Discussion With Experience
Dirm
Join Date: 2004-08-30 Member: 31025Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
Join Date: 2004-08-30 Member: 31025Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
I have placed this in the forum because it is where the topic most often comes up. I made a new thread for this, as the last time I tried to discuss it, the thread was locked for comitting the sin of attempting to have a discussion on a matter other than that named in the topic title.
I am going to split a few comments up into separate posts in this thread, as it seems people do not read posts longer than 10 lines.
I am going to split a few comments up into separate posts in this thread, as it seems people do not read posts longer than 10 lines.
Comments
There are very <a href='http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=150103&cid=12584049' target='_blank'>specific</a> <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=93047' target='_blank'>instructions</a> regarding making comments without having experience.
When 3.0 came out, we all saw many threads that said "you can't judge this until you've played it a bit...get some experience with it before commenting".
Competitive players often attempt to discount another player's opinion due to his lack of experience.
The stickied "FYI - backseat modding" thread in the competitive forums indicates that voicing one's concern about a player's lack of experience is a poor course of action because it is the moderator's job to deal with this, not Johnny Forumgoer's.
Whenever the issue comes up in a thread, however, the devs state that we should not exclude opinions based solely on experience, but rather examine the logic of their claims (examples <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=92576&st=60#' target='_blank'>here</a>, <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=93079&st=120#' target='_blank'>here</a>, and <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=93079&st=120#' target='_blank'>here</a>).
The stated reason in the stickied post seems to differ from the reason put forth by the devs and mods in the actual threads.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When will this madness stop - if an argument is flawed then it should be demonstratably so, when you resort to challenging the person's experience you take quite a lot from the overall signal to noise ratio of this topic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is, I assume, why the moderators refuted all of the players' concerns about 3.0f instead of just saying clanners are too dumb to adapt and locking threads <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I am not sure how the situations differ here. I see a few possibilities:
the moderators locking 3.0 threads for the first three weeks disagree with the devs in the competitive forums (unlikely)
filtering by experience with clan play is different from filtering by experience with a new version (true, but doesn't justify the different positions---clanplay is more different from pubs than new versions are from each other)
the devs can filter by experience but other people cannot (possibly--the devs potentially have to deal with more posts, so they are justified in using more callous filters)
<insert reason here>
I apologize in advance if this starts sounding like a lecture on debating, but I think some things need to be said out loud, as it were.
I am of the opinion that experience is extremely important when discussing the balance of a game. Do we really need a logical argument to explain why a cat-pack knife rush won't work even though a catted marine can knife skulks down in no time flat?
As (I hope) everyone is aware, most debates (on the ns.com forums, with friends, in politics, or wherever) come down to people having a side they want to be on and finding arguments that fit their opinion. Argument as the act of reaching an opinion on a subject is rare. Logical argument has long been generally dismissed. If one considered all logical arguments put forth, one would spend his entire life trying to form opinions on even one controversial political subject. In the end, many such matters come down to beliefs and opinions that cannot be backed up by logic, but are merely the result of experience. Experience trumps logic, almost every time. How many people know how to resolve Zeno's paradox? How many people have ever lost sleep over the knowledge that Achilles can never catch the tortoise, even though he is faster? The logic of Zeno's paradox is very compelling to one inexperienced with calculus, but everyone that hears it is able to think "oh, that's a neat trick of logic" and then ignore it in favor of their experience that faster things do, indeed, outrun slower things.
And, indeed, most arguments are very biased. Sure, they will sound logical, but they will be the result of a player wanting to make a point and carefully picking data out from his experience, and forming conclusions that back his opinion.
Who has never neglected to mention a strong counter-argument to their argument because they had no answer for it and did not want to hurt their point? Even if you have never done so (and I find this unlikely, unless you rarely try to argue), I bet it is easy for you to imagine this happening frequently.
