Good grief. Person is referring to having a mature and constructive attitude toward the game.
Agreed. Someones going and to me its really sad that people want to criticize on this post.
If they want to discuss his performance make another post titled so.
Anyway have fun with you new job AZ
1 Like
whoosh
You can’t expect everyone to have a constructive feedback on the game. Just look at the so called “criticism” by OrangeJuice. Tooton is also known to go on ridiculous anti-hive rants and a very obnoxious elitist approach when it comes to game design.
Also I would hardly call ranting (quite rudely if I may add) on a farewell thread about game balance is mature.
4 Likes
Lol, whooosh indeed.
This is just so wrong it’s sad. You clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding about how the real world works. This is not how accountability is assessed in our society, dude.
Can trump repair the damage he’s done with the capitol riots?
Can Marjorie taylor greene repair the damage she’s done with her past comments?
Can any disbarred lawyer, any doctor who’s had their medical license suspended, any criminal with a permanent record do anything about what they’ve done in their past?
The ability to ‘repair the damage you’ve done’ holds no bearing on whether or not you should be held accountability for your actions. You have this DEAD WRONG.
He never communicated with us, never kept us in the loop, and left us in the dark for months on end.
Not really, but he can apologize. Notice how he didn’t do it here, because he doesn’t think he’s done anything wrong. Him at least acknowleding that he hasn’t been forthcoming with us would atleast be an acknowledgment of guilt.
Not give him the brownie points that he’s clearly fishing for. He thinks he can go dark on us for months and then suddenly pop in out of nowhere to tell us he’s leaving and expect us to be like “Ohhhh Az…thank you so much for all your hard work! you’re the best! Good luck in the future!”
No. And I hope he’s reading this, as is the next person who takes his place. If you’re a developer and you’re reading this, COMMUNICATE WITH YOUR PLAYERBASE.
We spent all of december waiting, hoping, pondering, expecting some kind of christmas event. No word. No communication nothing. We spent all of December and most of January waiting for a balance patch. No communication. Nothing.
DO BETTER, BLIZZARD
4 Likes
So let’s break this down shall we. You think posting his activity to show he has posted previously on the forums will discredit but I’m saying. But your ultimate fault is in not paying attention to the context.
He was active in early 2020, yes, mostly in may. But let’s take a look after that shall we? He had no activity on the forums for all of june, all of july, and most of august. He made 1 substantive post in August, and 1 humor post. Both of his only posts in September were humor posts, and then he had 1 substantive game-related post in October before disappearing for the rest of October, all of November, all of December, all of January 2021, and now posts in February that he’s leaving.
Since may of 2020, he had only 2 posts that actually discussed the current state of the game. Notably here:
And here:
The rest were either engaging in humorous banter with others, or dropping fun little tidbits of info on what goes on behind the scenes.
In total, he had 5 posts in the last 8 months.
I fault you for your inability to notice the gaping hole of context left in your ‘evidence’. If you’re going to tout your findings as being the smoking gun to discredit my concerns, you might want to actually do a bit of reading. But what likely happened is you pulled up an activity feed, gave it a quick skim to see how many times Az’s name appeared, and then posted it to me without realizing how flimsy it actually was.
Might wanna bit a bit more time and thought into your post next time, Xen.
4 Likes
Yes. Because it does.
Do you recall how many times I’ve pointed out how your biases ruin your perspective in these ‘discussions’? How you blatantly refuse consider that people can truthfully disagree with you? That you tend to be too busy working at strawman that you make lies of what people post?
Part of your problem is that you post incorrect information, see it as a “fact” and then run off on stretching your claim beyond where it is true. However, since you believe yourself to be right, assume others can’t be right if they disagree with you, you tend to not make the distinction between what you write and what you meant. You have a “fact” so therefore you can’t be ‘disputed’ (cuz real facts are indisputably so,) and you give others a major disservice in your conduct once you reach that conclusion.
The opening question about is a rhetorical one; I doubt you go back to reread things (esp in their entirety) otherwise I wouldn’t have had to repeat myself to much to you.
The ‘fact’ of claim is:
Now there are 3 key forms of assessing the ‘truth’ (or validity) of a claim that I’ll point out:
- by sections: taking each clause, or claim, independently
- by looking at the whole and seeing if what is said is only true in the entirety.
