Why mercy mains are so toxic?

1 Like

if people want to play her there can, be able to

Drop the dumb stereotype itā€™s never about a ā€˜ā€˜mainā€™ā€™ being toxic rather than the person themselves

Iā€™ve explained this before. I think you just skipped my reply because it was easier to continue your narrative this way.

And at some point, itā€™s hard to even take your posting seriously when you begin by implying the concept of a ā€œhive mind,ā€ while understandably a humorous metaphor, still implies that you actively believe any poster on this forum actively communicates together before posting.

What youā€™re creating here is a stereotype. Youā€™re also using the stereotype as a scapegoat (as explained my previous reply). With other words, youā€™re putting people inside a box, then you attack that box. ā€œWomen are emotional,ā€ ā€œMen are violent,ā€ etc. Your box is ā€œMercy mains.ā€

But youā€™re not backing those claims up with any evidence, youā€™re just using labels to attack lots of people. Do you know what this sounds a lot like? Racism, sexism and classism. All of those are born from the same kind of logic. Just replace your terminology with another class and youā€™re suddenly a full-blown bigot.

You donā€™t think youā€™re doing something wrong? Then start posting some actual facts. When you make statements like these,

Youā€™re just painting people as bad. And at the same time itā€™s an incredibly convenient shield, because on the off-chance that youā€™re just objectively wrong, itā€™s suddenly a ā€œmob trying to silence you.ā€

Understand the difference between a subjective and an objective argument. The burden of proof always falls on the one making the statement. If you want to present your own opinion, thatā€™s fine. If you want to change other peopleā€™s opinions, you need to actually present proof of why they should believe you.

1 Like

To be totally fair, there does seem to be a discord of forum mercy mains. Someone asked me my rank once whileI was deep in some argument and said ā€œIā€™m just asking because people in the discord wanted to knowā€. Iā€™m not saying thereā€™s a hive mind, but there is a level of communication

1 Like

Thatā€™s not how a hive-mind works and itā€™s obviously a metaphor. There are individual players with specific agenda, which will do whatever they need in order to push their agenda - up-voting those with the same agenda, disrupting those with a different opinion. I donā€™t believe all of them secretly communicate with one another and thatā€™s not what Iā€™m saying, thatā€™s you projecting. I certainly donā€™t believe any poster on this forum actively communicates before posting. Way to put words in my mouth and put my position to the absolute extreme. :grinning:

Iā€™m not attacking Mercy players - I am a Mercy player myself.

Hereā€™s some evidence for you then:

Three examples of people attacking Symmetra to try and get an emotional rise from me and to bully me into a specific opinion. Unless of course you think necro-ing one month old thread is justified by going through a personā€™s profile for the specific intent to troll.

I also had to appeal my silence and it took time to have a mod review the evidence and find me innocent. And threads of similar cases have come up on the forum:

https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/god-banned-for-insulting-mercy-mains-ahaha/192956

So thereā€™s my proof, look around the forums and you will find that there are other people like me.

Why am I not surprised even in the slightest :grinning:

So me saying that the other side does the same things you callout Mercy mains for is pushing a agenda? Also thanks for using me to push your own agenda :smiley:

You canā€™t deny that experience, but you still need to understand one experience does not equate the majority. This is the most common disconnect between an objective and subjective argument. Itā€™s what we call ā€œconfirmation bias,ā€ which is that your mind specifically notices information that validates your existing beliefs.

For example, if I were to reshape what you said into an objective argumentā€”an argument be denied, I would say:

ā€œThereā€™s posters that are toxic. I do not know how many. Thereā€™s a discord server. I do not know how many posters are associated with that server, how many posters actually joined the discussion based on that information or how many of those posters actually were impartial.ā€

As you can see, thereā€™s a lot of holes in that statement. Therefore itā€™s hard to say anything concrete. You can make an assumption, but thatā€™s all it will ever be. The moment you start saying, ā€œAll Mercy mains are this bad!ā€ Youā€™re scapegoating players.

And it doesnā€™t matter which hero it is, I guarantee you the response will be equally negative whether you say ā€œAll Genji mains feed their butt offā€ or ā€œMercy mains donā€™t know how to aim.ā€

From my experience, most people who make these kind of arguments are usually bad at argumentation. But they all have a shared desire: To be heard. And being provocative and controversial gets attention. It might not even be intentional, but thereā€™s always more opinion than truth in that type of posting.

1 Like

Reading up on how Titaniumā€™s highly up-voted rework suggestion came to be does seem to point that way. Going by how well said suggestion was thought out and how it clearly attempts to address issues both sides of the ā€˜conflictā€™ had with Mercy, Iā€™d said thatā€™s a good thing.

Another point entirely is this forumā€™s preference to outright disqualify someoneā€™s stance because of rank, no matter whether their stance was actually informed and justified.

I know what confirmation bias is. I never said it was the majority, either. Iā€™m simply pointing out that there are mercy mains who have off-forum communication. Iā€™m not saying I know who (though I have my ideas), either. Iā€™m just saying it exists.:woman_shrugging:

1 Like

Youā€™d think one of them would notice how absolutely bloated it is :woman_shrugging:

I donā€™t call out all Mercy players, itā€™s a specific sub-group within the Mercy players, I am a Mercy player myself. And like I said, I agree with you, give them the megathread back and restore it.

Also I didnā€™t mean to quote your specific post, just the thread itself. My post is now fixed.

Bloated? How so? It bring Mass Resurrect back as an ultimate (as it should be), with the changes people wanted for it (cast time, LoS, etc.)
And on top of that, it adds a much-requested E ability as a skill shot.

Iā€™ve studied psychology extensively. We are not talking about confirmation bias here nor we are talking about anecdotal evidence.

Nobody is saying that.

Also I love it how you didnā€™t address my post. Nice strawman mate, but you are skewing and twisting the argument.

A lot of the up-votes are from forum accounts with literally 0 posts and below 100 level bronze. Iā€™m absolutely convinced that theyā€™ve brought in smurfs to artificially up-vote it.

I feel this is appropriate here too:

3 Likes

Not to derail too much, but it increases the utility and mobility gap she has on the other healers and gives a single character an allied damage boost and an enemy damage reduction, which I believe is problematic. Double damage boost through mercy-zen has proven to be ludicrously powerful, but double damage boost with enemy damage reduction?

Cause we stan britney spears

Canā€™t be bothered to read all 1500+ posts again, so I mightā€™ve missed it, but did you voice that concern in there, yet?

Iā€™m literally quoting the sections to highlight your own text passages. If theyā€™re out of context, you can defend yourself by explaining how it was misinterpreted.

Thatā€™s not specific to Mercy. Thatā€™s just the echo chamber effect. People in general want to hear things that validate what they already believe. This is why social media like Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr are extremely popular (as compared to forums) because people can be selective about what they hear.

But itā€™s not specific to any group of people.

And the point is, what exactly? You have three examples of bad posters. That does not equate any majority. Youā€™re arguing from the point of a victim: In your position, you can never think yourself wrong.

The point is that creating a constructive debate requires objective arguments. What youā€™re arguing is still entirely subjective.

1 Like

Bad people exist.

We can agree. But you understand itā€™s not much of a point. Water is wet. Grass is green. And thatā€™s why the point was ultimately defeated. Itā€™s obvious, it contributes nothing of knowledge.

This is not a means to be rude: The point here is ultimately how to create a constructive discussion. If the poster from whom I originally replied truly wants more successful discussions, then a point needs to be made.

1 Like