Rumours and Stuff

[Zoso]

Schadenfreude.

Is he Brad’ assistant?

 

[84 Baby]

Good to see some people are adjusting well

 

[TheRam]

Leeds is my team. I hope Potates goes well. Really well.

 

[King-Gutho94]

I was watching some Sivo highlights on YouTube the other day.

Man, when he was on, we was phenomenal.

It's a pity he was so lazy.

I reckon he will kill it over there.

Wouldn't surprise me if he scores 30+ tries next season

 

[Glenneel]

I doubt Williams will be a first choice edge forward but Ryles might surprise. I’m keen to see if Guymer is an edge forward option. I assume Tuilagi and Cartwright will be the merkins, and we’ll soon buy a good one for 2026.

If Tuilagi and Cartwright improve their defence they are good edge forwards that run good lines. To them you can add some of our juniors and Matto who is an option there. Those 3 mentioned are very skillful players which is a point of difference between them and many other clubs with less skillful players. If Ryles plays an up tempo style with plenty of passing then they are ideal for that position, but we'll see what style Ryles will play as the preseason training progresses.

 

[JokerEel]

If Tuilagi and Cartwright improve their defence they are good edge forwards that run good lines. To them you can add some of our juniors and Matto who is an option there. Those 3 mentioned are very skillful players which is a point of difference between them and many other clubs with less skillful players. If Ryles plays an up tempo style with plenty of passing then they are ideal for that position, but we'll see what style Ryles will play as the preseason training progresses.

I still want Guymer as the other second rower...

Kelma just needs to get fit and also not suspended.


I hope and think a lot of people underestimate our pack.

 

[T.S Quint]

You would be surprised at how many people are incompetent at their jobs. If you can’t judge people by using outcomes as one of your metrics then you’re creating an unfalsifiable scenario where no matter what any group running an organisation do they cannot be categorised as wrong.
You’re basically saying that any organisation should never be questioned no matter the decision they make because the rest of us are just internet deadshits who have no idea. I think that’s a ridiculous assertion because nobody should be above being criticised. The ironic thing is that by justifying every action you’re doing the exact thing that you’re criticising the critics for. You’re inserting your own “internet deadshits” opinion but using it to defend the decisions instead of criticising them.

Using outcomes as metrics is fair, but the problem is we don't know the details from within that led to these metrics.
An employee can only work with what they are given and may have constraints we are not privy to. A poor outcome looks bad but is it the fault of the employee of their boss for not giving them the correct tools?

Criticism can be fair, but sometimes it can also be misguided. We can only use the details given to us when making a decision on what's gone wrong, so it's understandable for some to stand back and say "You know what, I'm not sure what happened here. It's a shit outcome, but it's possible something happened to make it this way instead of this person just being dumb and shit at their job."

 

[T.S Quint]

I still want Guymer as the other second rower...

Kelma just needs to get fit and also not suspended.


I hope and think a lot of people underestimate our pack.

I think the same.
We need a good defended on the edge and he is much. better than Cartwright or Tuilagi.
Tuilagi has great impact in attack running good lines. He could be very useful coming off the bench.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Is he Brad’ assistant?

Nah he's the brother of that bloke who sang Out of Mind, Out of Sight and Barbados.

 

[lucablight]

Using outcomes as metrics is fair, but the problem is we don't know the details from within that led to these metrics.
An employee can only work with what they are given and may have constraints we are not privy to. A poor outcome looks bad but is it the fault of the employee of their boss for not giving them the correct tools?

Criticism can be fair, but sometimes it can also be misguided. We can only use the details given to us when making a decision on what's gone wrong, so it's understandable for some to stand back and say "You know what, I'm not sure what happened here. It's a shit outcome, but it's possible something happened to make it this way instead of this person just being dumb and shit at their job."

Are we talking about the coach or the executive staff? If it’s the executive staff then they in effect are the bosses so there’s no boss to blame but themselves if they make a poor decision.

You and Pou are arguing two different points. You seem to be saying that a poor outcome could be due to a factor outside of the control of the employee giving the poor performance (this isn’t a given though and it could just be that the performance wasn’t good enough despite adequate tools being provided). Pou is saying that anyone outside the organisation isn’t educated enough to have an opinion because the people in the organisation know best so any criticism is unwarranted (this create a scenario where any criticism even if it’s warranted is shutdown).
We’d have to look at specific examples to see whether criticism was warranted, unwarranted or whether we just didn’t have sufficient data to arrive at a conclusion.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

You would be surprised at how many people are incompetent at their jobs.

The fact you’re using the term ‘incompetent’ shows you don’t understand, since you see the world of work as a binary of competent or incompetent. The fact is it is a continuum from least competent to most competent.

If you can’t judge people by using outcomes as one of your metrics then you’re creating an unfalsifiable scenario where no matter what any group running an organisation do they cannot be categorised as wrong.