- Interjecting substitutions or filtering out extraneous bits to chisel down what is right, or what was ‘meant’.
Of what I left off from the post, there was a duration of time. So in the whole of statement, if we rewrite it to be “In the past two months, he never…” [yada, yada, yada] then that would be true. Time travel doesn’t exist, so the future can’t go back to correct the time passed, and he ‘never’ can retroactivity make those posts.
Similarly, some of that duration could be further extended to draw a distinction in it being true that “never” is rightfully used, or if it should have been a conditional “ever” instead.
While you might not agree with the perspective I’m going to use here, from your conduct, you don’t seem to hold to a particular length of time in your assessment of “never active, never engaged” So, if the frame of time doesn’t matter, and ‘never’ is genuinely meant without limit, then you have not presented a “fact” and my pointing out their active post list does discredict your claim of “never” anything.
As an aside note here, you might see what I’m writing as “arguing semantics” due to the use of ‘never’, but that is only the symptom of concern, not the entirety of it.
As you might not recall, I do hold that how people explain/phrase something indicates their understanding of it. If you were particular to the frame of time, you would probably clarify on your detractors that look at the use of “never” – past, present, and future – to reflect how you ‘understanding’ the situation. Since there is a lack of activity from blues, then you don’t have to be ‘literally’ correct so post something ‘true’ about a lack of blue activity. That is the part people probably “like” about your statement because they skimmed out the parts with which they agree and filter the sentiment rather than the statement.
Of the posters that have disagreed with you, they take exception at the context (ie, a whole appraisal of what is posted) and do note that AZ was the blue that was active on the forums. You don’t seem keen on making that distinction.
I pointed out that there’s a lack of activity from you in topics AZ posted in and have surmised that you have been unaware of their posting contributions, and therefore agree with “never” extended beyond a recent frame of time.
Since you don’t seem to be aware of this, I’m already familiar with the context of AZ’s posts: I was active in some of those topics.
I don’t think you noticed that. You certainly haven’t ever believed me when I’ve stated that when I reply to something (or reference it) it’s because I read it.
So your exception to me is based on a LIE you made up because YOU don’t believe what people write. YOU make OTHERS become a LIAR because of YOUR inabilities. However, it is true that you do fault others, but you don’t seem to realize that you do so because of your willful neglect.
I posted earlier that I don’t think you are familiar with what AZ posted, and how you have replied to me on that regard I take as proof of your ignorance, and bias. You aren’t familiar with their activity, pulled up the activity stream, and skimmed a few posts.
Since you put in “effort” and drew one conclusion, and I don’t share that, therefore I can’t have put in the effort and you thus conclude “more time and thought” is on my end.
Instead, I was already aware, and that’s why I made the post I did. You made a bad assumption, used that to fuel your entire perspective on the reply, and then try to fault me for the lies you made up.
AGAIN.
Of AZ’s posts we got:
- A few personal anecdotes (makes them seem human, or less distant)
- Requests for player advise on how to deal with some heroes
- A few aspects of the code at hand, or the intention of the devs on some clarification of game balance potential (armor vs %hp)
- A lengthy reply to a common tin-foil theory on the forum
- Some hero pick/win statistics that reflect some balance changes, or lack therefore.
- Select comments that try to verify the claim that the forums are read.
The ‘fact’ that you posted any examples of his replies already indicates a void of your claim in “never”. That’s part of the frustrating this of replying your ego: you CONTRADICT your own ignorant claims, and don’t bother to think that through. If you “fact” needs several specifics for the ‘context’ to me true, then it doesn’t have the actual qualities to be a “fact”.
And I am a stickler about that because far too many people use false “facts” to try to give themselves an air of authority that they then try to use to belittle others. They’re too busy thinking they’re “right” that they have to assume anyone else is an effectual “liar” and then don’t bother to check because they continue to think that they can’t be wrong.
The stuff you have chosen as examples is more proof to my claim that you are unfamiliar with AZ’s activity, and therefore use that as ‘proof’ of your claim because you are unfamiliar with what they posted.
You only go insofar as to shore up your initial confirmation, and then fault me for your presumptions because you don’t know any better, and won’t read any better.
The core distinction of disagreement on this topic is that some people are aware of AZ being ‘active’ on the forums to a greater degree than you are, while your complaints are generic, uninformed, and don’t care otherwise because it’s “nothing personal”
However, the topic is a personal thing, so your frame of grievances is where some take exception to you.
