|
On February 25 2015 03:03 piegasm wrote:
And it is about the haters because they're the ones making all the noise. There's only a handful of people here calling that bullshit what it is. And I'm sure it's worse at reddit and elsewhere. And even people who purport to occupy some middle ground like yourself are more interested in criticizing Amy for not going to the offline event and convincing those of us calling out the bullshit to shut up about it than in showing the haters that they don't represent the majority view. You don't like that I have a negative view of this community? Then fucking prove me wrong.
Some people are simply not convinced about the allegations and therefore simply state, that Amy could disprove them. She didn´t want to, which is her right. Yet, that decision does not help her case, for some it even makes it worse. That is some simple truth, whether you like or or not. You jumping on everybody that sees that and scratching their eyes out is not helping convincing anyone either. The stance to see everything just black or white is also annoying to others (again: not helpful !!).
And it is kinda sad that you have a negative view on the community and then you air your oppinion on a community website. That makes you part of the community, and in a funny logic, that should make you feel negative about yourself.
|
You can't disprove something that was never proven in the first place!
Hello, trying to prove a negative, how have you been? People from all ages seem to fall for your simplicity, what is your secret? Why are you so alluring?
And Elizar, I love the part where you imply that someone who criticizes a community should not be part of that community (or should at the very least shut up and feel guilty for voicing his or her own opinion). Your comments are overflowing with insight.
|
On February 25 2015 03:48 litlnoobs wrote:
And Elizar, I love the part where you imply that someone who criticizes a community should not be part of that community (or should at the very least shut up and feel guilty for voicing his or her own opinion). Your comments are overflowing with insight.
Oh I didnt say that anyone shouldnt be part of a community. Neither did I say someone should shut up. Thanks for your "insight". Let me paraphrase what I tried (and apparantly failed) to say: You dont like the community and at the same time you are part of the community. Maybe sth is wrong then. But I let you figure that out for yourself.
|
On February 24 2015 17:27 MoonfireSpam wrote:
Don't South Koreans just need an ESTA to get in since they are part of the visa waiver programe? Bunch of us got one about 36h prior to travelling there.
Anyway, given chance to play offline, leaves HS forever instead kinda says enough.
Except she can't get back her ESL spot after relinquishing it (and a replacement already being announced). Not to mention others have mentioned that the visa waiver program doesn't apply because she's traveling for business not vacation. She could lie of course, which I'm sure people here will advocate. But that's a good way to get barred from returning to the US - see Violet's yearlong absence from WCS America.
So there's no pending around the corner offline event that she refused to go to. Maybe that doesn't matter to you, but to me that means her leaving T/S isn't all about dodging the allegations.
On February 24 2015 14:51 TeslasPigeon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2015 14:00 BillGates wrote:
The other stuff about boyfriends and employees and stuff is her personal business, who the F. cares? It's highly suggestive of who her character is and what she is capable of. If she is capable and has been proven to scam people and known companies why is it so hard to grasp that she wouldn't scam a hearthstone team?
There does come a point where this is true. But relationship stuff is relationship stuff and I've never heard someone called a scammer for being as crappy an employee as she was for Lunarch. Especially, given how stereotypically flakey independent contractors are (especially the remote variety).
I posted my thoughts about that in the other thread so I won't repeat them here (http://www.liquidhearth.com/forum/hearthstone/478387-tempo-storms-magicamy-to-miss-esl-legendary-series-finals?page=8#143 if you're curious).
|
On February 24 2015 14:51 TeslasPigeon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2015 14:00 BillGates wrote:
The other stuff about boyfriends and employees and stuff is her personal business, who the F. cares? It's highly suggestive of who her character is and what she is capable of. If she is capable and has been proven to scam people and known companies why is it so hard to grasp that she wouldn't scam a hearthstone team?
What don't you understand about the word EVIDENCE? Do I have to spell it for you, do I have to draw a picture for you in order to understand?
There is ZERO EVIDENCE. I don't care what someone thinks, if its implied, not implied, probable, not probable, maybe, shoulda, coulda, woulda, ....