That’s because ‘wrong’ is also not an appropriate term to discuss probabilistic decision making such as risk management. It is possible to assess risk perfectly and still get a poor outcome. But even this reveals something you obviously don’t grasp: while it is possible to judge probability (e.g. for risk) extremely well, you’ll never actually know how well you judged it. The outcome certainly doesn’t prove it, since you can make a good decision and still be unlucky, or you can make a poor decision and have dumb luck save your arse.

And if the person with the most facts can’t know how well they judged, how could an outsider have any idea? The information to measure these judgements can only come over very large samples and long time spans.

You’re basically saying that any organisation should never be questioned no matter the decision they make because the rest of us are just internet deadshits who have no idea.

Well I obviously don’t consider myself an internet deadshit and I still admit I have no idea about these things. And if I have no idea then the rest of you idiots definitely don’t.

I think that’s a ridiculous assertion because nobody should be above being criticised. The ironic thing is that by justifying every action you’re doing the exact thing that you’re criticising the critics for. You’re inserting your own “internet deadshits” opinion but using it to defend the decisions instead of criticising them.

That’s because determining when someone has no idea about something can occur very quickly when you have a chance to talk candidly with them, as we do here. Basing it off the performance of their NRL club takes a lot more time and information.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Using outcomes as metrics is fair, but the problem is we don't know the details from within that led to these metrics.
An employee can only work with what they are given and may have constraints we are not privy to. A poor outcome looks bad but is it the fault of the employee of their boss for not giving them the correct tools?

Criticism can be fair, but sometimes it can also be misguided. We can only use the details given to us when making a decision on what's gone wrong, so it's understandable for some to stand back and say "You know what, I'm not sure what happened here. It's a shit outcome, but it's possible something happened to make it this way instead of this person just being dumb and shit at their job."

ffs

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Are we talking about the coach or the executive staff? If it’s the executive staff then they in effect are the bosses so there’s no boss to blame but themselves if they make a poor decision.

Agreed but even without bosses, they are limited by resourcing.

You and Pou are arguing two different points.

I am myself making two different points. One of them is the same point T.Squint is making. One isn’t.

You seem to be saying that a poor outcome could be due to a factor outside of the control of the employee giving the poor performance (this isn’t a given though and it could just be that the performance wasn’t good enough despite adequate tools being provided).

This is what I’m saying as well, but you’ve ignored it and fixated on the fact I’ve called you a dumdum.

Pou is saying that anyone outside the organisation isn’t educated enough to have an opinion because the people in the organisation know best so any criticism is unwarranted (this create a scenario where any criticism even if it’s warranted is shutdown).

No I’m saying you don’t have the information (not the education) to make this judgement. The fact you don’t know this is due to lack of education. It’s a subtle difference ffs!

We’d have to look at specific examples to see whether criticism was warranted, unwarranted or whether we just didn’t have sufficient data to arrive at a conclusion.

Agreed

 

[Zoso]

Nah he's the brother of that bloke who sang Out of Mind, Out of Sight and Barbados.

Yes of course, I remember. James Schadenfreude. Related to Sigmund Schadenfreude.

 

[Legal Eel]

Agreed but even without bosses, they are limited by resourcing.

I am myself making two different points. One of them is the same point T.Squint is making. One isn’t.

This is what I’m saying as well, but you’ve ignored it and fixated on the fact I’ve called you a dumdum.

No I’m saying you don’t have the information (not the education) to make this judgement. The fact you don’t know this is due to lack of education. It’s a subtle difference ffs!

Agreed

I have trouble believing you aren't more well liked or respected around these parts, given how often you generously deduce everyone else's "lack of education", or helpfully call them "dumb" and "stupid".

People just don't appreciate your altruistic approach or collegiate demeanour, do they?

 

[Tiger5150]

I have trouble believing you aren't more well liked or respected around these parts, given how often you generously deduce everyone else's "lack of education", or helpfully call them "dumb" and "stupid".

People just don't appreciate your altruistic approach or collegiate demeanour, do they?

*autistic

 

[Pazza]

*autistic

Weaponised

 

[emjaycee]

I have trouble believing you aren't more well liked or respected around these parts, given how often you generously deduce everyone else's "lack of education", or helpfully call them "dumb" and "stupid".

People just don't appreciate your altruistic approach or collegiate demeanour, do they?

Dude, I've told you before, there are 12 steps and you keep going back to step 1.

"Don't Engage"

 

[emjaycee]

Well I obviously don’t consider myself an internet deadshit and I still admit I have no idea about these things. And if I have no idea then the rest of you idiots definitely don’t

I'm an internet deadshit.

#happytobeprovenwrong

 

[Legal Eel]

Dude, I've told you before, there are 12 steps and you keep going back to step 1.

"Don't Engage"

I'm an internet deadshit.

#happytobeprovenwrong

I will follow your example.