The Weekend ITK Discussion Thread - 23/24 July 2011

mdharris · Jul 24, 2011

Rob said:
Also do we have a Forlan thread this window?

http://www.people.co.uk/sport/footb...-spurs-move-on-free-transfer-102039-23292609/

hmmm, grasping at straws here, and i see no connection with the itk- but you've been pushing that forlan article quite a bit...

Lilbaz · Jul 24, 2011

The only thing I'll say about the People, is that you can tell they don't hack phones.

Shep · Jul 24, 2011

ealingspur said:
apparently ozil has taken diarra's squad number in madrid.

So he is number 10 next year? So who has 23 or is Diarra just taking another number?

ealingspur · Jul 24, 2011

dunno mate, took it from the diarra thread.

Strikeb4ck · Jul 24, 2011

Germany - The man in GerMANy.

Gery? That make sense to anybody?

Bill_Oddie · Jul 24, 2011

Nicko really is dreadful. That entire Forlan link looks nothing short of ridiculous when you put it in the context of the last part of the "article" written by Nixon:

Nicko said:
BRISTOL CITY boss Keith Millen wants South Africa World Cup star Bongani Khumalo to make it a Tottenham double in his defence.

Millen hope s to sign Khumalo, 24, on a long-term loan deal and has opened talks with Redknapp. The Robins already have teenager Steven Caulker on loan from White Hart Lane to build up his experience.

Reading are also keen on powerful Khumalo, who was born in Swaziland but grew up in Pretoria, and was on loan at Preston last season before the spell was cut short by injury.

Hmm, that would be the Caulker already at Swansea, right?

Christ on a bicycle.

lifeof... · Jul 24, 2011

Rob said:
Most of the ITK that was posted was quite clear, Vucinic not as close as some are saying, Adebayor even further away and Marin not looking likely either.

With the cryptic bits, it's more about letting people know something is going on without being able to say who it's about. We can either say nothing or hint at stuff which keeps people talking without risking any sources.

If people would prefer an "absolutely no cryptics" policy then that's cool with us but would also mean we'd sit on a lot of stuff that wouldn't see the light of day...?

I think the way we have it now is probably favourable to most people but happy to be corrected.

I for 1 would prefer an No cryptic policy, But I don’t see how that would result in you “sitting on stuff that does not see the light of day” Firstly I thought the whole reason for the goat, was so the “itk” dude was protected, and secondly, surely something like. We are in the early stages of ……..or interested a player, It’s a name not mentioned yet, and the source cannot reveal the name. but he is a striker out of the prem” for example. Or don’t post anything until you can say something like, “the goat has also heard this…etc” when the players name comes up from another point.

Rob said:
We agree with you about the pointless cryptic but as i've explained that doesn't apply to any that we've posted. They were made very hard on purpose.

But, Rob, Surely this gives the same result, which makes it as pointless

Rob said:
But the majority of the ones posted by The Goat haven't been solved...

That was kind of the point in them, rather than to pst something that could be guessed in 10 mins.

Again isn’t it pointless? I could understand, if someone did actually get the right answer, and it was then Noted as such, but your explanations it cant, so what’s the point? By the definitions you give, it basically boils down to not giving information.

Rob said:
It's a choice of either:

We tell you what we can cryptically so we keep the source sweet and you know something is happening and people can pass the time guessing a bit

or

We keep it private as the source doesn't want it shared and you sit in here talking about Modric going all day

Also the majority of the information posted wasn't cryptic but that's been ignored.

So people posting wild / educated / left field guesses, wish list, by the 100s, is preferable to posting comments about a Spurs player…I fully understand why you want Modric talk else where, but is this guessing game really any better.?

And your last point is key to why I rather not have cryptic, because as you say, the non cryptic stuff got missed, as people were on a wild goose chase. This is why I feel you should look at what was the actual outcome, rather than a perceived desired outcome.