To try to bring this back 'round to something vaguely resembling on-topic:
There is no such thing as a purely logical argument about real-world things (that is, things that cannot be described by formal languages). When one is reading an argument by another, one takes into account all of his perceived biases of the poster, and evaluates how well the post resonates with his own experience and opinions.
When one sees, say, NGE's 17(or however many)-page post about 3.0f chambers, there are a few likely immediate reactions:
"oh, he's just a clanner/whiner who is upset that he has to relearn the game"
"finally, someone explaining in detail what the devs have F'ed up this time!"
"let's see what other people think about the chambers!"
I bet that anyone who reads the forums regularly had a decent idea of what would be included in the post before they opened it.
SImilarly, if there were to be a post titled "unbeatable electrification strat", most people would have an opinion on it before reading it.
I am not trying to accuse anyone of being particularly biased here. I am just saying that everyone does it, it is human nature, and it is generally useful.
I am making this claim because it is absurd to expect any reasonable amount of discussion about a game to exist in purely logical terms. It always boils down to experience.
"we should remove siege damage to players because it is no fun to spawn and die right away." You will not buy this argument unless you have died to sieges or had bad times with spawn camping.
"pings need to be more accessible, as marines are getting owned by cloaking". Again, you need to have played a decent number of games and seen the effects of cloaking to buy into this. Someone could go on for pages about how a lone cloaked skulk can take out a marine of a group of any size 99% of the time, and how that makes it impossible for marines to advance, but you are not going to agree with the post unless you have played and seen it in action.
"we should balance the game around skulk upgrades being free, because it's more fun that way". Yes, you could say this sounds logical. It still depends on experience, though. A refutation of this argument would have to either say "no, it's not more fun", or "it's not possible to balance it like that". The former can be based only on experience, and the latter seems unlikely to be true in the first place, and, if it is true, impossible to actually argue logically.
That's all I have for now for this point:
experience is, indeed, important in arguments of any type
I hope that this has been informative, or at least not offensive, to those who started reading with a thought other than "not another whiny clanner", "yay Dirm tell it like it is", or "oh god, why hasn't he been banned yet?"
anyhow,
On signal-to-noise
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When will this madness stop - if an argument is flawed then it should be demonstratably so, when you resort to challenging the person's experience you take quite a lot from the overall signal to noise ratio of this topic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Signal-to-noise is an important concern in forums, to be sure. When there are so many people trying to get their two cents in, it can be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. If we are discussing 3.0.3 balance and someone comes in and starts expounding the virtues of a catpack+hand grenade rush, that's not doing much for the S:N. As most good clanners will tell you, a lot of competitive play is based on a strong understanding of good strategy and tactics. Many ideas suggested by inexperienced players do not fit. How do you produce a logical argument for why electrification rushes do not work in competitive play? "you don't have enough res for upgrades, so the aliens dominate you at the second hive" The player can just come back with "yeah, but once you get 5 elect
rified RTs you have a ton of guaranteed res and get all the upgrades you want". There are tons of things that clan players have tried and failed with, and there's really no better argument than just "it almost never works when we try it". This is not a purely logical argument, and will not satisfy the electrification proponent.
In order to fully convince a player of the flaw in his claim, we must either explain the game and our experience with it and how it pertains to his claim in particular at length, or we must give him experience to allow him to see how it works with experienced players.
The latter is generally beyond the bounds of the forum, and far too time consuming.
The former would lead to a lower S:N. If we are discussing how marines are underpowered, and someone comes in and says that they are not because they can just lock down two hives and win, then how are we supposed to deal with that? Ignoring him is fine if he gives up after that post, but what are the odds of that? Also, does he not deserve a response?
Do you want a logical argument explaining how you cannot consistently lock down and hold two hives? How would such an argument go? I do not see how one could attempt to discuss this without appealing to experience.
So, since we can't appeal to experience when refuting an uninformed claim, we are left with the option of ignoring the post. This does not appeal. The competitive discussion forum appears to be the main avenue of communication between the general competitive NS community and the NS dev team. It is desirable that the dev team has a clear understanding of the competitive community's opinion of the current state of the game.
