BuzzerBeater Forums

Your sentence implies several things
a) Perpete and me were present in the discussion where this measure was taken (English is a language where "you" is sometimes confusing, but I assume that you include me in your "you should have listened to Perpete.")

Yes, "you" meant you staff who voted on this

b) Perpete and me have different opinions about this subject

c) My opinion won and Pepete's lost

Yes Perpete was likely (and unsurprisingly, I'd add) more in tune with the userbase and more honest about a measure that is being sold by you as an anti-tanking measure, when it happens to be something else.

Perpete was completely right in my opinion, he listened to what was being asked in the suggestion forums and in global while you didn't. At least we know who to address the complaints when this thing is going to start affecting people.

You will forgive me if I say so, but after you claimed you read all that's written on the forums and after you admitted you came up with this shambolic change, I must say that I perfectly understand why people were complaining about you specifically in you work as GM and even went as far as pointing at you as the example of a bad or dishonest GM without anyone prompting them. I've always given you the benefit of the doubt, but as you took the liberty of judging me a few weeks ago for my contributions on the forums and I now have enough information to have an informed opinion, I sincerely hope I'll be allowed to take this liberty as well.

I guess they are too many conclussions and I wonder where in forums you have read something that could you guide to all of them together.

Oh I do remember the discussions I'm part of, don't you worry about it. I just don't go out and claim that they read all the posts, I do not.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/24/2016 3:33:29 PM

a measure that is being sold by you as an anti-tanking measure, when it happens to be something else.

This is the part that bothers me. That's twice this has happened since the middle of last season, and its happened previously. Its not good to mislead your userbase since it leads to mistrust.

Your sentence implies several things
a) Perpete and me were present in the discussion where this measure was taken (English is a language where "you" is sometimes confusing, but I assume that you include me in your "you should have listened to Perpete.")

Yes, "you" meant you staff who voted on this

b) Perpete and me have different opinions about this subject

c) My opinion won and Pepete's lost

Yes Perpete was likely (and unsurprisingly, I'd add) more in tune with the userbase and more honest about a measure that is being sold by you as an anti-tanking measure, when it happens to be something else.

Perpete was completely right in my opinion, he listened to what was being asked in the suggestion forums and in global while you didn't. At least we know who to address the complaints when this thing is going to start affecting people.

You will forgive me if I say so, but after you claimed you read all that's written on the forums and after you admitted you came up with this shambolic change, I must say that I perfectly understand why people were complaining about you specifically in you work as GM and even went as far as pointing at you as the example of a bad or dishonest GM without anyone prompting them. I've always given you the benefit of the doubt, but as you took the liberty of judging me a few weeks ago for my contributions on the forums and I now have enough information to have an informed opinion, I sincerely hope I'll be allowed to take this liberty as well.

I guess they are too many conclussions and I wonder where in forums you have read something that could you guide to all of them together.

Oh I do remember the discussions I'm part of, don't you worry about it. I just don't go out and claim that they read all the posts, I do not.

Thank you so much for this post. This had to be said finally.

You forget that you should have money to suffer any fan boycott, so they can buy before and after it.

Delfine money. With the new promotion system we will see so much money enter the game, I could imagine players will be sold for 25 millions soon. I think all the recent major changes are short sighted and catering to a very small establishment.

Thank you very much for your words.
Just a few things:
1) You seem to be unable to see the difference between "I" and "We".
2) You haven't found a single quote to prove points b and c of my previous post, so let's imagine they don't exist and you only talk without any knowledge.
3)

I perfectly understand why people were complaining about you specifically in you work as GM and even went as far as pointing at you as the example of a bad or dishonest GM without anyone prompting them

You say this as if hundreds of users were complaining about me specifically. Well, in this case I just hope you are not right (in fact you ignore the ones who said they were not complaining about me, but it doesn't matter a lot). Moreover when you don't know at all (again) the work I'm doing and the word dishonest sounds a bit strange in this context.

And Merry Christmas to you too

Last edited by Foto at 12/24/2016 8:53:43 PM

Of course tanking wasn't eliminated since it's obvious that people can do it while completely avoiding any kind of penalty - in certain conditions.

I really have no idea why was this model adopted. I think it is evident that point differential is by far the best gauge of who's actually tanking and who's not. Is there any explanation of why this current model was preferred? If so, how abot a link?

You are right that point differential is the first choice that comes to mind when you think about this, but it has its own issues. Unfortunately I can't give you more information, only a BB could answer this question properly.

1) You seem to be unable to see the difference between "I" and "We".

