I agree with everything you said, except that being deceptive is always negative part. If I told my wife I was going to the car wash and came back with flowers instead of going to the car wash and she liked it a lot, is that negative?
Once again it comes down to the desired outcome being either positive or negative. Not the word rigged itself being negative. It’s the outcome that is being manipulated by the people who are rigging that choose the outcome which is positive or negative.
In this case, Blizzard rigging the game with MMR seems to be positive because much of the player base approves of it. If much of the player base thought it as unfair, then the rigging (aka. MMR) would be negative.
And Blizzard was not up front about how it worked until after it was implemented. In turn, also being after many people had spent money on the game, which they were forced to keep their purchases even after the changed game rules.
But it’s probably written somewhere in the user agreement that Blizzard can manipulate and deceive anyone who plays their game and everyone signed it. It’s still deceptive and it’s still rigging, because not many people read the agreement and they know that.
I did. You are applying the narrowest given meaning and not the given broadest sense of the term. That is the wrong place to start. You need to have an agreed upon definition. As all those sources (you and I both looked at) provide multiple accepted meanings, we MUST use the term that can be applied most effectively for either side.
But let me just ask, for those without the knowledge of MMR, isn’t it possible they might feel the system is unbalanced at some point in the random win/loss streaks that occur?
I would wager that it has happened to everyone that has ever played. But some were hit hard on the negative end early, while others found a gentler introduction to the system. That experience shapes the responses.
What are you on about? Seriously. You’ve chimed in every now and then but I just don’t know what you are talking about. I didn’t create this thread. Does your scroll function not work? My scroll bar is on the right side of my text. If your scroll wheel doesn’t work, maybe you could click the thicker part of the bar and drag up to the top. Oh I noticed that it was created back in Oct of last year! I haven’t been an active poster on the HS forums that long. Maybe it’s my Avatar that’s confusing you? Nope, not the same as the OP either… well… Thanks for posting I guess?
Why not just operate within the context as defined in detail by the OP? They posit that the game specifically causes otherwise undue losses to cause frustration and force monetary spending.
For all intents and purposes in this thread, “rigged” refers to that.
If you go by the bulk of the OP’s post, you’re right. But the subject line of the post is “Hearthstone really is rigged. Here’s how to beat it.” By that subject line, we can say in a general sense of the word that the game is rigged. Set up. Manufactured. Created. To give desired outcomes. It’s not just dice and rolling like a card game you would play in real life with random people who show up at a card shop. The subject line is vague. The OP is just the original poster about the subject line. We don’t have to base our posts around his ideas only.
Considering half of the subject line is an invitation to read the original post (“here’s how to beat it”), just taking the subject line and ignoring the post make the subject line lose some of it’s meaning
The subject line of a thread is nothing more than a necessary piece of text to summarize the topic of the thread being posted. You discuss a thread topic as stated in the opening post, not just the subject in a vacuum.
If you want to espouse a different meaning for the topic at hand, might as well create a different discussion thread as it clearly isn’t what the original poster was even getting at.
Ignoring context in order to leverage semantics to change the direction of a discussion seems like a silly thing to do, and thread titles are to be taken within the context of the thread (as in the original post) that they’re titling.
So what are you all doing right now, commenting about my comment? It’s a thread because it progresses. And you just stated exactly my point.
Here’s the summary of the thread. Starts with a statement. “Hearthstone really is rigged.” Which is what most of my posts are about. I’m mostly combating people who came here to say that it’s NOT rigged. The OP says it is and based his original post around that. I’m just defending his idea.
“Here’s how to beat it.” You guys haven’t discussed how to beat it or commented about his ideas of how to beat it, have you? As of now you care more about MY posts.
My first comment on here on quite some time wasn’t even in reply to you.
My comment was made because from what I had seen, the entire thread had derailed into a bunch of confusion over the definition of rigged, with some people attempting to satisfy claims by dancing around semantics and entirely subverting the claim that was made by the OP.