Here's is the problem with ignoring posts:
If a post that competitive players feel is uninformed and does not accurately represent the state of competitive play is left in the forums by the devs, then it is possible that the devs do not recognize it as an uninformed opinion (since we are not to do "backseat moderating", and it is presumably to be done by officials). If competitive players do not reply to it (and it is, as discussed, difficult to reply to such comments without bringing experience into it), then that post will remain uncountered, and feed into the devs' understanding of competitive players' opinion of the current state of the game. This, as you might imagine, is not something that competitive players wish to happen.
This rule is pretty clear, and I dont see how you can not understand it nor the need here. It was in response to the increased disrespect and overall abusive tendencies of members in this particular forum. It leads to harrassment.
As far as being concerned over a posters topic or response (in regards to participation in the CDF), you can allway PM the member or a moderator/admin with your concerns... just dont do it publicy in that thread. That is all I have to say on that subject.
Which is, I assume, why the moderators refuted all of the players' concerns about 3.0f instead of just saying clanners are too dumb to adapt and locking threads <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
bam.
Its a representativeness heurisitc (heuristics are mental shortcuts, in which people make decisions), and underutilizing base rate information is one of the flaws within this specifc heuristic.
That is people will use these heuristics rather than using rationalized arguements, particulary when the person does not have enough information on the subject. This fits in with the signal to noise post very well in that people are ignoring the signal and creating noise out of it.
I really wish this forum would be restricted, as people who aren't /weren't competitive will have nothing useful to contribute to most of the forum discussions, especially ones about balance and other <i>Competitive</i> issues.
I suggested creating a pub allstar forums for those who want to seperate themselves from the overwhelming amount of subpar members on this forum.
That way they can still have their discussions on whatever they want, and stop polluting the competitive forum threads without using base rate information.
Thanks!
As for the "****-talkers" who conjure whimsycal arguements from base-level knowledge, it is up to us to detect this. Of course people will always filter their arguements to include points of agreement and to disclude points of disagreement. However a strong arguement always includes a "point of contention" in which the debater includes within his arguement the strongest percievable standpoint of the opposing side and disproves it. If one cannot do this, than one should not make such an arguement when he knows it has percievable flaws, or if such an arguement is made, it should be easy to refute by experienced, knowledgeable players, using said flaw. So if someone is truly talking from his "****" then we should be able to see through that easily and refute his point, all be it, in a logical and systematic manner so as to avoid topic locking due to unorthadox debating strategies...
Ya, but I tend to agree with dirm. You really can't argue you're right based on your expericance unless you can refute some aspect of the argument in question. Being more experianced doesn't inately make you right, it just indicates that your logic is more explored. If you express no logic your experiance is worthless.
we're talking about a game here made of hard numbers and interactive algorithms and nothing more. If your answer isn't logical then it has no value.
The funny thing about this comment is that it doesn't say anywhere in any of the forum rules nor that added rule by digz that you can't tell someone that they are wrong. Refuting someones point and saying they are wrong and this is why is totally different then insulting them just because they don't know what they are talking about.
I'll use your little example, by saying someone is wrong and nub'ish you ARE being insulting. The outcome of such a comment should be obvious, the person is going to get mad and insult you back, at which point the thread turns into a flamewar. I doubt a mod would lock a thread or remove a comment if you simply said that you thought the person was wrong and excluded the nub'ish part.
Good thread, ol' chap.
I am not advocating the drawing of a line between competitive and non-competitive players and the removal of posting rights from the latter.
Even were this desirable, it could not be done accurately. 'experienced' is not a binary thing. I can tell people how to nubfade it up or how to lose rounds as comm all day, but my lerking is rather pathetic. Forlorn definitely has much clan experience, but probably not with 3.0f, so any comments he might make about current competitive play must be considered with the changes in mind. I am not saying that I should be disallowed from posting about lerking, or Forlorn about 3.0f, or saltz about being even moderately humane. I am just saying that, when reading such posts, the poster's experience with the particular subject <i>is</i> germane.
