Rehgar: The hero nobody cares about

I can only ever see this principle hold true is a highly formal setting and not a plain informal setting, much like the forums are. My main problem with your argument here is that you are trying to make it sound like the word which you choose to fixate on in someone’s post is the crux of their case, in which case I would applaud you for making them understand why their case is build on faulty and factually untrue reasoning but this is rarely the case.

As per my examples above, the words you choose to challenge people on have had nothing to do with the topic or their opinions on the topic. As I’ve said, more often than not, you choose to nitpick on the grammatical mistakes of the argument and not the key word itself upon which the argument was built.

Allow me to give an example of how you could have done this correctly:

Take for instance the “Imperius’ trait is a gimped compy of Orphea’s, change my mind” thread. In this case, a proper usage of your tactic to debate semantics would have been used far more effectively to discuss the word “gimped” and point out the unique properties of his trait (such as multiple activations of it through molten armor), which would allow you to discredit his argument AND stay on point to the topic of the thread.

Instead you choose to fixate on the phrase “Change my mind” and go into tremendous detail as to why you believe that phrase is a lazy attempt to get people to engage with material without much effort on the OP’s end. Ironically, the exact opposite happened with you in that you did not engage with the source material and you put in way more effort than the OP anyway, but that is besides the point.

You claim that changing the way someone uses a word will help them better understand why their argument is faulty but in all of the examples I have listed, including mine with the “fair” one, it has never been the case. For my example, correcting me on the literal definition of the word “fair” did nothing to change my argument since it was evident to everyone in the thread (except you) that my usage of the word fair was used in the context to portray inequality.

Meanings of words can go beyond the literal definition. If you’re at work and you find out your hours have been cut and given to the new guy even though you’ve been there for years, you would say “that’s not fair”. But hold on a second? Your trusty dictionary clearly specifies that “fair” means no rules were breached and the action was legit.

Your boss has every right to switch the hours around however he deems is most effective for the company. “fair” was not violated in any way and your usage of the word “fair” was incorrectly applied. As you suggested, maybe if you just educate yourself on why your usage of the word was incorrect you’ll understand you had nothing to be worried about, right? Wrong.

In an informal setting, grammatical correctness is not a prerequisite to conveyed intent. The usage of the word “fair” with the boss example, the football example, and my example in the ‘gg vs bg’ thread all had the same meaning; which was to express an observation of inequality or injustice.

The idea that proper grammar will help change someone’s opinion on a topic is a laughably ridiculous claim that has no basis in the facts and no practical application. Again, I can only ever see this being true in a highly formal setting like a university, lecture, or seminar. If you’re at a party with your friends watching sports and your friend says “we ain’t got no defense”, you could point out that A) “ain’t” is an incorrect substitute for “don’t” and B) “don’t got no” is a double negative, so he’s actually saying the opposite of what he tried to convey.

In this situation, would correcting him seriously change his opinion on the matter? No. Did correcting me on “fair” change my opinion of the matchmaking system? No. Did correcting Hailfail on Khaldor change his opinion about Li Ming? No. Are you starting to see the pattern yet? You’re continuing your crusade on the false notion that the people you come across will change their ways if they understand the faults in their grammar. That is ridiculous.

You are changing nobody’s opinion. The only way you can change someone’s opinion is to refute their argument with facts and evidence, which I understand even then sometimes doesn’t help, but still is better than the alternative of what you are doing.

If someone makes a thread saying “Butcher is overpowered and this has had a large affect on the community.” I would completely expect you to be the person to point out “affect” was inappropriately used in the place of “effect” instead of doing the right thing and arguing the word “overpowered” was misapplied and easily disproved through statistical evidence that points to the contrary on almost every level of play.

Please give me one single example where you corrected someone’s grammar and in turn they said “Gee, you’re right. Now I see my complaint was wrong all along. Thanks, Xen.”

The point I’m trying to get across is that you need to pick your battles more wisely. Fixate on words such as “overpowered” that are key to the opponents argument instead of on words that have nothing to do with the spirit of the topic.

You noted in your post that:

I wonder why? Do you think that maybe your attempts at correcting people’s grammar can lead to the thread being sidetracked? Do you think that making a debate of “lore-friendliness” in a thread about the current balance of Tyrande might get sidetracked and shut down? Do you think that arguing the context of the word “Tone” in a thread about Sylvanas’ gameplay might end with the topic getting locked? Do you consider any of these factors before you decide to get into it with someone?

