Why I Have Yet to Not Despise Mercy's Current State

[Megadodo-11847]

I appreciate the fact that you have acknowledged the possibility that a poster here might sleep.

But of course! Why would that be refuted?

I appreciate that you took the time and effort to acknowledge it.

[Yara-11173]

I do not find that I struggle with any element of the english language.

I think there’s a couple of users here who would attest that you do indeed struggle with non-literal statements.

[Cleopatra-21937]

I think there’s a couple of users here who would attest that you do indeed struggle with non-literal statements.

At times it feels like communicating with chat bot.

[Arcalias-2773]

Factually, one can read any thread on these forums and choose not to respond to it. The absence of a response does not provide a basis to claim that a thread was never read

I respectfully disagree.

[Megadodo-11847]

I do not find that I struggle with any element of the english language.

I think there’s a couple of users here who would attest that you do indeed struggle with non-literal statements.

They are entitled to their opinions

There are others who have stated or implied that I am a robot, or an executable application, rather than a human being. They too are entitled to their opinion.

[Megadodo-11847]

Factually, one can read any thread on these forums and choose not to respond to it. The absence of a response does not provide a basis to claim that a thread was never read

I respectfully disagree.

It remains factual, whether ones agrees with it or not, that one can read something (a thread, a document, whatever…) and not respond to it

This is not dissimilar to person A telling person B (who is in this hypothetical scenario a flat-earther) that the earth is roughly spherical and person B replying that they disagree. The earth remains roughly spherical regardless of the agreement or disagreement of person B.

[N7Warrior-1327]

It’s not the English language as a verbal or written structure that is being referred to here. It is social colloquialisms and expectations.
This is a thing that can vary within communities of any language and even within the same language. However , some aspects are considered more widespread than others . For example, "ain’t " is often acceptable slang compared to “finna”. “Finna” is from a minority community and therefore less accepted as common colloquialisms.

Quotes in the context it was written was a signal for a social colloquium that most people on the community of forums would understand as sarcasm in context of the emoji and sentence.

This is a type of social cue I think you struggle with. Unfortunately, this is not Tumblr or something where I could dm you directly. Sorry for the public posting. But ideally you would be able to recognize the structure in the future

[Emrys-11535]

Factually, one can read any thread on these forums and choose not to respond to it. The absence of a response does not provide a basis to claim that a thread was never read

The OP is essentially, not verbatim, stating that it’s ridiculous that the devs. claim to read that thread daily for such a long period of time while also not recognizing the thread’s biggest concerns and issues. The OP did not say that the devs. never respond regarding Mercy concerns that are stated in the thread, but that they do not acknowledge the biggest issues presented in the thread. Your reply to that person’s post:

Factually, reading a thread and responding to it are two entirely different things

One can do the former without ever doing the latter

Has nothing to do with what the poster is saying:

If anything, I’m disapointed that devs dare say they “read [the megathread] daily”, and that over more than a year they failed to acknowledge our mains concerns.

[Arcalias-2773]

It remains factual, whether you agree or not, that one can read something (a thread, a document, whatever…) and not respond to it

This is not dissimilar to person A telling person B (who is in this hypothetical scenario a flat-earther) that the earth is roughly spherical and person B replying that they disagree

I find my previous answer to be correct, and I will stand by it.

I have nothing further to add in regards to this topic.

[Megadodo-11847]

Factually, one can read any thread on these forums and choose not to respond to it. The absence of a response does not provide a basis to claim that a thread was never read

The OP is essentially, not verbatim, stating that it’s ridiculous that the devs. claim to read that thread daily for such a long period of time while also not recognizing the thread’s biggest concerns and issues.

As I read this statement, it is my perception that the poster feels that the devs are not reading the thread, and are taking the absence of a response as proof of this

My take is that reading x (any readable item) does not necessarily result in response to x.

[Megadodo-11847]

It remains factual, whether you agree or not, that one can read something (a thread, a document, whatever…) and not respond to it

This is not dissimilar to person A telling person B (who is in this hypothetical scenario a flat-earther) that the earth is roughly spherical and person B replying that they disagree

I find my previous answer to be correct, and I will stand by it.

I have nothing further to add in regards to this topic.

Thats fine

As far as I know, there is no requirement in the forum rules that one accept or acknowledge fact

[PuffyPony-1639]

I do not find that I struggle with any element of the english language

I struggle with understanding quote marks as delineating sarcasm, when these are generally used to delineate quotations of statement smade by others

These are contradictory statements, partially because the second isn’t strictly true. Quotations can be used to denote literal quotes, but they can also be used to denote so-called “scare quotes” (which I actually used right there), which denote irony, sarcasm, satire, etc rather than denoting an actual quotation. It seems, therefore, that you do struggle with understanding the non-literal elements of the English language, as supported by other instances in which people used humor and you did not understand that they were making a humorous remark or why they made said humorous remark, such as the two .exe comments.