Rob said:
Exactly and also the fact that we're in talks with someone.

Like I said, people generally seem to like getting the cryptic stuff compared to us not posting anything at all and at least it keeps this thread vaguely on topic.

I think this is the key point. And TBH, with all cryptics, all I see is “so we are in talks with someone,” which is hardly enlightening, But its about the ‘masses” here, I think as owners / admin / mods, you have to take some responsibility for what you create, Surely you have seen how many peoples have blind faith in that cryptic guess, especially when it comes for SC own Goat.

Rob said:
It's more the fact that the source that the ITK is getting the info from will stop sharing it if it ends up on the forums that blatantly. We know people who've been sacked/disciplined for things along those lines.

But surly, in order to protect someone, either post something like “we are looking at a yet unnamed striker, who plays in a European league, unfortunately we cant name him yet.” Whilst it will no doubt create some guessing, perhaps not pages and pages. Or just don’t post, until it has already reached the light, and then add your support,

Rob said:
The problem with your suggestion though is that all of the mods/admins know who it pertains to as well as the original source.

If we then turned around and said it was someone else, I think we'd start a riot in the mod forum

Also if you don't trust us to own up whether it came of or not then you probably shouldn't trust us to run this place and should use somewhere else ;-p

I don’t think it is about not trusting, perhaps more the other way round, hence anything said is taken to be “true” which is where the problem comes.

spurslenny said:
Personally, I'd get by quite happily with no cryptic ITK.

They achieve nothing, because ultimately someone, somewhere will solve the clue, so the actual ITK may as well been posted in the first place.

All we end up with is 45 pages of half baked answers and a load of spamming.

Get rid is what I say.

This really is all cryptic itk achieves.

mil1lion said:
Cryptic clues are completely pointless. Even if you guess it right you still don't know that it's right because the ITK never reveal it, well not until that transfer happens at least. So really what is the point? We still don't know the answer on who it is until the transfer happens. You might as well not even read the cryptic and just wait for the transfer to happen.

Above is edited but I thing these are the salient points

spurslenny said:
So info is being put out there about someone that can't be named directly, that is unlikely to be solved, and won't be confirmed if it is solved.

What a waste of time and effort.

I think this is valid, basically whilst your ITK, your not actually passing on information, just creating a guessing game, that has no verified correct answer. Which does seem pointless to me. I guess you could have a cryptic only thread, so those that enjoy that kind of thing can use it, and for us that don’t, don’t have to trawl through pages and pages of guesses

gibbospurs said:
We never know if they are solved.

Which is true, until either they are signed, moved on, or named by the press for example,

rebrab said:
So some people would genuinely rather hear stuff that is clearly bullsh*t than genuine information told cryptically?

I think you miss the point, The question and comments was really more specifically about the goat, than all the persons “ labeled” itk, really for those of that prefer non cryptic, are actually wishing for less BS.

jimbo said:
I tend to agree, though I wonder if people would be less likely to work themselves up into a frenzy of ecstacy and dissapointment if instead of a cryptic the ITK update were to be something like 'We're definitely pursuing interest in a player - we can't say who it is because we don't want to jeopardise any potential deal.'

That way people can still discuss who it might be without the element of their being a right answer. I would have thought that approach would protect the deal/source better to boot.

I agree

fatpiranha said:
The problem with every 'cryptic clue' i've ever seen on a football forum is that they simply aren't cryptic clues, which actually conform to a strict set of standard rules and conventions. When you solve a true cryptic clue there is no confusion about whether or not you have the right answer. What people call 'cryptic clues' on football forums are just vague hints that may apply to any number of possible answers and share no similarities with the real thing.

