That is true.
1 Like
Trying to parse the differences between manual queueing and automated queueing, and hinging your entire argument on the very fact that they didn’t acknowledge it outright, is a really bad stance to have.
They probably won’t ever take a stand on manual queueing because they can’t without it impacting the playerbase at large. But that doesn’t mean what people aren’t doing isn’t an exploit and directly affects the game, and therefore shouldn’t be punished. It’s an exploit, through and through.
Not sure why this is a particularly difficult concept to understand.
Well, let me put it this way:
2012 =/= 2024. The way PVP worked back in 2012, is completely different to how it works in 2024. Overtime, the random battle ground experience has improved to what it was back in 2012.
Things are different now. Keep in mind, Blizzard has all the data, and they can see everything that is going on. If they haven’t addressed it now, then obviously it is not an issue as you or others make it out to be.
Also, just to add, if there is a way to automate the process of queue-syncing, it does need to be reported immediately to hacks@blizzard.com
I moved the border of your bolding to account for context.
If everyone’s argument here hinges on semantics, then there’s nothing left to really discuss on this matter. Whole lots of bad faith arguments being leveraged because nobody wants to admit that they’re wrong.
1 Like
I know, and I agree in part, which is why I asked for an updated answer in CS and got silence as an answer.
Which implies that they either don’t care enough to state their current stance stance, or they are still uncertain on what to do.
2019 is also not 2024 and that’s the only answer we have.
The only part I disagree is this one:
The queuing and BG joining experience is very similar.
The only things that changed is that epic BGs are separate from the non-epic BGs, and that we can no longer blacklist some of them, partly due to that split.
Blizz broke the addon that used to do it back 2012. They also said they can’t stop people from coordinating outside the game. Not gonna bother link the Blue post as it’s been posted many times, and ignored. I don’t bother with those BGs anyway, I like Rated and Blitz. I run with friends.
1 Like
Context is not semantics.
Originally you posted this without bolding the portion I added, but that leaves:
to have no referential subject.
Now that is rectified. It is still the same quote you posted. Verbatim.
I got a friend who loves queuing to face against premade groups, of any sizes.
It absolutely is semantics if your entire argument is predicated on a single word.
What was the single word? I bolded an entire sentence my guy.
This one. The action they actually took.
Okay.
And what precisely is it about this sentence that is different from what OP is asking them to do?
It shows that the only action they had interest in taking was against automated queueing.
Which is congruent with the stance most of us have been taking; manual queue syncing is not considered an exploit.
Thank you for showing me that your argument was semantical.
Have a good day. 
1 Like
The most bad faith of them are the ones reliant on a quote from 12 years ago.
PVP and BGs have changed in the time since then. Blizzard treats BGs in Classic differently than they do BGs in retail.
These are so far apart that your quote is in no way relevant.
Do you know what semantics are?
I’ll gladly get into a semantics argument about semantics in this case. The irony is not lost on me.
You are completely ignoring the whole context and motivation for it, in that very thread, which did not mention automation at all:
Pre-mades in the normal queue,
however they are formed,
are not something that we’ve ever been particularly fond of.
I have a higher education in linguistics, so I’m certain I know more about the matter than you do.
I haven’t discounted this at all. I imagine they’re not fond of it. Not being fond of it doesn’t make it an exploit, they’d use stronger verbiage for that.
You and everyone else I clown on in these forums when it comes to language.
the branch of [linguistics] and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and [subbranches] of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, [lexical] semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
This is what semantics are. I am not debating the meaning of automation. I added the context that automation is what was actioned.
Actually, I didn’t even add the context. I just bolded it to represent the quote better than you did.
1 Like
Just because they’re not “fond of it,” doesn’t mean they are going to take a stance on people manually doing it.