Okay, so what is “something?” Also, if you do not care if members of this forum believe you or not, why are you here?
Um, no, sorry, that’s not how this works. You can’t prove a negative, moreover, when you propose an affirmative claim, you support that with evidence. Yet, you refuse to do that for reasons.
I’ll comment on anything I want.
Yet you tried to order me to do otherwise. But double standards are expected from people like you.
I can’t prove the game is not fair or not truly random, a negative. Yet you expect me to.
What I told you was, if you truly do not care, you would not be here telling tales of proof that you’ve acquired that the game is rigged. I didn’t say, like you did, that I don’t care. I care that you’re spouting nonsense on a forum I use.
That’s not what I asked of you. I asked for you to demonstrate to us what you’re claiming is true – and you won’t. If you refuse to, do not expect anyone to take you seriously. But, you don’t care… yet are telling people you’ve a mountain of evidence.
Anyway, I’m done with you. I’ll let Touillette take over, should they want to entertain you.
We dont need to provide evidence for our claims. People make claims all the time without providing evidence. Not only on this forum but also irl. Its a trend that has picked up recently. Blizzard says game is not rigged,did they provide any evidence for that?
People should stop living in the past by asking for evidence,they have to keep up with the changing times. You are however free to believe our claims or not.
Some people think game is rigged,others think it is not rigged. And that is all there is to it. End of discussion 
This is not the first time you said that. And here we are anyway. Perhaps this time, you are telling the truth?
i never seen someone say asking for evidence is"living in the past "
the way i see it anyone who makes a claim like this one but acts offended and refuses to show proof they are telling us they are liars
I disagree, and don’t think we should pretend these two positions are equivalent. It’s akin to Trump claiming “there are very bad people on both sides.”
If a hypothesis (i.e. Hearthstone is rigged) cannot even remotely be proven, there is good reason not to believe it. Why? Well, because there is an infinite amount of ideas that can be suggested, that are supported by zero evidence. If our standard of evidence is that low, we might as well believe anything. And so, the fact that this hypothesis (rigged game) is supported by no evidence, we shouldn’t take it as true.
I employ you to read this article, please.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
What a surprise. Shown the evidence they claim to seek, fingers in ears lalalalalala pretend it never happened.
So the future is about taking everything randoms say on the internet for granted ?
Wow, future seems retarded.
When did logic change
When the illogical decided they needed to make rules to fit their thought process.
Sadly, even the present is retarded. For evidence, look at posts in this thread.
I don’t think the timeline is to blame, just that a good part of the very little group of people thinking that the game is rigged come on that forum, making the illusion people like that are numerous.
Too bad idiots are way more visible.
The matchmaking is garbage and everyone knows it. This arguing about it is pointless. Its people arguing for the sake of arguing from both sides.
Nope, I think a lot of things are garbage in that game, but not the matchmaking systems.
Can you explain me what makes it garbage ? Do you think you face opponents that don’t have your play level ?
So in other words, prior to the development of logic.
So I did this a year ago, and it helps nothing in skewing perspective.
In fact I replied to your post. You never replied. So I’m not going through the work again.
Link to that post
Nice one, I never saw your reply so hat’s off to you for advancing the conversation.
I had looked at it briefly and saw that matchups followed the general trend.
I don’t necessarily agree with your conclusion that a ~2% variance is indicative of rigging based on deck type (it’s certainly not indicative of widespread rigging and I would argue it actually rules it out), mainly because your post was light on detail, but hopefully some of the data nerds here with more free time will take a closer look.
I see you put forward an opinion that it’s to make more fun games, but that opinion is also unsupported (where were the 2% of matches reallocated?), at least in your post.
Appreciate that you put in some effort, and sorry I missed it 
Here’s the problem.
The 13.8% population of QMage is the population throughout their sample time.
However, you would have to believe that there is 0 standard deviation in the population time with regard to the population time of FHunter (their queuing distribution throughout the whole sample time is equal).
It’s possible that this is the case, but highly unlikely. You need the real time 24/7 population graphs for both groups throughout the period in question and do some sort of analysis of the delta to determine that there’s no deviation between their queuing distribution. We know queuing distribution can be affected by the release of meta reports, tournament results, and streamers. And who knows? Maybe more people play FHunter on their lunch break and more QMage after work.
There’s more issues. But the point is that your analysis is incomplete to justify your conclusion.
But you did significantly better than anyone else. Good job in actually trying.
Agree that you need more information to understand a 2% variation, but I don’t think you need that level of data to spot widespread rigging.
If you’re talking about 2%, that’s well below what people will notice across two samples. You need at least 100 games to resolve that level of variance, and if you sit someone down and have them play two sets of 100 games, they’re going to need a lot lot more than 2% variance to correctly identify a discrepancy. It’s probably more like 20-30%, but I’m just guessing. Most people can’t tell between two toggled images that are within 10% luminosity.
So given the hypotheses are things like “I notice blatant rigging whenever I switch decks”, “when I play X class I only encounter y class”, the expected variation should be at a level that is noticeable.