him ahead of the Skins owner :)


You better hope he doesn't see that -- he'll sue!
"Some people have a way with words....some people....not have way."
— Steve Martin
AceDegenerate
Banned User
Posts: 4,852
And1: 1
Joined: Aug 01, 2002

Re: Ted's been approved, it's official! 

Post#226 » by AceDegenerate » Sat Feb 5, 2011 2:50 pm

"How you gonna get value for him? Unless you're gonna go get Deron Williams or Chris Paul or somebody like that, tell me how. Why do we have to bottom out to rebuild our team? I don't see why you would want to bottom out and spend the next five years trying to get good again."

"I don't see how it makes any sense for us to move him," GM Lon Babby said. "I know that people think we ought to look to the future. And we're doing that. But if you look at the history of the teams that have sort of blown it up, as the expression goes, how successful have they been in recapturing [elite status] and how long does it take?


Alvin Gentry regarding dealing Steve Nash and the idea of blowing up the team to rebuild. I think he makes a good point about not necessarily needing to "bottom out" your roster in order to rebuild. With Oklahoma City as the only success story for rebuilding in this manner, I think we may be headed the wrong way down a long one way street.
montestewart
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 14,834
And1: 7,965
Joined: Feb 25, 2009

Re: Ted's been approved, it's official! 

Post#227 » by montestewart » Sat Feb 5, 2011 7:15 pm

AceDegenerate wrote:
"How you gonna get value for him? Unless you're gonna go get Deron Williams or Chris Paul or somebody like that, tell me how. Why do we have to bottom out to rebuild our team? I don't see why you would want to bottom out and spend the next five years trying to get good again."

"I don't see how it makes any sense for us to move him," GM Lon Babby said. "I know that people think we ought to look to the future. And we're doing that. But if you look at the history of the teams that have sort of blown it up, as the expression goes, how successful have they been in recapturing [elite status] and how long does it take?


Alvin Gentry regarding dealing Steve Nash and the idea of blowing up the team to rebuild. I think he makes a good point about not necessarily needing to "bottom out" your roster in order to rebuild. With Oklahoma City as the only success story for rebuilding in this manner, I think we may be headed the wrong way down a long one way street.

It's true, OKC is far from the only success story, and many good teams over the years have retooled without bottoming out. Bottoming out or not, the secret seems to usually be tied to getting that one good player, and the rest following from there. I hope Wall is that player for us, and I'd be hoping for the same with or without Arenas. If they still has Arenas, I don't know that things would be much different right now, other than Young getting fewer minutes and more of Thornton and maybe Booker. Unlike Arenas, Nash (who's about to turn 37) is playing very near the top of his game, though he's surely not too far from retiring. That's gotta be inspiring for the younger players and the fans. I can see why they'd consider keeping him until the end, and if a few things broke differently, I could see why Leonsis might have wanted to keep Arenas too.
User avatar
Illuminaire
Veteran
Posts: 2,970
And1: 606
Joined: Jan 04, 2010
 

Re: Ted's been approved, it's official! 

Post#229 » by Illuminaire » Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:34 pm

Hyperbolic fact-twist by Kriz?

Read the article... even that writer places the blame on FTD for changing the coupon results on their end.

"Update: Groupon responds below in the comments. Among other things, they’re giving users an automatic refund for any difference they paid over the retail price FTD was offering everyone else."
AceDegenerate
Banned User
Posts: 4,852
And1: 1
Joined: Aug 01, 2002

Re: Ted's been approved, it's official! 

Post#230 » by AceDegenerate » Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:49 pm

Illuminaire wrote:Hyperbolic fact-twist by Kriz?

Read the article... even that writer places the blame on FTD for changing the coupon results on their end.

"Update: Groupon responds below in the comments. Among other things, they’re giving users an automatic refund for any difference they paid over the retail price FTD was offering everyone else."


Not quite.. When I posted this the Edit was not there yet. However, the cover-up after the fact sure sounds like Business as usual for Ted doesn't it?

Still doesn't change what happened below:

when groupon called me and wanted to run a http://socialprintshop.com deal, their sales rep basically told me to double the price of my product for a month to make things work for me giving a 50% off deal. Living Social did the exact same thing, as did another deal site that reached out to me. Living social only required me to lower the price for 1 week after the deal ended.
User avatar
Illuminaire
Veteran
Posts: 2,970
And1: 606
Joined: Jan 04, 2010
 

Re: Ted's been approved, it's official! 

Post#231 » by Illuminaire » Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:33 pm

Ace...

Your first post made a fact claim - that Ted Leonsis (Mr. Groupon) conducted unethical business practices.

This claim is very specific. Your statement cannot be interpreted in very many ways, and all of them include Ted himself being directly involved in this unethical business activity.