There is zero evidence and that is the bottom line!
|
On February 25 2015 05:49 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2015 14:51 TeslasPigeon wrote:On February 24 2015 14:00 BillGates wrote:
The other stuff about boyfriends and employees and stuff is her personal business, who the F. cares? It's highly suggestive of who her character is and what she is capable of. If she is capable and has been proven to scam people and known companies why is it so hard to grasp that she wouldn't scam a hearthstone team? What don't you understand about the word EVIDENCE? Do I have to spell it for you, do I have to draw a picture for you in order to understand? There is ZERO EVIDENCE. I don't care what someone thinks, if its implied, not implied, probable, not probable, maybe, shoulda, coulda, woulda, .... There is zero evidence and that is the bottom line! I hesitate to respond to you because I find your posts to be poor-quality and troll-like. I find it ironic that you accuse others of being brain dead because to me it seems to be you that is misunderstanding evidence.
This is not a criminal trial and the burden of proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt. There are different types of evidence - the 'smoking gun', 'red-handed', 'hand in the cookie jar' is not the only kind but seems to be the only one you recognize. Circumstantial evidence can have varying levels of probability. The entire point of this situation is that circumstantial evidence has reached a critical point, precipitating the reaction seen here. Circumstantial evidence certainly exists here so you are flat out wrong here when you say there is "ZERO EVIDENCE".
Would you agree that there is a certain amount of circumstantial evidence that could add up to a convincing picture?
|
I suppose the issue is this:
what does the circumstantial evidence point to?
That she's a bad person? Who cares
That she uses people for money? I guess that's something to get upset over*
That she didn't play ESL Weekly, botted her account, hired people to boost her rank, didn't write meta snapshots for T/S?
Well, this is what I care about and it has nothing to do with any of this.
To say her personal messiness proves this last point is like those old anti-drug campaigns saying pot smokers end up shooting heroin and robbing banks for drug money.
* not trying to be flippant, but this is usually the stuff that people use to justify being an anti-fan not banning someone
|
On February 25 2015 04:26 Wuster wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2015 17:27 MoonfireSpam wrote:
Don't South Koreans just need an ESTA to get in since they are part of the visa waiver programe? Bunch of us got one about 36h prior to travelling there.
Anyway, given chance to play offline, leaves HS forever instead kinda says enough. Except she can't get back her ESL spot after relinquishing it (and a replacement already being announced). Not to mention others have mentioned that the visa waiver program doesn't apply because she's traveling for business not vacation. She could lie of course, which I'm sure people here will advocate. But that's a good way to get barred from returning to the US - see Violet's yearlong absence from WCS America.
Simply not true. You can do business on an ESTA.
https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/application.html?execution=e2s1
Apply for a New Authorization to Travel to the United States for Individuals or Groups
Select this option if:
You are a citizen or eligible national of a Visa Waiver Program country.
You are currently not in possession of a visitor's visa.
Your travel is for 90 days or less.
You plan to travel to the United States for business or pleasure.
You want to apply for a new authorization for one person or a group of applications for two or more persons.
edit: of course, if playing Hearthstone and winning money falls under 'work', you can't do that with an ESTA.
|
Right, the work provision is what people were pointing out. I didn't realize the waiver program applied to business trips, since I've never needed to look at it (being an American and all).
I don't know all the details, but I would think representing TempoStorm at an event would count as work though.
|
On February 25 2015 06:55 Wuster wrote:
I suppose the issue is this:
what does the circumstantial evidence point to?
That she's a bad person? Who cares
That she uses people for money? I guess that's something to get upset over*
That she didn't play ESL Weekly, botted her account, hired people to boost her rank, didn't write meta snapshots for T/S?
Well, this is what I care about and it has nothing to do with any of this.
To say her personal messiness proves this last point is like those old anti-drug campaigns saying pot smokers end up shooting heroin and robbing banks for drug money.
* not trying to be flippant, but this is usually the stuff that people use to justify being an anti-fan not banning someone
So yes, circumstantial evidence is non conclusive and her actions proves what kind of character she has. So far we know from SS's she has been manipulating people into getting money, not paying back and even botting although the latter has no concrete evidence its something JAB Said. .Supposably she also approached Sjow for Money, all said by the same pro gamers.