I also think this is true, in a cryptic crossword clue, you have at least a defined number of letters, as you work through other cryptic, these help to verify the answer you have. With this ITK deemed cryptic, you have an unkown amount of letters, and nothing else, which basically means a blank piece of paper with guess written on it. I think more importantly, regardless of whether someone does solve it, it is not verified as solved, So in essences it isn’t actually passing on any information, apart from we are looking at an unnamed player. Which is certainly not earth shattering,

Bill_Oddie said:
If your knowledge and application of grammar exists purely in weird 1950s idylls long since passed to the dustbin of popular usage, yes. Otherwise, if you use contemporary or plain English then I would suggest that you read nothing into starting sentences with "And", "But" or even "Because". Go on. Try it. You might even like it.

Good attempt at a solution, though. Always worth looking at grammatical or structural elements of the sentence.

Actually using this as an example, doing this kind of thing, “steering” when on wrong track” would perhaps make the cryptic more, valid.

I think we've already agreed to definitely share every solution at the end of the window or when a player is no longer on our radar/signed. The only exception, I guess, would be if there was the likelihood of a deal being completed in the next window and the info/source was still sensitive.

So, not a pointless exercise.

From my point of view it is, cryptic itself is not needed to have this as an end result.

Not decent cryptics. Like a crossword clue, it works on several levels.

But it also has defined parameters, like how many letters, it also as other questions which when all put together in a nice little box, confirm the answer is correct, by the use of said letters and their defined word length.

There's the fun thing, but what hasn't been mentioned - even by Rob in his one-man defence that would put Ironside to shame - is that cryptics are used at a particular stage, ie very early on.

Cryptics are there to protect sources. They are only pointless if the player is already mentioned widely by ITK and media outlets.

For example, if The Goat posted:

"The Space Station was laid out v. cold on the canvas"

and then people worked out that "Mir" + ["knockout" = "KO"] (and Bosnia = a cold place, & v = Vucinic) = Mirko = Vucinic, then that's all very tidy but it would be bloody ludicrous as we are all talking about him already. There's no need to protect anything. It's just being deliberately difficult.

Cryptics are used to share an update that has either not been known to the forums or barely been mentioned.

And - this is the crucial bit - hence, not many of them are likely to happen. Discussions may easily breakdown or the player might be speaking with other clubs. As things progress, the chances of other ITK and the media picking up and running something increases.

So, cryptics are actually far less reason to get excited than 'regular' ITK - even if you can work out who the words are talking about.

I thought this was all common knowledge, but happy to remind/inform newbies.

This really is my point from earlier, whilst I appreciate and understand this, it is clear that many, it seems to me, most, do not subscribe to this, hence my point you (sc controllers) surly need to be aware of what you actually create, if indeed “the masses” did understand your point, we would not have daily multitudes of pages filled mostly with guff, burying the more salient points. (see Robs post about the non cryptic stuff being missed)

Chances are, if you're not 100% certain you have the answer, you probably don't.

I’ll predict, that will actually increase the “guff” state

Please don’t take this as criticism as it is meant more as an observation, but if it is felt as criticism then please accept that it was meant constructively.

Edit: now with added E's

JJetset · Jul 24, 2011

lifeof... said:
I for 1 would prefer an No cryptic policy, But I don’t see how that would result in you “sitting on stuff that does not see the light of day” Firstly I thought the whole reason for the goat, was so the “itk” dude was protected, and secondly, surly something like. We are in the early stages of ……..or interested a player, It’s a name not mentioned yet, and the source cannot reveal the name. but he is a striker out of the prem” for example. Or don’t post anything until you can say something like, “the goat has also heard this…etc” when the players name comes up from another point.

But, Rob, Surly this gives the same result, which makes it as pointless

Again isn’t it pointless? I could understand, if someone did actually get the right answer, and it was then Noted as such, but your explanations it cant, so what’s the point? By the definitions you give, it basically boils down to not giving information.

So people posting wild / educated / left field guesses, wish list, by the 100s, is preferable to posting comments about a Spurs player…I fully understand why you want Modric talk else where, but is this guessing game really any better.?