I am not defending people flaming people with accusations of nubbery. The clan scene has many flamers, and they will do what they do best. The forum <i>already has rules against flaming</i>, though, so I think it best if this were applied, rather than some principle about experience being irrelevant.
My posts are merely an attempt to refute the claim I have seen made by several posters that experience should not be a factor in discussions of gameplay.
And, while I have listed many other arguments against this, I would like to reiterate the fact that the policy of waiting for some time after release before allowing balance discussions is in agreement with my argument, and disagreement with the mentioned claim.
I am not saying that there should be no such period (though I am not certain what such discussion hurts anyone, it might simply be for ease of moderating). I think that the devs are correct in mostly ignoring first-impression feedback on balance.
As to RBS's post:
I realize you were replying to router, not me, but I think this needs addressing.
The "no experience necessary" argument seems to come in two flavors:
digz (the forum moderator) mostly just wants to stop people from flaming people for being nubs. This is fine, but it should fall under the "no flaming" rule. I do not see why we need a separate rule regarding experience.
Others claim that we should examine only the logic of a post, and not the poster's experience. This seems sort of a throwback to classic debate, where you examine the argument and not the arguer. This makes sense if you are talking about a logical debate about politics or something. This does not make sense for a game in which one indisputably learns more about the how the game works the more time he spends with it.
As (I think?) I mentioned in a previous post, logical arguments about balance and strategy hold little weight in the face of actual testing. I can yell till I'm blue in the face that dropping three nodes and having two early lerks will not get you anywhere, but that doesn't stop LoC from owning us with that strat.
Please realize that clanners have a lot of experience (hoho) with arguing about strategies and what will work. Each week, often several times each week, the clan must have six (often strong-minded and egotistical, if you like clanner stereotypes <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->) players agree on which strat they will use. Some strategies are eliminated by argument (mostly by agreement based on experience), but many that sound good fall on their face, and many that sound bad work splendidly. Clans have found that actual testing and experience with a strat are better judges of its efficacy than logical discussions.
Now, here is the problem:
Say two people are discussing a strategy in the General Competitive Discussion Forum. One has tested it on pubs, and the other in clanplay. Neither player initially mentions his experience. For the clanplayer to explain why the strategy does not work in clanplay, he needs to explain, in his experience, how the other team has reacted to it, and where it has failed. If the first player asserts that the other team is unlikely to react that way, or that such a reaction is futile, then what recourse does the second player have? If the discussion is about competitive play, then the fact that one player has tried it in competitive play and the other has not is certainly cogent. This argument requires the establishment of two items: the relevant experience of the clanplayer and the relevant experience of the non-clanplayer.
Obviously some people will be insulting when doing what they view as asserting their superiority over another player. As I said, this should fall under the no flaming rule.
Pointing out that a player lacks experience with the matter at hand is not inherently insulting. If I make claims about NHL, never having watched a hockey game in my life, I am not going to be hurt when people say that's not how it works at all. If one is insulted by the mere pointing out of the fact that he lacks competitive experience, then that is his own fault. If there is more than the mere pointing out, and it is flamy, then it offends another rule. In either case, I do not see where the need for singling out flaming combined with accusations of nubbery comes in.
The funny thing about this comment is that it doesn't say anywhere in any of the forum rules nor that added rule by digz that you can't tell someone that they are wrong. Refuting someones point and saying they are wrong and this is why is totally different then insulting them just because they don't know what they are talking about.
I'll use your little example, by saying someone is wrong and nub'ish you ARE being insulting. The outcome of such a comment should be obvious, the person is going to get mad and insult you back, at which point the thread turns into a flamewar. I doubt a mod would lock a thread or remove a comment if you simply said that you thought the person was wrong and excluded the nub'ish part. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If someone says you cant do a sg rush because the skulks are too strong then how do you expect me to back up my point without saying he doesnt know what he is talking about? There isnt really much that I cant say beside no they arent or sgs easly kill skulks, in which I am just saying the exact opposite and not really proving anything.