People tend to only post things on the forums about heroes they have an issue with. For example there has been one thread in the last three months that has mentioned Johanna, yet she is still very good. Also, popularity often has nothing to do with power level. Champions such as Probius, Gazlowe, TLV and Rexxar all have 54% plus winrates in ranked and all have some of the lowest popularities.

Blood and Thunder (Level 7)

Ghost Wolf attacks reduce Basic Ability cooldowns by 2 seconds.

Hunger of the Wolf (Level 16)

Ghost Wolf attacks against Heroes deal an additional 5% of the target’s maximum Health and heal Rehgar for 5% of his maximum Health.

More talents like these (maybe even stronger if more difficult to use are supposed to replace generic this will cost less mana) and leave totems alone. He is fine, but why not.

“In the branch of linguistics known as pragmatics, a presupposition (or PSP ) is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse.”

Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics and semiotics that studies the ways in which context contributes to meaning…

Unlike semantics… pragmatics studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on structural and linguistic knowledge (e.g., grammar, lexicon, etc.) of the speaker and listener, but also on the context of the utterance,[2] any pre-existing knowledge about those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, and other factors.

Did you know? some of the reasons I may reference a dictionary or wiki include:
a) providing a source to improve linguistic knowledge
b) assuming people wouldn’t look up particulars of their own accord
c) not believe me if I tried to explain it myself.

The whole soapbox fixation on “grammar/semantics” you keep casting at me seems pretty moot when you didn’t raise this up in terms of “arguing pragmatics”. In fact, continuing to assert that I 'Ignore context" if favor of sticking to the narrative you want to cast – which btw, should have been seen has evident case for confirmation bias that you seem content to ignore – kinda seems misplaced if you notice how many times I may or may not have been referencing toward my proclivity to stuff beyond “semantics” despite your insistence of that being so the case.

Funnily enough, of the many quotes you have of my posts now, how many of them have to not considered in applying to your concerns in this topic?
→ Oj posts rant on the assumed failure of my theory
→ Oj quoting a post I made on the reality for someone to not change someone else’s mind

Heck, even the ramble you did on the qualifier for how fact/refutation may not even work is in the same ballpark, but sure, let’s pretend that my not adhering to your strawman claim of my methodology is my fault, and not the fault of the theory presented by you toward me :stuck_out_tongue:

See, this bit here is another example of that conflation bit I’ve posted at you before. In your zeal you’re ignoring the tendency I have to give “troll posters” the time of day by posting genuine responses in topics that end up deleted regardless of my contribution. Sure, i’ve seen a topic locked for being derailed, but for my contribution i do try to nod something back to the topic at hand, even if people don’t want or like it.

e.g.

The ability to understand another speaker’s intended meaning is called pragmatic competence
Hi, thread that wanted to suggest rehgar could get lightning bond but, but well, didn’t really open with that.

-The whole point of why I even post “formal” antics is because the recipient isn’t going to ‘change their mind’. Part of why some people even attempt to adopt such particulars isn’t to ‘persuade’ anyone, its just to revel in how “right” they already think themselves to be. Take mekka’s specific request for someone to ‘debate’ them accordingly: their assuption in being “right” essentially compelled them to either ignore arguments that didn’t suit their model of debate, or demand others to take up what they wanted instead. The same pretty much applied to rational, animus, eigenscape, and a number of others.

If someone is partially considering that ‘word meaning’ deviates from their expectation, then they’ll more likely shift their perception of other stuff to suit the same demands they place on that word/concept belief that they hold. In previous ‘unfair’ topics that I’ve written, when presented with examples contrary to the OP’s assertion of “fair”, they just denounce all those other games has being ‘unfair’ or ‘pay2win’ or whatever else to maintain the position they wanted, regardless of how much is was contradicted by how they argued it.

a number of posters all fall into a same mindset and part of that is because the back-n-forth of the medium doesn’t change someone’s mind… at all. People are more prone to react to the perception of ‘disagreement’ then they are to honor particulars of a formalized wall. If someone brings ‘facts’ against them, then they just look for ‘facts’ for the side they want.