Wanting more activity is one thing.
Misrepresenting others is another. And that statement isn’t just about AZ.
Might wanna put a bit more time and effort into actually reading what I’ve written at you instead of skimming for that cherry-picked kernel you base your lies around. You do yourself, and everyone else, a disservice by how much you *don’t’ bother to read when you consider so much beneath your notice.
The time and thought were long since put into this, and you continue to try to match me with crap and bunk. Get over yourself.
Oh boy, someone called out OJ that their take was derailing the thread and then they go out and put a shout out at me. Yea, people can tell what you don’t consider OJ. But since you WON’T consider it (because you don’t believe people can disagree with you on this stuff) you do this over and over and over again.
It’s a written format, you can do a much better job of reading this stuff through instead of filtering it out as you do. In case it didn’t ever occur to you, yes this is a derailment, so congrats on failing that train of thought.
If you only had 3 fingers, you would be the sort that would argue 2 + 2 ≠ 4.
6 Likes
So now you backtrack, to addressing my previous comments because you know your last post carries no weight. Funny how that works isn’t it? You just slapped a dev activity feed and pretended like it was the tell-all smoking gun you hoped it was when in actuality it told a completely different narrative than the one you tried to present.
That there lies the problem with most of your debate tactics. You post sources and pretend to elaborate on them, hoping people are either just too lazy or don’t care enough to fact check. Well I did, and for someone who likes to drown people out with pseudo-intellectual nonsense such as yourself, I expected a bit more attention to detail than that, Xen.
If you want to focus on the facts, here they are;
AzJackson USED to be incredibly active on the forum. In fact, he had 10 posts in the month of May alone. But after that, 8 months of silence. That isn’t my opinion. That is a fact. Take it or leave it.
I have the “Authority” to call him out on this extremely long bout of silence because it is merited. All of the “where is the next patch” posts, all of the “where the christmas event” threads would have disappeared is he or ANY dev for that matter bothered to just drop any kind of information. They didn’t even have to give exact dates just say “we aren’t planning an event this year” boom done.
The only (flimsy) leg you have to stand on is calling me “thick” because you can’t discredit the authenticity of anything I’m saying because it’s verifiably true. No blue posts since October. FACT.
Your only sad hope at an argument now is to play semantics on the word “never” to insinuate that I don’t know Az has never posted here before ever, as if he didn’t exist. When someone says to their partner “You never talk to me”, are they saying that that person has never said a word to them in the past, or is there an implied ‘anymore’ in the undertone of the comment?
Since you can’t discredit the authenticity of my claims, your only options left are to:
A.) Play semantics.
B.) Argue that it’s an inappropriate setting for such a discussion.
Neither of which address the facts I have brought up. No communication from the devs in 3 months. And before that 3 months, only a sliver of posts after may 2020. That is, in my opinion, enough silence for me to bring it to their attention here.
If you disagree with that, that’s your problem, among others. But you’re more than welcome to argue that string of thought than the jumbled incoherent mess you’re rambling on about now.
5 Likes
You keep posting this lie over and over again.
I functionally don’t have any reason to repost to you anymore because that’s all you LITERALLY do: make up excuses to belittle the other person, and then fault them for it.
You have had pages upon pages of conversation on detailing the flaws of how you process this crap. Then you repeat it, I point out how you suit the prediction, and then you try to defame me by lying about what I do.
When you position is only held together by lies, it’s not worth my time and effort to do this over and over again.
However, I will post another reply to acutally respond to the particulars, because I DO honor effort and literacy.
But you don’t.
You’re an end-justifies the means liar that flips switches the moment you think something doesn’t ‘agree’ with your initial stipulation. Your pride yourself on the bearest if minimum of effort (oh, I actually clicked on a link for once) but otherwise convince yourself the WORST of others to try to pretend you can ignore their position.
STOP lying.
2 Likes
Part of the issue of “discussions” with you (aside from bad assumptions and making others out to be liar) is that you take two similar concepts, and mix them together to try to be one “truth”.
This creates a different ‘context’ between what you “want” and want you “mean”. Since you know what you “mean”, you don’t make distinctions between the two, so when people draw exceptions to when those two don’t align, you assume them to be ‘wrong’ and then make up reasons to try to back that up. You have different “context”, but then fault anyone else for not magically adhering to the amalgamation of your unspoken code.
