guys im too busy having a life to care are u jealous yet
ESEA and CEVO
posted in
TF2 General Discussion
MAYBNE IF I AGGRESSIVELY DEFLECT AGAINST THE ESEA DEFLECTORS ENOUGH PEOPLE WILL DEFLECT AGAINST DEFLECTING AGAINST ME JUST BECAUSE ITS COOOL TO DO
SURVERY SAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYS?
I WIN AGAIN
MAYBNE IF I AGGRESSIVELY DEFLECT AGAINST THE ESEA DEFLECTORS ENOUGH PEOPLE WILL DEFLECT AGAINST DEFLECTING AGAINST ME JUST BECAUSE ITS COOOL TO DO
SURVERY SAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYS?
I WIN AGAIN
SURVERY SAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYS?
I WIN AGAIN
smakershookyLANs can get DDoSed too, unless you don't have the venue connected to the internet. ESEA LAN is, as Killing wouldn't have to tell everyone to sign off of friends before matches.
what?
killing tells you to sign off friends because they don't have a delay on the stv and they don't want your friends to msg you with secrets (they have a spy! they're running kritz!)
if you think your router is going to get flooded by a ddos attack to the extent that it brings down your gigabit lan then you have an incredible amount of faith in a hotel's shitty 10mbit downstream circuit
I meant that ESEA LAN has to be connected to the internet, otherwise Friends is irrelevant. Not that signing off of friends was to prevent DDoSing.
ESEA LAN getting DDoSed wouldn't affect the matches, but the STVs would be inaccessible to anyone outside the venue.
but this is a terrible argument and I should never post again
[quote=smakers][quote=hooky]LANs can get DDoSed too, unless you don't have the venue connected to the internet. ESEA LAN is, as Killing wouldn't have to tell everyone to sign off of friends before matches.[/quote]
what?
killing tells you to sign off friends because they don't have a delay on the stv and they don't want your friends to msg you with secrets (they have a spy! they're running kritz!)
if you think your router is going to get flooded by a ddos attack to the extent that it brings down your gigabit lan then you have an incredible amount of faith in a hotel's shitty 10mbit downstream circuit[/quote]
I meant that ESEA LAN has to be connected to the internet, otherwise Friends is irrelevant. Not that signing off of friends was to prevent DDoSing.
ESEA LAN getting DDoSed wouldn't affect the matches, but the STVs would be inaccessible to anyone outside the venue.
but this is a terrible argument and I should never post again
what?
killing tells you to sign off friends because they don't have a delay on the stv and they don't want your friends to msg you with secrets (they have a spy! they're running kritz!)
if you think your router is going to get flooded by a ddos attack to the extent that it brings down your gigabit lan then you have an incredible amount of faith in a hotel's shitty 10mbit downstream circuit[/quote]
I meant that ESEA LAN has to be connected to the internet, otherwise Friends is irrelevant. Not that signing off of friends was to prevent DDoSing.
ESEA LAN getting DDoSed wouldn't affect the matches, but the STVs would be inaccessible to anyone outside the venue.
but this is a terrible argument and I should never post again
Invite may die, but out of the ashes a man will emerge. The hero we need. The hero we deserve. The hero we love.
Tyrone
Show Content
i still need to see the Wang soldier duo. plz guys
Invite may die, but out of the ashes a man will emerge. The hero we need. The hero we deserve. The hero we love.
Tyrone
[spoiler]i still need to see the Wang soldier duo. plz guys[/spoiler]
Tyrone
[spoiler]i still need to see the Wang soldier duo. plz guys[/spoiler]
mMAYBNE IF I AGGRESSIVELY DEFLECT AGAINST THE ESEA DEFLECTORS ENOUGH PEOPLE WILL DEFLECT AGAINST DEFLECTING AGAINST ME JUST BECAUSE ITS COOOL TO DO
SURVERY SAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYS?
I WIN AGAIN
are you gonna make a decent post soon
[quote=m]MAYBNE IF I AGGRESSIVELY DEFLECT AGAINST THE ESEA DEFLECTORS ENOUGH PEOPLE WILL DEFLECT AGAINST DEFLECTING AGAINST ME JUST BECAUSE ITS COOOL TO DO
SURVERY SAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYS?
I WIN AGAIN[/quote]
are you gonna make a decent post soon
SURVERY SAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYS?
I WIN AGAIN[/quote]
are you gonna make a decent post soon
squidjust to clarify, this obviously means
...
sorry if this implied meaning was lost on anyone
Don't worry, you did it. You managed to patronize everyone.
[quote=squid]
just to clarify, this obviously means
...
sorry if this implied meaning was lost on anyone[/quote]
Don't worry, you did it. You managed to patronize everyone.
just to clarify, this obviously means
...
sorry if this implied meaning was lost on anyone[/quote]
Don't worry, you did it. You managed to patronize everyone.
squidsquidThere is a pretty common rule of thumb in venture capitalism - you don't invest in a 'person'.
just to clarify, this obviously means (in context) that if a particular person or people are too integral to the success of a business, then it is not a safe investment as their continuation with the work can never be guaranteed (hence the quotes around person)
sorry if this implied meaning was lost on anyone
Isn't the argument against CEVO basically investing in Invite to keep TF2 alive? So basically we are either choosing to believe in Nahanni and Pipher, or Invite. One side is advocating for more of us than the other. Implying that we are unintelligent because we are siding more for the side that is actually trying to do something for us is a little misguided.
We should stay in one place in order not to lose a couple of dozen people, who might just get bored of TF2 anyway? You should pay more attention to the base of your pyramid, if you don't, you're going to topple over.