Of the people that “like” that sort of thing are sideliners who just assume a particular length reinforces what they wanted, and they celebrate the ‘eloquence’ someone else presented despite likely not reading much, if any, of the material at hand.

That said, despite years of effectual failure on this means by which I respond to particular arguments, the funny thing is that the technique does wonders for me in person.

In my line of work, I frequently have to diagnose “problems” clients bring to me. The basis by which I ascertain the issue is from the ‘evidence’ they provide by describing the problem. Most of the ‘issues’ I get are from the user, and not the fault of the device at hand, so my capacity to “fix” something is based on my ability to get someone to change something about what they themselves do. Usually that involves my broadening their perspective a bit by suggesting a change in how their think about their concern.

eg I’ve worked at an arcade and a number of players fall into a rut of “all the games are broken” – not so much from the machines being unplayable, but because they don’t notice what they’re even putting into the coin slot. While they, in fact, cause the very misery themselves, they’ll easily blame any and all else they can before realizing the possibility they are at fault.

I could apply that much of the same consequence to a number of other jobs I’ve had, (or stuff people do) but some of the consistent basis I’ve personally encountered is the means by which people phrase a particular concern stems from what they know or observed of the issue.
(hi throwback to the citation of pragmatics above)
If the fault is a consequence of their action, I have found that “correcting their grammar”, as you so want to put it, does have an effect of their potential to not repeat the same err, and even improve their outlook because they’re not plagued with the idea that something else is keeping them from enjoying themselves as so they demand.

card or board games fall into a similar effect in needed ‘rules’ to be understood particular to the “grammar” (if you will) of the context the game creates. a number of games establish particular vernacular that only applies to that particular game, some of which provide a glossary of terms to be an on-hand reference during play or when teaching other players the game.

The biggest distinction, for me, is that in person, people can ‘test’ the application of the information given to them directly, and thus reinforce their understanding with a diret reward. In the written medium, the ‘reward’ is the personal satisfaction someone has of being ‘right’ versus the fear and discomfort of being ‘wrong’ So since they already have what they ‘want’, there isn’t any reasons for people to look for ‘change’ when they can just look for more fuel for the fire they already have going.

OJ and Xenterex, could we return to regular programming and continue to discuss Rehgar? This Dostoevsky length discussion regarding forum discourse is fascinating, but is definitely off topic. Maybe you two should take it private?

7 Likes

See, now that I’m pushing the offensive and suggesting that you may be contributing to the problem of these threads getting locked down, you instead are trying to shift all responsibility away from yourself by demonizing the OPs in the threads in which your participate. “Troll posters” is not an excuse. If someone is obviously a troll poster (in the case of Secant of Hailfail) and doesn’t deserve your time of day, either post a short comedic response or say nothing at all.

Also, in none of the threads except maybe Hailfail’s did the OP have clear trolly intent. You might argue that lack of effort constitutes a troll, but I would disagree. The thread saying Imperius’ trait was just a copy paste of Orphea’s demonstrated clear intent to point out a relevant concern about the design philosophy of heroes. Are you still going to suggest this person is a “troll poster”?

Giving someone a label for very vague reasons and using that as a pretext to do whatever you want in their thread sounds like a recipe for becoming a troll. There are only three posters that I can think of off the top of my head that fit into the category you are trying to describe, and that’s Hailfail, Secant, and Healsonheels (and his many alts). Everyone else gets a fair shot for a serious response from me that discusses the source material.

For you on the otherhand, your list of troll posters seems to be quite more vast. So I wonder then, if people don’t deserve your ‘time of day’ and ‘aren’t going to change’ why post these lengthy posts like you do all the time in an attempt to educate them? Are you going to suggest that the education isn’t necessarily for the OP but anyone reading? When has that ever been the case?

You are at fault here. On a consistant basis you do not engage with the subject material and instead sidetrack threads by going into pointless irrelevant debates with other posts who are doing the exact same thing. You then blame the OP for the thread getting shut down. I call you out on this and you stick to your guns saying “oh well they were just troll posters anyway, it’s all good.” This is absolute bull-you-know-what.

Maybe people are annoyed with me for making posts without thinking and using pathos as the tone of my thread, I’m willing to except that. There is blame on my end to. But to suggest you have done no wrong is a wildly incorrect statement.