What you presented is that a person IS NOT active, and has not ever been. What you ‘factually’ present is that activity had plummeted. Those are not the same thing.
When the topic is an opportunity to ‘celebrate’ what has happened, decries to discredit all action IS incorrect. You take bits of what is ‘true’ and then use that as an excuse to assert something that is not.
The basis of what you “assert” is that there has been a long gap in blue activity. You then conflate that you all other activity because, to you, you haven’t seen otherwise, and you don’t really need to check to care.
However, now that you have ‘checked’ some instances, that’s just more fuel to the initial claim despite the reality that you posted ‘proof’ of activity. So the distinction between what you ‘want’ and want you ‘mean’ indicates both instances are not true, but you’ll act like it anyway.
An example of your sdnourgkcabssa approach in this is your tidbit on “respect” You claim you would have “more respect” if AZ just faded away. You then pair that with a “oh well I only respect one dev”, so ‘coherently’ the claim is a ruse of emotional blackmail: there wasn’t anything to be had ‘regardless’.
So you presented a lie, tried to act like it had value, and then fault the other person for it. (oh boy, the respect of internet anon~!) IF a post had not come about the leaving, you wouldn’t know to actually have “more respect” in the first place, but you wouldn’t have that respect anyway, so it IS a falsehood, and one that isn’t thought through. It’s ‘incoherent’ crap.
Of the times I spelt out “what i do” you still haven’t believed any of that. I told you the outright difference between "semantics’ and non. You refuse to consider it, time and again.
I spelled out the particulars of why certain phases matter (eg. why I take exception at “never” as a symptom) but you refuse to consider it.
When corroborative evidence or not-you sources are provided, you disregard them, assume that others are try to one-up you with a host of “extraneous” information and otherwise continue to try to protect your precious little ego that you if you don’t already consider something, then it can’t actually be true.
YOU constantly make liars of others, constantly refuse to take value at what people actually post, and then don’t bother to read your own stuff.
You have a “fact”, but it’s made at ignorance so much other stuff that you refuse to believe otherwise. Part of the issue of how people use words like “fact” or “never” is they take incongruent parts of ‘meaning’ and ‘power’ with those words. They don’t mean the whole, but they’ll certainly fault any other person for disagreeing otherwise. You have a “fact” of posting dates, but you don’t have a “fact” of actually interacting with the dev. So since one instance doesn’t exist to you, it therefore doesn’t exist before the fake “fact” that you have.
See this? This is another lie you’re trying to assume. You assume the “effort” or “thought” didn’t already happen. So you make bad assumption, tell yourself it’s okay to skimp, decry things that don’t agree with you, and cycle if over and over again.
The issue of “never” is that YOU believe the whole scope applies to the latest dearth and effectively spread misinformation and denounce others because you don’t know otherwise.
Posting “sources” is a ‘lawyer’ tactic to you.
Re-reading something to verify a claim is “backtracking to you”
You had the “fact” before but now that the groundwork is presented (backtracking) the other stuff can be ignored.
ANY and EVERY instance of something that doesn’t OUTRIGHT agree to you is some sort of lie, lack of effort, or whatever else you want to call it.
You pulled this crap back on the Whitemane leg topic where you LITERALLY spun a 180 from the instance you thought something agreed with you, and then proceeded to ignore all instances to clarify the confusion on YOUR end.
You keep doing stuff, and then BLAMING me for it. I point it out before the instance happens, but if I point back to the prediction oh that some sort of “against” the rules to you. You don’t care to ‘debate’ you want reaffirmation of yourself.
That is pretty much all the idiotic back-and-forth with you since: you already assume the “outcome” and then spin everything else posted to suit the ‘lie’ of how people can’t be ‘right’ if they don’t agree with you.
I’ve know about that for the longest time. Wanna know part of why I can tell that you do that? Because you start writing your reply before you actually read the post. “Honest” reading would involve at least reading the thing through once, processing it, and then considering a reply.
You don’t do that; you already have your hot take, and you’re skimming for confirmation of the assumption. And then you have the gall to blame others for lacking ‘effort’ or ‘thought’ when you pull that crap.
Yes, you are a liar because of how you react to other people, esp in lying to yourself.