If you’re trying go say that attempting to set some confusion straight and direct attention toward the OP’s meaning is the same thing as dragging stuff off-topic by bickering about the semantics that got it there in the first place, then I don’t really know how to help you.
You brought up the idea to operate within the context as defined by the OP, not me. I think talking about what is defined as rigged is very relevant, especially considering that the OP stated that the game is rigged. It’s probably the most important thing to talk about.
I agree with the OP. So I have no comment on him. I’m just talking to the people who come here to say it’s not rigged. Which is not what this thread is about, because the OP just states that it IS rigged. To him, there’s no debate. So anyone who disagrees should go start another thread.
I feel like were arguing over pure semantics here, and I genuinely don’t hope you think I’m being argumentative just for the sake of it -but after rechecking some dictionary sites, I really only see ‘rig’ as meaning to, for example:
‘Manage or conduct (something) fraudulently so as to gain an advantage’
All the other meanings just aren’t relevant to this discussion, i.e. the rigging on a ship. I simply can’t see a meaning which doesn’t include ‘fradulent’ ‘deceptive’ etc.
What’s more, the archaic use of ‘rig’ means simply ‘to trick or swindle’.
But again, like, honestly, link me a dictionary with a different meaning and I’ll take everything back! But also, honestly this really all doesn’t matter - I really do completely see what you’re getting at! I just find words interesting and all xD
Sometimes acknowledgment goes a long way even if you disagree. And the lightheartedness really changed the feeling of your whole post. Much appreciated.
The definitions I found add the word “usually” before the negative part and then the next definition below gives the broader term. I’ll add Merriam’s below but you’re right, the OP was being negative in the post. I was moreso offering a potential bone in hopes to bring the conversation up from “It is” and “It isn’t” to “Okay that’s how that functions and why it feels like it’s rigged against me” and “I’m sorry we made you feel like you should have been born with this knowledge”
I made a grave error it seems
rigged; rigging. Definition of rig (Entry 3 of 3) transitive verb . 1 : to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means rig an election. 2 : to fix in advance for a desired result rig the contest
Kinda wondering, say there are 10 participants in a contest. All of them arranged it themselves and nobody else is involved (no administrators). All 10 are aware and agree to rig the contest so that a specific person wins. This is not deceptive, but is still rigging. Unless anyone should say to use a different word in this case?
Huhhhhh that is interesting. I MIGHT argue, that because they all agreed to it, then it cannot be an example of rigging, and perhaps a more fitting word ought to be used.
In fact, if the contest has a predetermined winner, is it even a contest? Are they even a winner? o.O
But… I agree this is getting pretty murky.
It’s all a bit silly, as generally words work just so long as everybody understands what you mean - which everybody does in this case. Getting hung up on definitions (like I do!) is not a practical way to approach language heh.
I was in a karaoke contest with a grand prize of $1000. One of the contestants, who was an amazing singer, was on extremely rough times. I didn’t know this at the time but the majority of the other competitors and the judges agreed to give her first place. This happened somewhere before the finals. Again, I was not aware.
I came in second and she came in first and in the moment I thought nothing of it. Some people came up to me after with conspiracy theories and it caused issues to the point that the organizer reached out to me without me asking anything. Keep in mind I have not encouraged any of this. People just didn’t like this other person’s lifestyle choices it seems and they were hoping to use me as I lived out of town.
Long story short I was told what happened and I was perfectly fine with it. She was a resident of the city, I wasn’t and if I was asked directly I would have gladly agreed.
So. Rigged? Yes. By more than 10? Yes. Is it deceptive? Only to the woman that was given first and I’m okay with that.
side note: second prize was $600. So that may have eased the issue but who knows
So if hearthstone has beautiful women in it you would be ok with rigging Poke? There is no way that is right thing to do without involving everyone but the woman with regards to the contest and even then she may rightly feel slighted she dint actually win so even then it might be wrong. You got taken advantage of.