I am tired of seeing threads that even I think are serious being derailed by you pointlessly debating with people just as guilty of sidetracking as you are. The thread about Tyrande was a serious post made by someone without a past history of trolling using legitmate and fair points brought up to encourage discussion. What is your excuse this time? Are you going to call the OP a troll? Maybe you’re going to call the person you were debating with a troll but that still doesn’t change the fact you sidetracked that OP’s thread with offtopic nonsense and contributed to the lack of discussion that may (or may not) have taken place.

girls plz…
(20 awesome characters)

20 ch?

I love rehgar and was keen to read some interesting discussion on him made by people who are just as passionate.

Sadly this post sidetracked which is unfortunate.

3 Likes

Step 1: Play Vikings
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Enjoy!

they need to bring back his ult healing on himself they nerfed that way way to soon before alot of reduce healing and reduce armor even came out.
i find reghar the easiest support to kill compared to ana and medic who can actually heal themselves better when ganked/cc.

reghars totem that slows should also do more than just slow, it should heal for a bit as well magic it more strategic of placing it behind you or in front to slow.

1 Like

Sometimes I wish I could write lengthy essays like them in school…

1 Like

I can relate to that.

1 Like

I care about Rehgar, hes my favourite healer and despite your whining im putting up respectable numbers :slight_smile:

ignoring most of my posts content in favor of more confirmation bias. I have enough of a post history on that same ol, same ol, there :stuck_out_tongue:

The use of my “troll posters” bit was that the people whom I post lengthy replies toward tend to be posters that are assumed to have the ‘troll’ label by ‘the community’ and regulate the topic to bunk – the point of contrast being that I give a serious/formal reply contrary to outrcry. I made lengthy posts to, again, posters like rational or hailfall, despite the appearance or repetition of their content – and if you look at some of the examples you gave in this topic, some posters do call someone out as a ‘troll’ or the like, or aspects of the behavior seem as such, but without enough ‘evidence’ to ‘convict’ the case. You’re content to assume my position must therefore be that they are a troll (and must be ‘punished’ by me or something) and not other outcomes – so yes, to answer a previous question, I take heavily into consideration what my replies may do for a topic and its part of why I try to be particular to phrasing some things in certain ways, even if I don’t always have the patience and compsure to match my intent.

*cue pointing out the bit on my ‘demonizing the posters’ seems more indicative of you to me with the taking "troll posters’ there to suit the ‘offensive’ narrative you’re working. Yea, in hindsight I could have phrased that better, but you’re more in ‘full misconstrue’ mode with these replies and fall into the ‘don’t believe anything he posts’ rut.

I’m digressing but I’d like to try to bridge some of the ‘argument’ stuff with the topic at hand, so Imma paste/summary some wiki stuff for phrasing and reference:

Summary

In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements, called the premises, intended to determine the degree of truth of another statement, the conclusion.

Logic is the study of the forms of reasoning in arguments and the development of standards and criteria to evaluate arguments.

Deductive arguments can be valid or sound: in a valid argument, premisses necessitate the conclusion, even if one or more of the premisses is false and the conclusion is false; in a sound argument, true premisses necessitate a true conclusion.

Inductive arguments, by contrast, can have different degrees of logical strength: the stronger or more cogent the argument, the greater the probability that the conclusion is true, the weaker the argument, the lesser that probability.

The summary there is some copy/paste from wiki for basic phrasing on an 'argument. Its the stuff people “know”, with a slight exception for the ‘inductive’ parts as some people like to fixate on the logic/deductive parts and consider that the “right” way at the neglect of any other possibilities. Something similar could be conveyed regarding formal & informal, but this next bit I’m not going to spoiler:

Informal arguments are sometimes implicit. That is, the rational structure – the relationship of claims, premises, warrants, relations of implication, and conclusion – is not always spelled out and immediately visible and must sometimes be made explicit by analysis.

That quote there is a key distinction between your old-topic Rehgar vs this topic for rehgar: one is ‘implicit’ of its content and it ‘must sometimes be made explicit by analysis’

Some of my use of ‘formal’ qualities may be to attempt to try to either distinguish parts of an implicit claim, or context, or to glean more information from a response to the given post.

Some of my posts are a sort of ‘litmus’ test, if you will, to either find out more particulars or to interject information that could assist some particulars.

