Reeks of Blizzard retaliation

So for the past week I’ve been on a forced break given a suspension over unjustified “abussive chat”. I say unjustified because they don’t give any explanation. Just that it was reviewed and determined…Anyway, I signed on today to play and have had 8 straight games of losses.

This never happens, and most 3 games in a row when it does. This reeks of some sort of attribute being set on my account for further “punishment”. Way to make sure your already dwindling community dwindles even further.

1 Like

negativity bias is a thing.

The whole 'they’re all out to get me" conspiracies are pretty moot once you bother to consider that other people actually exist and get match into your games.

But nope, thinking up superstitious targeted vendetta’s is somehow easier. Gets really sad/funny when you see the same sort of complaints on pretty much any genre and game board where people just go so far out of their way to try to rationalize the effectual universe is personally out to get them.

The average joeshmoe and too great at stuff, but rather than take some personal reflection on that, so long as anything else exists to blame, then they’ll keep on doing that instead.

11 Likes

Maybe you just suck at the game.

3 Likes

they’re all out to get me

I never said that. Im point out a very suspicious turn of events that started with an account suspension, followed by an unheard of 8 losses in a row. Blizz qm is notorious for its terrible algorithms.

superstitious targeted vendetta

Its statistical analysis of trends.

The average joeshmoe and too great at stuff

I never said I was great at stuff, dont put words in my mouth.

Maybe you just suck at the game.

I have a 57.8% win rate, which is far from master, but most definitely not a sucking at the game. With those statistics, I should have won at least 4 of the 8 lost games.

the general player is more prone to biased interpretation than not.

“Numbers don’t like” is one of those comfy lies people use to reinforce what they already want to think rather than be used as a means to find where to make changes.

The general issue of your post bemoans so much, overlooks a lot of prevalent details, and draws a forgone conclusion that’s prime with circular reasoning.

Your end conclusion of “I should have won” is based on a flawed sense of what stats actually mean and pretty much reinforces the above diagnostic in your lacking of experience in statistical analysis.

Afterall, if someone already thinks they’re right, or ‘deserves to win’, then they don’t have any reason to doubt that conclusion, or consider evidence that would present that as a potential possibility.

So long as anything else exists to blame, why deviate from that?

2 Likes

You make no sense. Math is simple. Basic understanding of statistics leads one to conclude that if your overall win rate is 58%, you should be winning at least half of the games. Sometimes you lose 2, win 3, lose 3, win 2, etc, etc.

The outlying condition is the 8 losses in a row, which in my particular case, is a statistical anomaly, that coincides with a punishment decision from Blizzard “quality” assurance.

The way you express yourself makes me think you are a wannabe philosopher that doesn’t understand what you write.

Afterall, if someone already thinks they’re right, or ‘deserves to win’, then they don’t have any reason to doubt that conclusion, or consider evidence that would present that as a potential possibility.

What evidence? The only evidence is that which I provided. I dont proclaims to a have a right to win. Im pointing out a statistical anomaly. Get over yourself.


Negativity bias is a well documented science.

Also across hundreds of games per player and thousands of players the odds of something like this happening to someone is fairly high. It just happened to do you.

3 Likes

No, there is no such punishment. What would they gain by doing that?

Lose streaks happen.

3 Likes

6 Likes

This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever watched. He used the example of quickly spotting a negative face in a positive crowd but the same would happen if it was a happy face in a negative crowd. People spot ‘what’s different’ all the time.

That isn’t what’s going on in this situation. It’s, hey, ‘hey, we lost and therefore, something is to blame!’. Afterall, you lost for a reason but the reasons are often misattributed.

One time, I had a Diablo tank feed deaths like crazy and we lost. First he tried to blame the comp, then I said no, it’s not the comp. Then he tried to blame the player, then I said, no it’s not that guy and eventually, I said it’s the Diablo because he was awful. He wouldn’t accept it and blamed the other dps.

It’s never the guy’s fault. It’s never OUR fault we lost. It’s someone else’s. “I played 1k games and I know this one wasn’t my fault even though I died 15 times”.

Ok, sure buddy.

Everything you mentioned was negative, why is that?

This is garbage pure and simple. 10 games is not a large enough sample size, its just a bad streak.

Post replays of this revenge and I will show you overextensions, bad rotations.

Suspensions don’t just come out of the blue, there are silences at least twice (clearly we didn’t pay attention then) the same stuff that makes you baby rage in chat makes you see things that don’t exist. Take this for what it is a game, mute chat, and just press Q, W, E, somtimes R, A,B and Z.

No, not everything I said was negative.

The point of what I said was that people have an inherent desire to protect the “ego”. The ego is the ‘best’ version of yourself and we all want to believe that’s us!

When that ego is challenged, people tend to lash out. “It can’t be the best version of myself that is challenged!”.

Unfortunately, no one is their best version of their selves but they like to think so. Any challenge to that ego results in lashback to protect that ego.

“Not my fault, team is trash”

Low rank players can’t see past their ego and they’ll remain bad forever, never changing. After all, why change what isn’t broken?

Only those who are introspective can improve their own plays and rise above adversity.

1 Like

Its a complicated subject. Psychology is something i hope to study at some point.

Are you really sure it is “unjustified”? Also how do you know what they write?

Maybe it was set by the lizard people who work for the government. Make sure you wear a tin foil hat to stop the radio waves too.

Psychology IS something I’ve studied as a minor though.

When you study it, you’ll see the same themes running through. It explains things like wars, bullying, etc.

It’s why psychology and history are used to prevent future disaster.

1 Like

8 loss streak is not a statistical anomaly.

That’s pretty high man.

If that’s the case then the game might be matching you into games with higher skill players thinking that’s where you belong. Maybe it’s over-corrected?

1 Like

I understood what I wrote; but I don’t think you understood what I wrote, nor did you understand what you mean.

The conclusion you draw is that you didn’t provide “evidence” but the evidence at hand is your interpretation of the events. You have a ‘statistical anomaly’, claim you don’t “deserve” to win, but have rationalized that you have been ‘punished’ because you lost more than 3 consecutive games.

If you lost more than you thought you should have won, then you indicate that you should have won games to match your ‘statistical’ expectations, and thus “deserve” to win.

You haven’t said anything of the quality of the matches, aspects of allies or enemies (the typical indicators for “forced losses” and otherwise seem incapable of understanding similar ways of displaying cognitive biases though different ways of describing them.

The simplest fallacy is one of the gambler’s: effectively, that something is more likely based on previous cases. Your previous experience is to only have strings of “2 or 3” losses, so the possibility of you getting a 4th, or more, consecutive loss is less likely than than the forced winrate conspiracy, only that it’s a specific ‘punishment’.

Might wanna read up on how a circular reasoning loop works before dismissing that other people “don’t know what they’re talking about”
Similarly, resorting to extreme outcomes (“never happenes”) generally indicates further skew of analysing the data, or rather, the formation of expectations from observable (but not necessarily real) patterns in the data.

tl;dr: correlation isn’t causation.

If you have 256 people all flip a coin that had exactly 50% chance to land on either side 128 of those people would get heads right?

Well have those 128 who got heads flip again you get 64

Flip again and you get 32

Again and you get 16

8

4

2

1

That 1 person flipped heads 7 times

1 Like