And your last point is key to why I rather not have cryptic, because as you say, the non cryptic stuff got missed, as people were on a wild goose chase. This is why I feel you should look at what was the actual outcome, rather than a perceived desired outcome.

I think this is the key point. And TBH, with all cryptics, all I see is “so we are in talks with someone,” which is hardly enlightening, But its about the ‘masses” here, I think as owners / admin / mods, you have to take some responsibility for what you create, Surly you have seen how many peoples have blind faith in that cryptic guess, especially when it comes for SC own Goat.

But surly, in order to protect someone, either post something like “we are looking at a yet unnamed striker, who plays in a European league, unfortunately we cant name him yet.” Whilst it will no doubt create some guessing, perhaps not pages and pages. Or just don’t post, until it has already reached the light, and then add your support,

I don’t think it is about not trusting, perhaps more the other way round, hence anything said is taken to be “true” which is where the problem comes.

This really is all cryptic itk achieves.

Above is edited but I thing these are the salient points

I think this is valid, basically whilst your ITK, your not actually passing on information, just creating a guessing game, that has no verified correct answer. Which does seem pointless to me. I guess you could have a cryptic only thread, so those that enjoy that kind of thing can use it, and for us that don’t, don’t have to trawl through pages and pages of guesses

Which is true, until either they are signed, moved on, or named by the press for example,

I think you miss the point, The question and comments was really more specifically about the goat, than all the persons “ labeled” itk, really for those of that prefer non cryptic, are actually wishing for less BS.

I agree

I also think this is true, in a cryptic crossword clue, you have at least a defined number of letters, as you work through other cryptic, these help to verify the answer you have. With this ITK deemed cryptic, you have an unkown amount of letters, and nothing else, which basically means a blank piece of paper with guess written on it. I think more importantly, regardless of whether someone does solve it, it is not verified as solved, So in essences it isn’t actually passing on any information, apart from we are looking at an unnamed player. Which is certainly not earth shattering,

Please don’t take this as criticism as it is meant more as an observation, but if it is felt as criticism then please accept that it was meant constructively.

Don't take this as a criticism but there is an e in surely.....:wink:

Lilbaz · Jul 24, 2011

Bit too early in the morning to be surly.

lifeof... · Jul 24, 2011

JJetset said:
Don't take this as a criticism but there is an e in surely.....:wink:

if that's the only typo, i would have excelled, so it would be praise indeed:grin:

ComfortablyNumb · Jul 24, 2011

SC has a right to post cryptics as and when they see fit, but...

To try to justify using cryptics on the basis of protectng a source is, in my very humble opinion, bullshit. If the cryptic clue is indeed a well-constructed one, then anyone who knows the answer will get it fairly quickly. So anyone who might get angry about seeing the actual name spelled out non-cryptically will still get angry. The source receives no protection at all from having the name encoded in cryptic.

If, on the other hand, the cryptic is so hard that even someone who knows the answer can't guess it, then you might as well just post a meaningless set of words.

Do it how you want, by all means, but forget this self-justification crap.

beats1 · Jul 24, 2011

ComfortablyNumb said:
SC has a right to post cryptics as and when they see fit, but...

To try to justify using cryptics on the basis of protectng a source is, in my very humble opinion, bullshit. If the cryptic clue is indeed a well-constructed one, then anyone who knows the answer will get it fairly quickly. So anyone who might get angry about seeing the actual name spelled out non-cryptically will still get angry. The source receives no protection at all from having the name encoded in cryptic.

If, on the other hand, the cryptic is so hard that even someone who knows the answer can't guess it, then you might as well just post a meaningless set of words.

Do it how you want, by all means, but forget this self-justification crap.

