BuzzerBeater Forums

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

Personally I try to keep out of as many discussions as possible these days. I have limited time and don't want to spend it in an endless discussion over details or commenting on a bunch of quotes that are misunderstood or what ever it may be.
I also don't like the overly negative tone that is present in many threads and from some users. They have a set mind on something and often so do I. So a long argument have done nothing but waste time for me. There's hardly ever any agreement to be found.
As for the part about other staff, they are free to have their own thoughts on everything just as I am or any other user. I will agree with whoever it is as long as their thought about something are the same as mine. Just being part of the staff doesn't automatically lead to that I need to think the same about stuff.

+1

Its too easy to dismiss users as negative and again, staff and their supporters are guilty of often doing this. I've given reasons why I believe the changes I've commented on are a bad idea, and not good for the game. Its is not negative for me to say something isn't in the best interests of the game and everyone who plays it. I see that as a positive thing. By dismissing me, and everyone else who comments as merely negative, it shows clearly that what's being said by clearly intelligent people like Robard, Lemonshine and others is not being read properly.

I'm not getting at you specifically, as I don't believe you were getting at me in your post. Nor just the staff. There are other users who blithely wave around the instruction to not be negative.

Personally I comment because I care, and don't want to see what I regard as huge mistakes being made.