Agile Game Development

In article <41B1FD27.7090709@club-internet.fr>, cthibaut@club-
internet.fr says...
> [...]
> You don't seem to understand. I don't care about Christer beeing nice to
> Philip or to anyone for that matter. If he can't argue without calling
> people names, that's OK. I just want to point that he lost some
> credibility to me, since he can't just explain things to someone who
> disagree without insulting him.

I think you're missing the point (or the context, or something).
Philip is the one making claims, not me. It is customary that
the one making the claims is the one who should back them up
with facts. Specifically, his argument built from the assumption
that game developers (note: a generalization) have a problem with
their software engineering. Indeed, implying that it is _the_
(or one of the) major problem(s).

Myself and others pointed out that, no, its really production
that's the major problem, not engineering. As you should know,
it only takes one counterexample to dismiss a generalization.

Note further that there's no need for me to comment on any steps
that follow from a premise where the premise is broken, beyond
pointing out the latter.

Even ignoring the generalization, Philip was asked for some
support for his claims that agile/XP methodologies had been
shown to have positive results in game development domain.

If you followed the thread you'll remember that the "support"
he provided was _one_ Game Developer article that in actuality
said nothing of the sort (which he had to admit, with egg on
his face).

Quite unimpressive to a skeptic who hasn't drunk the
kool-aid.


> I tell myself "surely when you know you are right, you don't need to
> throw such names at people who disagree". So I think Christer's view are
> not quite solid.

You display a misunderstanding: my views are quite irrelevant
to the discussion, as I pointed out above. The burden of
proof was always on Philip.

Still, think what you will; that is your prerogative. As is
it mine to use profanity to ridicule someone who is incapable
or unwilling to support his claims (the premise in particular)
with facts despite repeated prodding on the issue.


Christer Ericson
Sony Computer Entertainment, Santa Monica

WTH a écrit:
>>I tell myself "surely when you know you are right, you don't need to
>>throw such names at people who disagree". So I think Christer's view
>>are not quite solid.
>
>
> Again, you assert that people who are right don't behave as Christer did.
>
>

I assert that people *who know they are right* don't feel to behave like
that. I suggest you pay more attention to what is written before
discussing my remarks.

Note that I think I can hopefully expect such an improvment in our
conversation without the need to call you an idiot.

Christer Ericson a écrit:
>>I tell myself "surely when you know you are right, you don't need to
>>throw such names at people who disagree". So I think Christer's view are
>>not quite solid.
>
>
> You display a misunderstanding: my views are quite irrelevant
> to the discussion, as I pointed out above. The burden of
> proof was always on Philip.

Will he be more inclined to give a proof after you call him a retard ?

Fortunately, to understand why is it that you feel your opinions are
best defended when you throw an insult, we don't need phlip's point or
view, neither wtc's point of view. That insult is entirely yours so you
can explain it easily. Maybe you were tired with eshausting arguments ?
Maybe you felt attacked ?


>
> Still, think what you will; that is your prerogative.
Thank you.

As is
> it mine to use profanity to ridicule someone who is incapable
> or unwilling to support his claims (the premise in particular)
> with facts despite repeated prodding on the issue.

Have fun.


>
>
> Christer Ericson
> Sony Computer Entertainment, Santa Monica

Christophe Thibaut wrote:

> Fortunately, to understand why is it that you feel your opinions are
> best defended when you throw an insult, we don't need phlip's point or
> view, neither wtc's point of view. That insult is entirely yours so you
> can explain it easily. Maybe you were tired with eshausting arguments ?
> Maybe you felt attacked ?

Chris, read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

"A person who makes posts (on newsgroups or other forums) that are solely
intended to provoke responses from others, or to cause annoyance or
offense."

I repeatedly asked Christer to discuss the details of the case, not the
aphorisms or insults. Because he refused, his posts must be solely intended
to provoke responses, and cause annoyance.

Please let both of them have the last word, and get on with your life.

--
Phlip
http://industrialxp.org/community/bi...UserInterfaces

> I assert that people *who know they are right* don't feel to behave
> like that. I suggest you pay more attention to what is written before
> discussing my remarks.

Yes, again, you feel that exhibiting hostility in the way Christer did is an
indication of his argument being incorrect. Again, for the third time, you
say the SAME thing.

> Note that I think I can hopefully expect such an improvment in our
> conversation without the need to call you an idiot.

There's always hope.

WTH

> Will he be more inclined to give a proof after you call him a retard ?

Christer repeatedly asked for such proof and didn't receive it prior to
doing so, so I'm wondering how it hurt his chances then?

> Fortunately, to understand why is it that you feel your opinions are
> best defended when you throw an insult, we don't need phlip's point or
> view, neither wtc's point of view. That insult is entirely yours so
> you can explain it easily. Maybe you were tired with eshausting
> arguments ? Maybe you felt attacked ?

Again, you're getting confused. What makes you think that Christer believes
insulting Philip is defending his position? Christer successfully defends
his position AND labels Philip an idiot accordingly. Two birds with one
stone.

>> Still, think what you will; that is your prerogative.
> Thank you.
>
> As is
>> it mine to use profanity to ridicule someone who is incapable
>> or unwilling to support his claims (the premise in particular)
>> with facts despite repeated prodding on the issue.
>
> Have fun.

Great, now everyone is happy. Merry Xmas, happy Hanukah, happy holidays.

WTH

Phlip <phlip_cpp@yahoo.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated before
with:

> Christophe Thibaut wrote:
>
>> Fortunately, to understand why is it that you feel your opinions are
>> best defended when you throw an insult, we don't need phlip's point
>> or view, neither wtc's point of view. That insult is entirely yours
>> so you can explain it easily. Maybe you were tired with eshausting
>> arguments ? Maybe you felt attacked ?
>
> Chris, read:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
>
> "A person who makes posts (on newsgroups or other forums) that are
> solely intended to provoke responses from others, or to cause
> annoyance or offense."
>
> I repeatedly asked Christer to discuss the details of the case, not
> the aphorisms or insults. Because he refused, his posts must be
> solely intended to provoke responses, and cause annoyance.
>
> Please let both of them have the last word, and get on with your life.

This is where you earn the title of IDIOT Philip. These are YOUR cases we
were discussing and the onus is on YOU to supply the data to support your
claims. You then supplied the post-mortem which ended up embarrassing you
because it actually contradicted what you were saying. How could you expect
Christer to supply you with cases of something he's never experienced?
You're an idiot (je suis desolee Christophe...)

WTH

In article <41B30879.4070408@club-internet.fr>, cthibaut@club-
internet.fr says...
> Fortunately, to understand why is it that you feel your opinions are
> best defended when you throw an insult

Exactly what opinions are you refering to? Either you're a sloppy
reader or a poor deducer. Let me spell it out to you: I have expressed
no opinions at all beyond claiming (more like pointing out, since
anyone can confirm it by reading Game Developer post mortems) that
game developer problems are primary production related (not software
engineering related, as assumed by Philip). That's all it takes to
shoot his harangue into the ground, so there's no need for me to
opine.

Christer Ericson
Sony Computer Entertainment, Santa Monica