Agreed this last cryptic seems so hard, people have given up at least with blue and yellow there was a list of 2/3 players which then got further reduced with the clues that came shortly after

JJetset · Jul 24, 2011

If the person who is a verified ITK will only have their info posted if it is cryptic what do you want the Mods to do? If they post and get people interested it generates a bit of a buzz that things are going on.
The alternative is that the Mods keep the info in their forum and it never comes out.
I'm sure most posters would prefer a cryptic over nothing, I certainly would.
I'm sure it all depends on the quality of the ITK's source as well.

ComfortablyNumb · Jul 24, 2011

JJetset said:
If the person who is a verified ITK will only have their info posted if it is cryptic what do you want the Mods to do? If they post and get people interested it generates a bit of a buzz that things are going on.
The alternative is that the Mods keep the info in their forum and it never comes out.
I'm sure most posters would prefer a cryptic over nothing, I certainly would.
I'm sure it all depends on the quality of the ITK's source as well.

Is this aimed at me? If so, I've already said it's up to the mods to do it how they want. Couldn't care less myself. It's the spurious justification, based on protecting the source, which get's my goat (see what I did there?).

rawhide · Jul 24, 2011

The whole point of a cryptic is that is is MEANT to be solved.

The mods seem to be of the belief that a cryptic is a puzzle that doesn't need to be solved, but (cynically) may drive traffic to the site and posts on the threads which may assist in increasing advertising revenue.

A great example of how a cryptic should be handled was Ryan's M&M one the other day. He confirmed who it was when it was guessed, even though he knew it would upset his boss's son. I guess the only issue with it was that it was a bit too easy to work out. However there is a balance to be struck in the level of difficulty.

I'd actually prefer no cryptic to an unsolvable one.

Gary-22 · Jul 24, 2011

ealingspur said:
5mil bid for who?[/QUOTE ]

I think its Shane Long he's talking about, Dunno where he heard that but i havent seen anything about it anywhere

Gary-22 · Jul 24, 2011

rawhide said:
The whole point of a cryptic is that is is MEANT to be solved.

The mods seem to be of the belief that a cryptic is a puzzle that doesn't need to be solved, but (cynically) may drive traffic to the site and posts on the threads which may assist in increasing advertising revenue.

A great example of how a cryptic should be handled was Ryan's M&M one the other day. He confirmed who it was when it was guessed, even though he knew it would upset his boss's son. I guess the only issue with it was that it was a bit too easy to work out. However there is a balance to be struck in the level of difficulty.

I'd actually prefer no cryptic to an unsolvable one.

Yes a cryptic is meant to be solved and im sure it is but you just like me cant solve it so unfortunately thats just tough. and imo Ryans a great poster but his cryptic is not a great example of how to do it because it was easy therefore protecting nothing that he claimed to be going cryptic for.

JJetset · Jul 24, 2011

rawhide said:
The whole point of a cryptic is that is is MEANT to be solved.

The mods seem to be of the belief that a cryptic is a puzzle that doesn't need to be solved, but (cynically) may drive traffic to the site and posts on the threads which may assist in increasing advertising revenue.

A great example of how a cryptic should be handled was Ryan's M&M one the other day. He confirmed who it was when it was guessed, even though he knew it would upset his boss's son. I guess the only issue with it was that it was a bit too easy to work out. However there is a balance to be struck in the level of difficulty.

I'd actually prefer no cryptic to an unsolvable one.

Ryan's excellent info is always very transparent as everyone knows where it is coming from as he doesn't hide it. The Goat cant compromise the ITK's source of what he is being told as it will be obvious to the club if it gets leaked as they DO look at the forums.

StartingPrice · Jul 24, 2011

gibbospurs said:
yeah i know... sorry, to everyone tonight. been well pissed off with this club and not the supporters. we all want our glossy players. thing is we could get them if we really wanted. dont think we really do tho. COYS. sorry peeps.. And i do love this site... missis dont.

gibbospurs said:
our owners or board will not allow us to spend big this year because we will not get near the big 4. man city have made sure of that. why spend massive to finish 5th or 6th when we have a squad to to that already. modric will be sold towards the end of the window!! missing champions l is 20m- we will go back to the days of above mid table until the new stadium is sorted. we punched above last year but the same was thought of whilst acheiving. Hence not a massive signing in jan. DL cant balance the books on 1 season in the top comp. and seems to be not that conf that we will clinch it again very soon. i love spurs but that is prettty much how we are going, Levy... prove me wrong.!!