Connotative elements of language are important, but it seems you do not take this into account in your responses–either due to inability to do so, or intentionally because of some desire to be obtuse and derail (which I have already described ad nauseum earlier in the thread). For instances, when someone says, “Rez is Mercy’s Ultimate, and Valkyrie is a standard ability,” I don’t think anybody seriously believes that pressing Q or Y or dodecahedron (or whatever the PS4 equivalent is) will activate Rez unless you rebound it. It’s a non-literal statement, but in essentially every instance in which everyone makes that remark, you treat it as a literal statement by saying, “factually, Valkyrie is Mercy’s ultimate.” It’s actually a stunning demonstration of how being factual can be somehow anti-intellectual, because it totally disregards the underlying meaning of the phrase by inappropriately framing that argument in a literal context… which is, basically, a strawman, which has been the basis for a very large proportion of your responses on this thread.

It’s normal for humans to communicate non-literally. We do it all the time, like when my friends say, “I’m dead,” in response to a funny meme I say. They’re not actually dead, BTW, in case you were concerned. But, it’s disingenuous to disregard said connotative implications, and arguing on the basis of literal interpretation is practically talking about a different topic entirely–something for which multiple people have criticized you. This simply reinforces my earlier points that you have routinely failed to address the actual arguments that people make, but instead revert to your own repeated talking points that are not directly relevant to the point they’re trying to make (which is, basically, derailing the thread).

[Yara-11173]

[Megadodo-11847]

I do not find that I struggle with any element of the english language

I struggle with understanding quote marks as delineating sarcasm, when these are generally used to delineate quotations of statements made by others

These are contradictory statements, partially because the second isn’t strictly true.

Factually, the statements are not contradictory, and the second statement is correct/true/factual

[PuffyPony-1639]

I explained why these statements are contradictory (and how your responses at large have contradicted your answer to the question), and why the second statement is not strictly true. You’re once again resorting to the denialism to evade the fact that your claim was debunked, instead of formulating an actual rebuttal. This is, once again, evidence that you are not here to communicate in good faith but rather seek to derail the thread, which is against CoC.

[Megadodo-11847]

I explained why these statements are contradictory (and how your responses at large have contradicted your answer to the question), and why the second statement is not strictly true.

I have explained that both statements are true

You’re once again resorting to the denialism to evade the fact that your claim was debunked, instead of formulating an actual rebuttal.

I am not aware of any statement that I have made in this discussion that your statements have debunked

This is, once again, evidence that you are not here to communicate in good faith but rather seek to derail the thread, which is against CoC.

Given that I feel that the stated premise is incorrect, I also then feel that this conclusion is also incorrect

[PuffyPony-1639]

I have explained that both statements are true

You have claimed that they are true. That is not the same as explaining why they are true, which is for what I criticized you.

I am not aware of any statement that I have made in this discussion that your statements have debunked

Denialism, unsurprising since you elected to latch onto a single sentence and simply contradicted me, rather than respond to my post holistically. Again, this supports my point concerning derailment, which I would again emphasize is against CoC.

Given that I feel that the stated premise is incorrect, I also then feel that this conclusion is also incorrect

Facts don’t care about your feelings–and I have explained at length in previous posts why responses such as this one constitute derailment. You did not reply to my analyses, then, either, except to simply deny my claim without substantiating your own, which again serves my point.

You are a troll and repeatedly derail the thread. I have explained why this is the case at length. You have not given any appreciable explanation why this isn’t the case and why you shouldn’t be reported for such–you have simply contradicted the claim.

[Megadodo-11847]

I have explained that both statements are true

You have claimed that they are true. That is not the same as explaining why they are true, which is for what I criticized you.

Factually, both statements are not claims, they are statements of fact

I am not aware of any statement that I have made in this discussion that your statements have debunked

Denialism, unsurprising since you elected to latch onto a single sentence and simply contradicted me, rather than respond to my post holistically. Again, this supports my point concerning derailment, which I would again emphasize is against CoC.

I am unaware of any statements I have made in this discussion that are against the forum rules

I have replied to statements made, and as such, i do not find my statements to constitute derailment.

[PuffyPony-1639]

Factually, both statements are not claims, they are statements of fact

They are not. I have explained why they are not–an analysis to which you did not provide any reasoned response, but simply contradicted with no supporting reasoning. This, as I have previously stated, seems to be your MO.

I am unaware of any statements I have made in this discussion that are against the forum rules

I have replied to statements made, and as such, i do not find my statements to constitute derailment.

I have explained at length why your repeated contradictions in absence of reasoning constitute derailment. I don’t feel the need to repeat myself on that front. I will, however, re-emphasize what I said above:

“You are a troll and repeatedly derail the thread. I have explained why this is the case at length. You have not given any appreciable explanation why this isn’t the case and why you shouldn’t be reported for such–you have simply contradicted the claim.”

[Emrys-11535]

As I read this statement, it is my perception that the poster feels that the devs are not reading the thread, and are taking the absence of a response as proof of this

That’s an understandable interpretation.