Early on in the forums, there were two types of posts in Off-Topic. You had the "spam" type "hey look at me in my underwear" posts and then you had pages and pages of political volleys. Too often, they would mix and the fur would fly.
After some insane nastiness, the mods seperated the off-topic forum into OT and Discussions and set clear guidelines for each.
Not long after the seperation, discussion forum goers started getting frustrated by "drive by snipers" coming in with ad hoc one-liners and various other "LoLz" posts. Then the rules were refined and thoroughly enforced for both those who didn't want to genuinely participate and those who would bring down the pious wrath of discussion fiefdom. They did not, however, prevent someone with unconventional opinions from sharing their point of view.
I have spent many, many hours reading, researching, and creating posts in the discussion forum and one thing I've learned from watching others get restricted and receiving my own personal warnings from mods: reckless emotion and ego do not make for good reading.
There are people on this forum who won't even click the discussion forum link to see what topics are up for fear of someone tracking them down and smiting them in another post. What most of us have learned over time is that the mods don't care who you are, they only care what you say and slapping duct tape over your keyboard is just another day to them.
If you really want a valuable place to share information, you'll have to learn to police yourselves. If you waste your time cutting down other people rather than explaining to them why you think their line of thinking is pointed in the wrong direction, you won't enjoy this opportunity.
2 things: 1) I've noticed some posts regarding the use of logic. The theory seems to be that if you use true logic, you will come to the one (right) conclusion and the rest can be discarded. If that were true, why would you need to discuss it? Wouldn't it be better placed in the I&S forum followed by a bunch of "yeps" and "I agree" posts? 2) Never, ever post when you're angry, frustrated, or otherwise over emotional. You won't get your point across and you'll probably get slapped by a mod. Take it, walk away, work it out in your head, and come back to post a solid argument that doesn't belittle the person(s) you disagree with. You'll find that people are more willing to share your PoV if you present your ideas without a$$hatery.
Sorry if this is too long but I've had a lurker's interest in this forum and I really don't want to see it thrown away for a lack of trying. Good luck.
The funny thing about this comment is that it doesn't say anywhere in any of the forum rules nor that added rule by digz that you can't tell someone that they are wrong. Refuting someones point and saying they are wrong and this is why is totally different then insulting them just because they don't know what they are talking about.
I'll use your little example, by saying someone is wrong and nub'ish you ARE being insulting. The outcome of such a comment should be obvious, the person is going to get mad and insult you back, at which point the thread turns into a flamewar. I doubt a mod would lock a thread or remove a comment if you simply said that you thought the person was wrong and excluded the nub'ish part. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If someone says you cant do a sg rush because the skulks are too strong then how do you expect me to back up my point without saying he doesnt know what he is talking about? There isnt really much that I cant say beside no they arent or sgs easly kill skulks, in which I am just saying the exact opposite and not really proving anything. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I would think you would simply direct the player to a demo of a match between two competitive clans where one team used a SG rush and won that particular part of the match because of it. Or, you could just say they are wrong because you've seen it done. At which point you say that the strategy DOES work in a competitive environment and you continue on with the discussion, problem solved in a non-offending way within about 10 seconds. The other course of action would to get all worked up over a post on a message board over the internet, stoop to flaming the person just because they are wrong and result in more trouble then it's worth. I don't think I need to say which course of action makes more sense.
so, its only a paradox above that length, below, its a factoid.
of course people have different views due to different experiences, and you listen to them all and try and get a mean of sorts.
but the issue is, at first, you simply do not understand the game, your experiences are too narrow, and people who have played the game a billion times have a narrow view also, the view of a fully configed well read and well trained player.
find out where the bulk of the playerbase is thinking, try to make them happy without alienating either the elite or the new guys.
catering for the elite, or the newblood is a recipy for failure, you need to stand in the mean value.