Based on what? It appears that it was a collective decision where part of the staff supported different solutions. Some of you guys thought it was better to ignore many users who debated about tanking before and who actually answered the questions by the staff to provide concrete proposals. You decided your own way, which is fine, but because you didn't listen what was being asked it's fair to expect demands for an explanation to the flaws and concerns outlined in multiple threads. You didn't see me or Wolph or anyone else going around scrutinising the decision about Autobids, once the poll was closed and the decision taken.

2) You haven't found a single quote to prove points b and c of my previous post, so let's imagine they don't exist and you only talk without any knowledge.

Haha really? Did you think I slighted you because you don't read the forums just to insult you? No, it was a real concern based on actual facts. How about this:

I was in favor of adding a PA part in the boycott, but I only have one vote. With an OK team, it is supposedly possible to win at least one game by going harder into it. Also, as Foto said, the boycott will also depend on the capacity of the manager to strenghten his team. If you can add one/two/three players to win games and don't, fans will not be fooled. If you can't, they'll accept they are indeed the weakest link of the league.

After this I called out you, Nickleon (someone I thought would know better) and Marin to explain to us how this is a measure against tanking. Now after the actual numbers are out I'd really question the ability to add 1, 2, 3 players with 2 million in the bank as well.

You say this as if hundreds of users were complaining about me specifically.

No I'm not saying it like that. You didn't explain what you meant by your nasty personal remark about me, but I will explain my comment about you.

English managers were complaining about some GMs (not you) for some decisions they took. GMs said they don't take things personally and review cases. Someone mentioned you as a (bad) example of the opposite for something you did in the past (without discussing the case obviously), Perpete or someone else tried to defend you and other users came out with the same bad opinions of you. It was about GMs favouring and 'helping' friends or specific users and hammering others, even to the point of persecution (which was the word I think someone used saying he knew a GM was out to get him).

The first time I've ever heard of you so I associated your name to that discussion. It was irrelevant to me back then, as I never came across you until then: I only quipped that the perception the staff have of themselves and the perception the general users have of you is clearly completely different.

Merry Christmas, hopefully we'll all be a bit more flexible, tolerant and listening to others going forward

Last edited by Lemonshine at 12/25/2016 6:45:58 AM

English managers were complaining about some GMs (not you) for some decisions they took. GMs said they don't take things personally and review cases. Someone mentioned you as a (bad) example of the opposite for something you did in the past (without discussing the case obviously), Perpete or someone else tried to defend you and other users came out with the same bad opinions of you. It was about GMs favouring and 'helping' friends or specific users and hammering others, even to the point of persecution (which was the word I think someone used saying he knew a GM was out to get him).

I would really like to know what are you talking about, so if you want to talk about this, I would appreciate a private message. If it's related to what I think, you would be very surprised when you know the details.

I was in favor of adding a PA part in the boycott, but I only have one vote. With an OK team, it is supposedly possible to win at least one game by going harder into it. Also, as Foto said, the boycott will also depend on the capacity of the manager to strenghten his team. If you can add one/two/three players to win games and don't, fans will not be fooled. If you can't, they'll accept they are indeed the weakest link of the league.

This is what really surprises me from you. What about those lines? Where does it say what I've voted (if I even did) or what was my opinion or how was the discussion previous to the release? You read one sentence and you inmediately launch a theory about a whole conversation. I can't fight against someone who call facts things that are just assumptions.
In fact, I don't see Perpetet contradicting me. Anyway, I leave Perpete the option to explain this matter if he decides it's worth to do it.

1) You seem to be unable to see the difference between "I" and "We". Based on what?

When someone is part of a group, the I and the We are sghlitly different, unless you are one of those who leave a group if they take a decision you don't like or critizise all that is not made the way you want to.

I believe part of what Lemon refers to includes me, and I know exactly what he's talking about.

In quite a few of these threads I have pointed out that staff do not like to debate. What happens is once a user states a negative opinion we see a flurry of staff posts supporting each other and following that, the staff start then arguing about pedantics. (Who said what to whom and why and blah blah). Once that happens the orginal problem becomes forgotten in a flurry of nonsense.

As on all the previous occassions I ask, can the staff please stay on topic. That would be the changes, the probability (certainty if you're as confident as me), the changes to attendance and why they don't focus on tanking, and why we were lied to (yes I use that word carefully, I've seen it too often now to accept as a mere changing of minds) about the changes to salary which was originally stated as being part of anti-LI measures. (Reducing the importance of high IS on guards.)

Last edited by Gully Foyle at 12/25/2016 5:59:20 PM