You then gave us an article link. The obvious inference is that the link would provide the factual basis for your truth claim. If it did not, then your statement was unsupported. That article did go on to discuss a shady business tactic... by a groupon client. The author of the article clearly placed the blame on FTD, with only an indirect rebuke aimed at Groupon. Moreover, the author's ire at Groupon was actually based on the fact that up until this incident, they had acted in an honorable and ethical manner with customers.

In other words, this incident appeared to be a departure from their normal standards of operation. Even when other clients had reneged on their coupons, Groupon had covered that for customers who informed them, so it was shocking to the author that they were not doing so with FTD - shock he had to repeal because Groupon WAS refunding the difference in cost.

Your linked article does not condemn Groupon. It does not reveal unethical business practices. At worst it reveals a corporate mistake that Groupon had only a small part in. At WORST, mind you. Furthermore, the article does not even attempt to link any of this to specific decision maker, which would be absolutely necessary to support your accusation that Ted Leonsis conducted unethical business practices.

To summarize, your truth claim is:
1) Unsupported by the article you listed
2) Requires the outright fabrication of additional "facts"
3) Exaggerated beyond reason

So yes, you employed hyperbole and twisted facts. There is no "not quite" about it. That is what you did, period.


PS: It's not a "cover up" when a company refunds a consumer's money. If you walked down to Walmart and bought something, then found out it's broken, you would take it back. Walmart would then refund your money or exchange the item for another one. None of that means that Walmart WANTED to sell you a bad product (unethical) or that they tried to hide the fact that they did (a cover up). It just means you got a bum item and they made it right by giving your money back.

PPS: There is a reason that hearsay is not permissible as evidence in courts of law. For the same reason, resting your *entire* argument on the blog postings left by random internet people at the end of an article is irresponsible and unconvincing. The bar for truth is higher than internet rumors, even here.
AceDegenerate
Banned User
Posts: 4,852
And1: 1
Joined: Aug 01, 2002

Re: Ted's been approved, it's official! 

Post#232 » by AceDegenerate » Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:39 pm

^--- I think we just found who Ted posts as on this forum.

BTW, I don't believe you. Period.
User avatar
Illuminaire
Veteran
Posts: 2,970
And1: 606
Joined: Jan 04, 2010
 

Re: Ted's been approved, it's official! 

Post#233 » by Illuminaire » Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:52 pm

It's not a matter of belief, but of reason. Can you explain what parts of my argument were incorrect?
Ruzious
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 47,909
And1: 11,582
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

Re: Ted's been approved, it's official! 

Post#234 » by Ruzious » Sat Feb 12, 2011 8:29 pm

Illuminaire wrote:It's not a matter of belief, but of reason. Can you explain what parts of my argument were incorrect?

Of course he can't. But his defense should be that he's so well known for mis-representing facts and making foolish claims, that nobody should take anything he says seriously. If you do, then it's shame on you.
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 70,769
And1: 23,284
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Ted's been approved, it's official! 

Post#235 » by nate33 » Sat Feb 12, 2011 8:48 pm

Illuminaire wrote:Ace...

Your first post made a fact claim - that Ted Leonsis (Mr. Groupon) conducted unethical business practices.

This claim is very specific. Your statement cannot be interpreted in very many ways, and all of them include Ted himself being directly involved in this unethical business activity.

You then gave us an article link. The obvious inference is that the link would provide the factual basis for your truth claim. If it did not, then your statement was unsupported. That article did go on to discuss a shady business tactic... by a groupon client. The author of the article clearly placed the blame on FTD, with only an indirect rebuke aimed at Groupon. Moreover, the author's ire at Groupon was actually based on the fact that up until this incident, they had acted in an honorable and ethical manner with customers.

In other words, this incident appeared to be a departure from their normal standards of operation. Even when other clients had reneged on their coupons, Groupon had covered that for customers who informed them, so it was shocking to the author that they were not doing so with FTD - shock he had to repeal because Groupon WAS refunding the difference in cost.

Your linked article does not condemn Groupon. It does not reveal unethical business practices. At worst it reveals a corporate mistake that Groupon had only a small part in. At WORST, mind you. Furthermore, the article does not even attempt to link any of this to specific decision maker, which would be absolutely necessary to support your accusation that Ted Leonsis conducted unethical business practices.

To summarize, your truth claim is:
1) Unsupported by the article you listed
2) Requires the outright fabrication of additional "facts"
3) Exaggerated beyond reason

So yes, you employed hyperbole and twisted facts. There is no "not quite" about it. That is what you did, period.


PS: It's not a "cover up" when a company refunds a consumer's money. If you walked down to Walmart and bought something, then found out it's broken, you would take it back. Walmart would then refund your money or exchange the item for another one. None of that means that Walmart WANTED to sell you a bad product (unethical) or that they tried to hide the fact that they did (a cover up). It just means you got a bum item and they made it right by giving your money back.