Strategies are as varied as each player has their own opinions on how the game should be played. If there were a single win-all strat, it would be spread around the community like wildfire and counters would be brought up to dispel it as fast as it arose. Some of the more intriguing strats I've been hearing about lately are from new clans who dont have the luxury of knowing what is supposed to be done, and what is not. Yeah, they may be obscure pub strats, but if you all remember the ER gorge rush from back in the day, know that they got it from playing on asian servers late at night. (as one example)
keke. <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Also, Zeno's paradox is retarded. Its like puzzling over why 10 isn't evenly divisble by 3 without the crutch of infinity. It can't be so tough to spot an arbitrary definition when you see one.
Offtopic what?
Others claim that we should examine only the logic of a post, and not the poster's experience. This seems sort of a throwback to classic debate, where you examine the argument and not the arguer. This makes sense if you are talking about a logical debate about politics or something. This does not make sense for a game in which one indisputably learns more about the how the game works the more time he spends with it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm assuming that this statement is at least partly directed at my comments.
I am not cautioning against Ad Hominem arguments, as you claim above. You should never attempt to attack the person as a means to deconstruct his argument. Statements like "well, you're obviously wrong because you have an IQ of a goldfish" are examples of this. I think most people can spot such arguments as they are easily recognisable.
What I was referring to is arugments from authority. When one party in a discussion uses their greater experience as a tool in the argument nothing is achieved except a confusion of the issues. There is nothing wrong with citing your skill and experience in a discussion, but you should use it as supporting evidence in your argument. This is neither descending or insulting. It is simply demonstrating that experience is a factor in analysis.
What I do have a problem with is people using their experience to authoritatively dismiss another's argument. If you disagree with another's argument then the onus is on you to demonstrate the reasons why or shut up. You cannot simply say "I've got skills man, so SUYF". This is most manifested in statements like "only real clanners should be allowed to post here".
Citing experience can add weight to an argument but can never be compelling evidence. Even experts make mistakes, and often experts disagree.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I am of the opinion that experience is extremely important when discussing the balance of a game.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with you, however I think the experience should manifest itself in statements about the game rather than statements about your experience. Worst of all is when you try to manifest this with statements about another's lack of experience.
Now to a general point in no way directed towards Dirm.
Recently we also saw members of the competitive community throw this kind of accusation amongst each other. Someone claimed that theAdj didn't have the qualifications to comment on 3.0.3 competitive balance. Here we see a strenghtening of the exclusivity of the elite, and if it is taken to it's ultimate conclusion, then only the very best at NS should be posting here. How can a player from the bottom of omega possibly be more correct than a member of Terror or Exigent? Should we create a 'cal victors' subforum here where only people who have won a cal season should post? Should we then value that input more than the other competitive feedback? Just where exactly do we draw the line that includes or excludes feedback based on experience. Also, how does the average reader validate claims of someone's experience?
And finally, if you continue with the exclusionist attitude then you do nothing to help bring new players into the competitive scene. Elitism is it's own worst enemy - my argument from experience <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Also, Zeno's paradox is retarded.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Zeno's paradox is actually a very fitting example for historical reasons.
Zeno proposed his paradoxes to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the mathematical models of space and time that were being proposed at the time. The experts of the day (Aristotle's school of philosophy. ) simply discarded them as fallacies and could never explain or demonstrate them to be so. Zeno was often used as an example of how Parmenides and the Eleatic philosophers were not to be taken seriously. His paradoxes were clearly pointing at a fundamental flaw of discrete mathematical models, and it took nearly 2000 years for the experts to examine the parodoxes seriously. He did not have an explanation for his paradoxes, he wasn't an expert at the time but he still had valuable contributions to make to philosophy. All four of xeno's paradoxes have been satisfactoraly explained now.
I'm sure a fly on the wall at the Aristotlan school of thought would have overheard "omg zeno nub" being thrown about.