The common complainers of this sort of thing would ‘convince’ cooler heads of an issue of the complainer and not necessarily one with the subject of their complaint.
The mainstay is that the presentation of the complaint, bad matching, is done so in what essentially mirrors the process of a conspiracy theory.
While it’s not some political mastermind in this case, the conclusion does fixate on a ‘sinister’ effect: [they] are ‘forced’ to lose. People that present simpler explanations are thusly dismissed with insults and concluded to be effectively complacent with the conspiracy.
–Because ‘brainwashed’ people are the ones that don’t put much creed in impulsive outbursts with a poorly-informed conclusion! Of course, how did i not realize that sooner!
- The conclusion is drawn that they are ‘forced’ to lose following the win streak, rather than say, that they were ‘forced’ to win to start the streak.
- The conclusion removes the reality of agency from people involved; the players used to “force” the losses are subject to the whim of the match maker (or are bots,) people that don’t agree with what “everybody knows” must be brainwashed, and so on. The appeal demands [people] not have sufficient control of their own faculties to offset the system. Or the system is just that good, but is intentionally used to force bad matches. (cuz sinister, remember)
- The ‘evidence’ for proof fails to show how the game is an outlier of the matching for the other players involved: its only by their own experience that the game is lost, and as such, the conclusion they draw on the system doesn’t work for all other players matched in that game.
Thus the “theory” doesn’t confirm the proof of the experienced concern.
But, the process presented becomes one of contradiction to suit the conclusion instead.
This sort of sequence suggests a ‘defensive mechanism’ to the event, that then extends to anyone that doesn’t appear to take the side of the victim, which, when noticed, would suggest the complaint is a result of self-infliction (per the evident contradiction of claim & proof,) so it can convince other people to… not care*. The lack of support or agreement then fuels the defense mechanism and that becomes more “proof” of the effect of the ‘sinister’ event. (Salt for the “salt god” so to speak.)
Which comes down to pointing out how this boils down to confirmation bias that could only be met with “fan boy” responses, rather than something more experienced, or rational – [they] refuse to believe other possibilities are not only possible, but likely more probable.
The implicit irony being the complaint calls others ‘fan-boys’, yet they’re the ones exhibiting the behaviors attributed to fan-boyism. Since they’re not the “fan” of the event, they’ll rationalize away the self-realization of their conduct, and thus act all the more a “fan boy” in spite of themselves.
So… if they don’t care* what the “fan boy” says (themselves) others won’t either.
I get this is already too long as is, and it hasn’t even defended how the game works yet! So gee, this is just such a terrible ‘white knight’ reply, that it doesn’t even white knight the thing it’s supposed to white knight!
– which would be the sort of conclusion that supports the effect i’m describing with this post.
If people have concerns on how to better present their proof, I could link to other topics, but, well, [they] already “don’t care”, so I have my doubts of the loop thusly being noticed despite being “overwhelming[ly] apparent.”
The lead evidence, the experience, is the ‘only’ convincing factor, so if people don’t have that same experience, they won’t sympathize with the complaint. Without other ‘proof’ it’s just a mundane cycle by people that would otherwise roll [more] alt accounts that beg-the-question that they ‘waste their time’ coming round time and again to offer up their salty tribute.
there.