While many people know “logic” and apply it to ‘deductive’ reasoning (or at least claim to do so, or want to so do) the ‘reality’ of an ‘argument’ is that reasoning extends just beyond deductive and/or inductive. I don’t know of some magic way to try to convey the effect of people not knowing the particulars of divers “reasoning” to a topic, but there are a variety of things I attempt to do, and well, tend to ‘fail’ in my approach.

While I generally expect people to not “change” per the discussion, that’s only a surface-level exceptions: this is a written medium, and people can come back to posts with new perspectives or information that influence what they see, how they read, and with what they engage: perspective shapes perception.

That said, some of what I attempted here was to see if another type of discussion would foster around the “lightning bond” particulars, or if someone would make another topic and I could just leave that one alone.

all that said, what I saw of the ‘premise’ of this topic didn’t really fit the ‘conclusion’ esp in regards to the implicit aspects of the topic. While I can understand the want for particular change, I don’t quite agree with the specific longing for lightning bond expressed for his ‘value’ or ‘identity’.

Despite my shortcomings, I have found a renewed interest in rehgar from seeing some vods on Khaldor’s channel for the Nations Cup hots Games. Granted, organized games tend to regulate heroes into specific ruts for play, successful plays from that event may inspire other people to care more about rehgar again.

I read up until saw xenterex’s name and like 8 paragraphs and didn’t bother reading after that.

But yeah rehgar needs some buffs.

2 Likes

I like Rehgar. I think a nice way to try to bring him back up to par since support nerfs would be to allow AH on yourself again. And maybe make healing totem baseline?

Confirmation bias implies that new evidence is coming to light. There is nothing new about your posting tendencies. It is all the same. Also, what is up with this whole “changing the OP’s mind” business? Who cares if the people you are arguing with are cemented in their beliefs? The main purpose of debate in a public setting like this is not necessarily to change the OP’s belief (even though they may literally say “change my mind”) but rather to change the minds of the people reading and help educate the community.

Someone says “Sylvanas OP” and makes a thread with a list of reasons why they think Sylvanas is OP, you could easily counter with a much more articulate list of reasons as to why you think the contrary is true. Instead you play the usual word association game. But think about this; someone reading that thread may end up thinking “Wow the OP has some good points. Maybe he is right?” and then they see your response, which may even correctly point out mistakes in their syntax but be honest, is that likely to change anyone’s opinion?

Funnily enough we get a prime example of this in the reply after yours:

Believe it or not, this is how most people feel and you have to take that into consideration. People aren’t afraid of walls of text, people are afraid of walls of text that do not pertain to the topic as, at first glance, it seems like a massive waste of time (which more often than not, it is).

Someone will read that “sylv op” thread, sympathize with their ideas, read your response and gain nothing from it, and then leave the thread thinking the OP was right. In this regard, you failed to win the interest of the audience and ‘lost’ the debate so-to-speak.

The real shame from all of this is the fact that you could so EASILY make a counterargument that would destroy the OP since the facts and evidence stacked against them is enormous. However, you strangely take the linguistics route and interest nobody but yourself. If making posts like that genuinely makes you feel accomplished and proud of yourself then good for you, I guess.

Again, not likely. We’re trying to change the minds of the audience here, not the OP. When Trump and Hillary take the stage to debate, you don’t think they’re trying to influence each other do you? When Ben Shapiro and Cenk Uygur went up to debate, do you think there was a chance they could change each others beliefs? We’re talking about the most die-hard conservative vs the most die-hard liberal. And sure, debates like this CAN serve only to confirm bias but you would be foolish to believe that there isn’t a bunch of people in the crowd who are on the fence about the issues and ready to have their beliefs challenged by more articulate speakers.

Again, I’m not challenging the reason why you choose to argue people in different threads, I’m challenging how you go about it, which is very ineffective and serves nothing more than to waste time and confuse people.

You started this thread with a post about Rhegar, stating some of your OPINIONS on things such as his healing capabilities and wave clear. However, you have been insanely resistant to anyone disagreeing with you. There also seems to be no point to your thread. You actively try to shut down discussion on your points, which you posted on the General DISCUSSION forum. You offer no suggestions for changes and refuse to accept others opinions on Rhegar. You now have decided to derail your own thread by going on a huge tangent with some random person. You two have been spewing nonsense at each other for days. You both look equally childish and petty.

2 Likes