PPS: There is a reason that hearsay is not permissible as evidence in courts of law. For the same reason, resting your *entire* argument on the blog postings left by random internet people at the end of an article is irresponsible and unconvincing. The bar for truth is higher than internet rumors, even here.

This was the logic smackdown of the month!

Nice job, Illuminaire.
User avatar
Induveca
Head Coach
Posts: 7,379
And1: 724
Joined: Dec 02, 2004
   

Re: Ted's been approved, it's official! 

Post#236 » by Induveca » Sat Feb 12, 2011 10:40 pm

For what it's worth Leonsis is on the board and a major VC. He meets with the top guys (founder, upper management) at Groupon in Chicaco once a month.

In terms of day to day operations, he's really not involved..........but he has helped to set strategy for the past 18 months. What you wrote was very logical Illuminaire, but at the end of the day it really has little to do with Leonsis. He has his hands full with at least 10 investments, Groupon being the one that will pay for the rest likely failing.
AceDegenerate
Banned User
Posts: 4,852
And1: 1
Joined: Aug 01, 2002

Re: Ted's been approved, it's official! 

Post#237 » by AceDegenerate » Sun Feb 13, 2011 2:39 pm

Induveca wrote:For what it's worth Leonsis is on the board and a major VC. He meets with the top guys (founder, upper management) at Groupon in Chicaco once a month.

In terms of day to day operations, he's really not involved..........but he has helped to set strategy for the past 18 months. What you wrote was very logical Illuminaire, but at the end of the day it really has little to do with Leonsis. He has his hands full with at least 10 investments, Groupon being the one that will pay for the rest likely failing.


Nice job Induveca. What do you know? Someone on this forum who doesn't speak out of their ass? Wow. :clap:
User avatar
Illuminaire
Veteran
Posts: 2,970
And1: 606
Joined: Jan 04, 2010
 

Re: Ted's been approved, it's official! 

Post#238 » by Illuminaire » Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:53 pm

I agree with Induveca as well; It's very true that Leonsis has little to do with the day-to-day operations of Groupon. That was actually one of my points - you can't claim he is the source of unethical business practices without a much higher burden of proof than a single incident where a Groupon *client* made a shady choice.

To do that, you would need to show first that a representative of Groupon was complicit in that unethical decisions. Then you would need to show that Groupon management enabled, encouraged, or called for that complicit behavior. Then you would need to show that Leonsis was personally aware of this behavior and either allowed it via negligence or ordered it himself.

None of that was established by the article (or any other evidence that we have seen thus far). There is no visible link between Ted's contributions to Groupon and unethical business decisions. Induveca rightly points out that we don't even have a clear link between Ted and any specific daily Groupon operations at all, let alone a potential negative exception to their normal way of doing business.

Ace, you can attempt to keep using deflections and thinly veiled insults, but I will continue to bring this conversation back to the actual factual arguments in play. You are welcome to do the same.
AceDegenerate
Banned User
Posts: 4,852
And1: 1
Joined: Aug 01, 2002

Re: Ted's been approved, it's official! 

Post#239 » by AceDegenerate » Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:47 pm

Just because you decide something is fact, does not make it so.

Uncle Teddy runs the company, or at least likes to claim credit whenever the company does something he thinks is good. There is plenty evidence on that page that the company is engaged in shady deals. Period.
User avatar
Illuminaire
Veteran
Posts: 2,970
And1: 606
Joined: Jan 04, 2010
 

Re: Ted's been approved, it's official! 

Post#240 » by Illuminaire » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:27 pm

I had the courtesy to make logical arguments to explain my position. If you think I am wrong, have the courtesy to show me how I am wrong. You are right to say that just because I claim something is fact, it is not necessarily so.

But where am I incorrect? What facts did I misunderstand? What logical progression did I err in? If you cannot show that, then evidence and reasons suggests that I am right after all.

As for your current claim, what evidence in "that page" says the company is engaged in shady deals? The journalist written article does not. The other "evidence" appears to be nothing more than second hand accounts from mostly anonymous internet responders. That is a very, very low bar to set for burden of proof. In fact, If that is acceptable, then it stands to reason that anything I write here is just as valid!

"Groupon is basically what Ghandi would do if he ran a company. They are the most ethical, honest, and generally awesome people I have ever known. Everyone who says they're not is lying!"

We both know that's not likely to be true. We also know that just because I said it, it's not necessarily true - your original point one post ago. But if that is true - that just saying something is not proof that it's factual - then we cannot simply take vague comments at face value either. You cannot have it both ways. If you desire a higher burden of proof for one side of the argument, you must provide the same level of evidence for the other.

I have already dealt with your initial claims from the article itself. For the third time - if you believe I am wrong, explain HOW I am wrong. Do some legwork. Connect some dots. I'm not deciding anything, I'm arguing with rudimentary human reason. If you can show that my reasoning is flawed, great! So far, though, you have not even attempted to engage my actual arguments.

Return to Washington Wizards