Gongxi wrote:No one enjoys someone who, sure, posts facts, but only facts that support one side. I'm sure most of us could do that about a great many subjects- not just basketball- that we're versed in. I could bamboozle you with paragraphs upon paragraphs exhibiting the failure of international law and how it's not only unnecessary but, in fact counterproductive, but I'd be purposely leaving out a lot of other stuff in order to do that. And that's pointless.
If we want to make this a courtroom style setting and argue on behalf of one player against another in a series of posts, alright I guess. I'd rather not- I'm looking at this more cohesively and universally- but it does seem as if some people are already doing that, ie: "Alright, this season I'm going to argue in favor of [X], specifically in relation to [Y], and maybe I can sway some people. If [Y] doesn't have anyone doing that for him...oh well, democracy in action." Sure, you can do it, I'm just not sure why.
If we were having a discussing on international law with a bunch of people that spent an inordinate amount of time watching, analyzing and discussing international law then no, in fact you couldn't bamboozle me with paragraphs and paragraphs on the subject. I'd have a strong understanding of the subject, and I'd be able to read what you wrote, discern the dross from the things worth further consideration.
This isn't a courtroom, nor is it a classroom where we're all forcibly influenced by the knowledge of a superior whose job is to educate. This is a discussion between basketball nerds, all of whom have different perspectives and experiences with what we've seen and what we know. I'm not "advocating" for KG or (I'm sure) Kaima for Malone or Mystic for Dirk just because we're homers for them, we're advocating because we believe them to be better players than they are generally credited with being. In this discussion, we make our case for why we believe that to be true with a group of people that know as much about the game in general as we do. It gives both sides the chance to learn.
I've already pointed out how Kaima's posts have helped me learn some things about Robinson and Malone that I wasn't considering before. By the same token, because other folks also know the game maybe you can point out where some of my KG arguments come up short and then I learn something from that end as well.
If you don't watch Dirk every game, no matter how great you think your system is, you probably don't understand his game as well as Mystic does. And you know what? All he's doing is putting his interpretation out there...you don't HAVE to believe it. Hell, you don't even HAVE to read it. But I think you'd be doing yourself a disservice by ignoring what someone writes just because you didn't agree with it coming in, and I DEFINITELY think that belittling the people that choose to put the time and energy in towards putting their opinion out there does nothing but hamstring this project. To me, it's analogous to the other kids in class making fun of the guy that is working hard and raising his hand to answer the questions. All if does is make something that should be a positive into a negative, and frankly doesn't make anything better.
The point is, if you disagree with a so-called advocate's points, then argue the POINTS. Don't argue the PERSON, and definitely don't argue that they shouldn't "ADVOCATE". Because all "advocate" means in this setting is putting in extra time and energy to analyze, inform and persuade. Which is exactly the way that the most productive discussions occur.