Your “authority” was already discredited by how you make liars of out other people and refuse to do otherwise. All your crappy complaint topics get riddled with “hey do this instead” once [they] found out all the unspoken context it takes to get through to something ‘honest’ from you.
But it’s not like you’d ever bother to consider otherwise.
The “fact” is that you weren’t familiar with their activity, and are now trying to act like you can pigeon hole what other people recall/experience to trump an “objective”.
Pretty sure you still having learned the difference between being ‘objective’ and having" an "objective. But it’s not like you’re read back over to tell what is posted because you have your “fact” to hug and comfort through the night.
2 Likes
Should be noted, you also like to use the word “When people-” a lot, when it appears you’re the only one in this thread that had that meaning lost on them, as every single person who posted to me, either in support or against me knew what I was saying. Your particular focus on the word never, if you wanted to go that route, would suggest that I’m claiming Az has never posted here before, and this is the first post he has ever made.
So you’re either A.) Implying that I’m stupid and don’t know who this person is, or B.) you’re nitpicking particulars because it’s actually impossible for you to argue against the fact that Az’s communication (along with the rest of the dev team) has been severely lacking. Right? Because heaven forbid you ever cede a point to me on anything. It’s only ever that you’re right on everything and I’m just ‘lying’ as you so vehemently like to claim.
For your bit on my lying, I’ll just refer to what I had already posted in the post above, since you decided to double-post this time:
Devs posting only 8 posts from June 2020 to now —> Fact
Devs being completely silent from October 2020 to now —> Fact
I ‘belittle you’ because you perceive it that way. I fault you because you have a long-standing habbit of grasping at straws at a persons argument, sticking your labels onto them, and expecting them to defend themselves against such label. I.E. you calling me a liar even though the crux of my argument is factually supported. Which is why you go on to rant about the particulars of my phraseology rather than addressing the whole.
You post “This is a lie” because you got the context messed up because you’re too lazy to read what I right. Instead you pluck a quote here and there to go off on tangents about small sections of my argument instead of engaging in the whole.
Like this little bit here:
No it doesn’t. I JUST pointed out to you that the feed you linked shows only 6 posts from Azjackson since May of 2020, highlighting that there is a problem with the communication, but you just disregard it because you don’t want to admit I’m right, even though it’s an objective fact.
Stuff like this is what makes it incredibly annoying to debate with you. You accuse me of strawmanning and then pluck a singular quote from me and go off on a tangent to suit your biased narrative that has no basis in fact. But it’s okay because you:
If the state of modern day debate in our country is filled with hypocrisy, lies, contradiction, and double-speak, you do a very splendid job of adhering to that tradition.
Good job man.
4 Likes
Where did I say that you have to be positive all the time? There is a time and place for negative feedback. In someone’s farewell post (from a person who really tried hard to make this game better) is not that time and place.
Besides which, as MurlocAggroB said below, you can give criticism without being a flaming poobag about it.
2 Likes
So give an example of what would be appropriate criticism. Because by the sounds and tone people are taking on this thread, nothing except for warm wishes, thumbs up, and rounds of applause are acceptable.
Well, if I were you (and I have been in your place before), I would have made a separate thread in which to discuss lack of dev communication, perhaps pointing back to this thread in the body of the conversation. Basically what you did here was walk into someone’s farewell party banging a drum and waving a banner that said ‘YOU SUCK BOOOOOO GOOD RIDDANCE’.
I mean, who does that? Isn’t that a little rude? You’re allowed to have your feelings and make your criticisms, but perhaps people would be more willing to listen to you and take your opinion into consideration if you didn’t present it in such a caustic manner.
I’m not arguing here about whether or not what you are saying is fact or fiction, rather I am simply pointing out that in this thread it is inappropriate. Just something for you to consider in the future.
3 Likes
i always loved the more crazy balance ideas that were done in patches. heres hoping the new guy keeps on trying some. and gl on the new job:D
This is another beside-the-point observation that people like to point to as something that matters. It really doesn’t. You can have developers communicate without assimilating or contributing much of anything. People tend to appreciate communication tantamount to a baby pacifier, but it does little actual good.
I walk into this thread and suddenly I know how Dark Helmet felt while he was on the bridge
3 Likes
What a great movie lol.
He was quite surrounded.
1 Like
Hehe, yup
Not you though I promise
1 Like
Though I am surprised the comments are still here.
1 Like