Now sure, you can say 1 and 2 are vindicative and not happy with how it went.. but seeing the SS's YOU Know theyr not lying.. and if that much is true, who says she wasnt cheating or someone wasnt playing ? Saying NO evidence is like looking away when you're finding out about circumstantial evidence.
What baffles me is Reynad currently saying that the community is misogynistic and is witch hunting with overhwelming evidence that he has been manipulating so many pro gamers. He said the community stinks and everyone is trying to badmouth her. But He forgets that HE was the one spreading rumors and alluding to her being a sl.t and people taking over that narrative.. its disgustingly hypocrit also there has never ever bneen a circumstancial evidence of Lea ever tryin to leech money off of pros or bottiing or w/e.
See this is the difference.. He adamantly defends someone who we know of has avery shady character but shames another whom he personally didnt like. Reynad h even said " even if it turns out Magicamy is what you guys said claim, still its not proper to what the community is doing " His bias and 1 sided narrative is despicable.
|
On February 25 2015 03:44 Elizar wrote:
Some people are simply not convinced about the allegations and therefore simply state, that Amy could disprove them.
Except for the part where she CAN'T because they haven't been proven in the first place. And because, practically speaking, she will still be treated as if it's all true by pretty much everyone who can be bothered to say something about it.
She didn´t want to, which is her right. Yet, that decision does not help her case, for some it even makes it worse. That is some simple truth, whether you like or or not.
It's true that some people couldn't reason their way out of a wet paper bag, you're right about that. That doesn't mean I'm wrong to correct them.
You jumping on everybody that sees that and scratching their eyes out is not helping convincing anyone either. The stance to see everything just black or white is also annoying to others (again: not helpful !!).
You seem to be having some difficulty understanding what words mean. You keep accusing me of being all black and white and yet you're the one saying that I'm not convincing anyone. I'm engaging in a discussion because I think people are mostly reasonable and I think there are probably people lurking who may be on the fence and just need to see the craptastic arguments addressed in order to come down on the right side. You're telling me to stop because people aren't going to be convinced no matter what I say. You seem to be the one who thinks everyone in the community is clearly on one side of the fence or the other and is unable or unwilling to change their mind.
And it is kinda sad that you have a negative view on the community and then you air your oppinion on a community website. That makes you part of the community, and in a funny logic, that should make you feel negative about yourself.
It is a kind of funny logic, as in completely irrational. Where the hell else would I air my opinion about something going on in Hearthstone than a Hearthstone community web site? Why should criticizing the Hearthstone community make me feel negative about myself? Because I'm a part of a community you think I think so little of? I don't think little of it. I think it's capable of being A LOT better, particularly the LiquidHearth community. So I criticize it because I care about it, it's something I want to be a part of, and because I think it's capable of being better. I'm not the one telling people to just not bother because nothing will ever change. That would be you. You're the one who seems to be content to let the howling man-children be the only voices anyone hears from the Hearthstone community.
|
On February 25 2015 12:15 SunaSunaSuna wrote:
Now sure, you can say 1 and 2 are vindicative and not happy with how it went.. but seeing the SS's YOU Know theyr not lying.. and if that much is true, who says she wasnt cheating or someone wasnt playing ? Saying NO evidence is like looking away when you're finding out about circumstantial evidence.
This shit right here? Is stupid. Someone behaving less than honestly with people in their personal life is not evidence that they committed some completely different dishonest behavior with vastly greater negative consequences under completely different circumstances. If someone is accused of murdering Joe, the fact that they murdered Steve two years ago is generally not admissible because they're two completely separate events. Depending on context, it may speak to some small degree to that person's ability to kill another but it is not evidence that they did what they're currently accused of.
