Your definition of bullying does not line up with mine.
… and it seems like you’re falsely equating ‘being a bully’ with ‘being anti social’ which is simply not how that works? I have to assume you’ve never been bullied which is a good thing but it’s left you not understanding this.
I have reread that and a few posts up - I stand by it. Nothing I said there is lying.
A player can be good at PvZ and bad at PvP. You’re completely discounting this as a possibility, with no reason or evidence.
The second part of this - where you refuse to acknowledge something as possible - is something that you do continually and have done in this very thread.
Like most of your posts, you’re saying something that’s complete nonsense and pointless.
For this I think it’s more clear from the follow up comment that was half-on screen, the tldr from the bottom of it provides a reasonable summary:
Here, you assert something as definitively the case off of a single additional example. That example is an event that you, yourself, state has a reasonable (over 5%!) chance of happening. Have you never played XCOM? Rogue? Warcraft? Old League? Any game of Fire Emblem? Or Battle Network? Pokémon? Magic the Gathering? Yu-Gi-Oh!? Tales of? Have you not done science by way of experimentation and logging? When you do an experiment one time do you call it done? No.
You completely discount the possibility that Stats is better at PvZ than Dark is at ZvP (two variables), that Stats’ weakness (ie. why MMR is low) is only because of early-game, you assume that you’ve correctly identified this single thing as the primary source of an issue, you assume that issue exists, you ignore the simple fact that one in tens happen.
If we assume that everything you posted is true and correct, then, what, there’s an 11% chance you’re correct and that Protoss is imbalanced, since that’s the difference between the proposal and the measured reality? ie. We only care for the games that Stats would have won if the game was actually imbalanced, so not the 24% of games that Stats inherently should win nor the 65% of games that Dark should win even with the modification.
No, reading that back over, that’s not right; but I’m not interested in figuring out the right way to figure that. I’m not a mathematician.
“A deliberately offensive or provocative post, with aim of upsetting or eliciting an angry response.”
Yes, I don’t know why you think I’m trolling you; because I am not trying to do either of these things.
Rather, let me make it abundantly clear: I think you have wrapped yourself in a blanket of illusions and dreamt grandeur because your life sucks. Unlike Marche, I’m in favour of escapism, but it remains true that too much of it isn’t healthy.
I can’t believe I’m breaking this to you, but they’re not trolling you.
They just aren’t. That’s not at all what’s happening.
You are calling people that I respect, who have logical arguments, trolls? I know them more than you, and you like to present points in hard to understand ways — but much more, you constantly made massive tangents about irrelevant things that were simply annoying to read and were full of self-aggrandizement, posting the same thing over and over, continually violating the code of conduct?
I owe you no apologies for calling out behaviours that weaken your analysis nor for being upset towards you individually for having choosen to not follow rules. The interaction we’ve had didn’t start bad because of a faux pas, it’s entirely because of who you are presenting as. I don’t like that person.
Debates tend to involve opposing positions, yes.
You call them horrible and trolls, and yet, they are much more reasonable and able to be talked to and engaged with conversation than you.
Instead of blocking and ignoring the people who are actually interested in using the forum, why don’t you just leave? You’ve said repeatedly you can make money elsewhere, and that you enjoy your time more elsewhere, so why are you here?