[quote=squid][quote=squid]There is a pretty common rule of thumb in venture capitalism - you don't invest in a 'person'.[/quote]
just to clarify, this obviously means (in context) that if a particular person or people are too integral to the success of a business, then it is not a safe investment as their continuation with the work can never be guaranteed (hence the quotes around person)
sorry if this implied meaning was lost on anyone[/quote]
Isn't the argument against CEVO basically investing in Invite to keep TF2 alive? So basically we are either choosing to believe in Nahanni and Pipher, or Invite. One side is advocating for more of us than the other. Implying that we are unintelligent because we are siding more for the side that is actually trying to do something for [i]us[/i] is a little misguided.
We should stay in one place in order not to lose a couple of dozen people, who might just get bored of TF2 anyway? You should pay more attention to the base of your pyramid, if you don't, you're going to topple over.
just to clarify, this obviously means (in context) that if a particular person or people are too integral to the success of a business, then it is not a safe investment as their continuation with the work can never be guaranteed (hence the quotes around person)
sorry if this implied meaning was lost on anyone[/quote]
Isn't the argument against CEVO basically investing in Invite to keep TF2 alive? So basically we are either choosing to believe in Nahanni and Pipher, or Invite. One side is advocating for more of us than the other. Implying that we are unintelligent because we are siding more for the side that is actually trying to do something for [i]us[/i] is a little misguided.
We should stay in one place in order not to lose a couple of dozen people, who might just get bored of TF2 anyway? You should pay more attention to the base of your pyramid, if you don't, you're going to topple over.
By "your pyramid", I mean that right now the only arguments in pro of ESEA are applying to the upper echelon of Invite, from what I can see. The CEVO side is applying most of their campaign on the "base" of competitive TF2, Open and IM. So basically your argument that we are investing in a small group of people (AG and the CEVO admins) could be applied right back towards you (investing in trying to keep the top of Invite).
I'm not implying anything about you as a person, just countering the only arguments I've actually seen coming out of this.
By "your pyramid", I mean that right now the only arguments in pro of ESEA are applying to the upper echelon of Invite, from what I can see. The CEVO side is applying most of their campaign on the "base" of competitive TF2, Open and IM. So basically your argument that we are investing in a small group of people (AG and the CEVO admins) could be applied right back towards you (investing in trying to keep the top of Invite).
I'm not implying anything about you as a person, just countering the only arguments I've actually seen coming out of this.
I'm not implying anything about you as a person, just countering the only arguments I've actually seen coming out of this.
There's also a saying in venture capitalism "if you don't understand what the kid is talking about, throw money at him because he's probably the next big thing".
I wouldn't pay too much heed to their aphorisms.
There's also a saying in venture capitalism "if you don't understand what the kid is talking about, throw money at him because he's probably the next big thing".
I wouldn't pay too much heed to their aphorisms.
I wouldn't pay too much heed to their aphorisms.
off topic
Show Content
squidThere is a pretty common rule of thumb in venture capitalism - you don't invest in a 'person'.
My entrepreneurial studies professor actually taught the opposite. The world is full of good ideas but you need the right person (with just the right amount of crazy) to actually be able to manage a startup.
http://www.amplifierventures.com/about/amplifier-team/
http://bizj.us/d54j5/i/2
off topic
[spoiler][quote=squid]There is a pretty common rule of thumb in venture capitalism - you don't invest in a 'person'.[/quote]
My entrepreneurial studies professor actually taught the opposite. The world is full of good ideas but you need the right person (with just the right amount of crazy) to actually be able to manage a startup.
http://www.amplifierventures.com/about/amplifier-team/
http://bizj.us/d54j5/i/2[/spoiler]
[spoiler][quote=squid]There is a pretty common rule of thumb in venture capitalism - you don't invest in a 'person'.[/quote]
My entrepreneurial studies professor actually taught the opposite. The world is full of good ideas but you need the right person (with just the right amount of crazy) to actually be able to manage a startup.
http://www.amplifierventures.com/about/amplifier-team/
http://bizj.us/d54j5/i/2[/spoiler]
frknoff topic
Show ContentsquidThere is a pretty common rule of thumb in venture capitalism - you don't invest in a 'person'.
My entrepreneurial studies professor actually taught the opposite. The world is full of good ideas but you need the right person (with just the right amount of crazy) to actually be able to manage a startup.
http://www.amplifierventures.com/about/amplifier-team/
http://bizj.us/d54j5/i/2
Yeah like WTF. What have I been watching in the Apprentice, is it not all about people? :D
[quote=frkn]off topic
[spoiler][quote=squid]There is a pretty common rule of thumb in venture capitalism - you don't invest in a 'person'.[/quote]
My entrepreneurial studies professor actually taught the opposite. The world is full of good ideas but you need the right person (with just the right amount of crazy) to actually be able to manage a startup.
http://www.amplifierventures.com/about/amplifier-team/
http://bizj.us/d54j5/i/2[/spoiler][/quote]
Yeah like WTF. What have I been watching in the Apprentice, is it not all about people? :D
[spoiler][quote=squid]There is a pretty common rule of thumb in venture capitalism - you don't invest in a 'person'.[/quote]
My entrepreneurial studies professor actually taught the opposite. The world is full of good ideas but you need the right person (with just the right amount of crazy) to actually be able to manage a startup.
http://www.amplifierventures.com/about/amplifier-team/
http://bizj.us/d54j5/i/2[/spoiler][/quote]
Yeah like WTF. What have I been watching in the Apprentice, is it not all about people? :D
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.