Sorry, Gibbo, nothing personal, but I think this conspiracy theory of our transfer activities is, quite frankly, a bit mad (and you ain't the only one to propose it, by any means).
I mean, how plauisible is it that Dan Levy would publicly state many times, from when he first became Chairman, that his ambition was to make THFC competitive at the very top of English football, spent a massive amount of time and energy, and a fair few quid, on achieving this, and then sabotage it at the vital moment? Would he really creep about Europe and the World, enquiring about players, making offers, etc., just for appearances sake? What would have happened, for instance, if Athletico had accepted the bid for Aguero:shrug:
As said many times before, there are far more plausible explanations as to why we didn't succeed with any bids in January. And, rather than continuing the conspiratorial trend into this Summer, I would look to Daniel Levy doing what Daniel Levy does when encountering a problem: digesting the information, learning and then actng decisively. Basically, I would look for him putting his hand on the striking situation, and attempting to resolve it for many years to come. And what we have seen, so far, is the arrival of Ceballos (sp? whatever:grin

, and Coulibaye, along with a lot of ITK that we are looking at at least two very high quality forwards.
Also, folk seem to ignore the fact that we brought VDV to the Lane last Summer, so, technically, we didn't not buy a striker.

I think you have created this version of reality in your head and are attempting to make reality conform to it. And that is why you find the ITK so frustrating.

You do raise an interesting point, in suggesting that we will struggle in the CL until we get a new stadium. But I don't thnk Levy would have any aversion to building a successful team while the stadium is being developed, let alone hinder our progress into a regulara CL team until it is done.

lifeof... · Jul 24, 2011

JJetset said:
If the person who is a verified ITK will only have their info posted if it is cryptic what do you want the Mods to do? If they post and get people interested it generates a bit of a buzz that things are going on.
The alternative is that the Mods keep the info in their forum and it never comes out.
I'm sure most posters would prefer a cryptic over nothing, I certainly would.
I'm sure it all depends on the quality of the ITK's source as well.

This really is what Rob was Asking, to post or not post, I would prefer non cryptic policy, it is all about preference at the end of the day.

And just to make a point, how many guess as there been so far on this?

We have all been looking for THE Man. Now it seems we've found him. And in German, if you please.

yet we are 100% non the wiser....here is another one that could be right.

If you take "Now it seems we've found him" and translate it into German

it comes out as (via google)

Nun scheint es, haben wir ihn gefunden

which you can find the name Schweinsteiger

also taking Robs(?) post earlier, something along the lines of "I think whoever posted the cryptic failed gcse german" "but it is easy to see the name"

you can then also find in Nun scheint es, haben(S) wir ihn gefun(T)en

Bastian_Schweinsteiger

without trying. i am also sure you could make other players names fit. the point is i could be 100% right or 100% wrong, as could all the other guesses, as there is nothing to verify the answer, as there would be in a true cryptic puzzler, (eg crossword) So the info posted on here, is not really cryptic, its just a blind guessing game, which some of do not see the point of.

Forums

What's new

Matches

Sportsbook

Members

The Weekend ITK Discussion Thread - 23/24 July 2011

Well-Known Member

Just call me Baz

Well-Known Member

WHPK 88.5FM Chicago

Well-Known Member

Everything in Moderation

Well-Known Member

Lurking in the shadows of threads...

Just call me Baz

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Lurking in the shadows of threads...

Well-Known Member

I have issues...

Active Member

Active Member

Lurking in the shadows of threads...

Chief Sardonicus Hyperlip

Well-Known Member

Similar threads