Further, the thing about circumstantial evidence is that it requires inference to draw a conclusion. It, by definition, requires that there is more than one possible conclusion. You need many pieces of it, all corroborating each other and all pointing more strongly at one conclusion than another before you can reasonably say you've proven anything. Not talking to Forsen on Skype could be because she doesn't want to give away that she doesn't know anything about Hearthstone but a far more likely explanation is that she just doesn't want to talk to Forsen. Celerity shows bank records which show him sending lots of money to Hyerim Lee. Great. Those numbers don't show whose idea sending that money was or what expectations either had about whether it would be paid back or what it would be used for.
And this is where the charges of sexism are coming in. Because people don't treat male players this way. When Hosty was accused of cheating, people looked only at the screen shots showing the tournament stream reflected in the picture on his wall. And even in the face of conclusive evidence that he'd done something deserving of getting DQd from a tournament (if he hadn't lost by the time it was discovered), people still defended him and criticized Amaz for cutting him loose. A lot of people weren't even curious about what else might have happened to make Amaz not want him on the team. Amaz was the one who was not believed when he said it wasn't only about the Pinnacle situation. And they certainly didn't go trawling back through Hosty's entire life to find excuses to call everything he'd ever said or done into question.
And don't try to tell me people aren't doing this with Amy. I'm seeing people referencing her never wanting to talk to Forsen on Skype. I'm sure Forsen is an awesome guy that literally everyone in the world always wants to talk to but it really doesn't bear on these accusations in the slightest. Kitkatz told a story where she said she'd come pick up him and Savjz and then never showed and dodged their questions about it. Which is certainly odd because Kitkatz said it was her idea to come pick them up but that also doesn't lead directly to "is really two people cheating at Hearthstone." Maybe she just fucking got nervous and then felt silly and didn't know what to say. That seems several metric shit-tons more plausible to me than her doing it because she doesn't want them to find out she's really a dude in Canada.
The most it's reasonable to conclude from anything I've seen is that lending Amy money and asking her for a ride are probably best avoided. And yet people think they KNOW that she's a serial scammer, botter, win-trader, identity faker, etc.
|
On February 25 2015 15:34 piegasm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2015 12:15 SunaSunaSuna wrote:
Now sure, you can say 1 and 2 are vindicative and not happy with how it went.. but seeing the SS's YOU Know theyr not lying.. and if that much is true, who says she wasnt cheating or someone wasnt playing ? Saying NO evidence is like looking away when you're finding out about circumstantial evidence.
This shit right here? Is stupid. Someone behaving less than honestly with people in their personal life is not evidence that they committed some completely different dishonest behavior with vastly greater negative consequences under completely different circumstances. If someone is accused of murdering Joe, the fact that they murdered Steve two years ago is generally not admissible because they're two completely separate events. Depending on context, it may speak to some small degree to that person's ability to kill another but it is not evidence that they did what they're currently accused of. Further, the thing about circumstantial evidence is that it requires inference to draw a conclusion. It, by definition, requires that there is more than one possible conclusion. You need many pieces of it, all corroborating each other and all pointing more strongly at one conclusion than another before you can reasonably say you've proven anything. Not talking to Forsen on Skype could be because she doesn't want to give away that she doesn't know anything about Hearthstone but a far more likely explanation is that she just doesn't want to talk to Forsen. Celerity shows bank records which show him sending lots of money to Hyerim Lee. Great. Those numbers don't show whose idea sending that money was or what expectations either had about whether it would be paid back or what it would be used for. And this is where the charges of sexism are coming in. Because people don't treat male players this way. When Hosty was accused of cheating, people looked only at the screen shots showing the tournament stream reflected in the picture on his wall. And even in the face of conclusive evidence that he'd done something deserving of getting DQd from a tournament (if he hadn't lost by the time it was discovered), people still defended him and criticized Amaz for cutting him loose. A lot of people weren't even curious about what else might have happened to make Amaz not want him on the team. Amaz was the one who was not believed when he said it wasn't only about the Pinnacle situation. And they certainly didn't go trawling back through Hosty's entire life to find excuses to call everything he'd ever said or done into question. And don't try to tell me people aren't doing this with Amy. I'm seeing people referencing her never wanting to talk to Forsen on Skype. I'm sure Forsen is an awesome guy that literally everyone in the world always wants to talk to but it really doesn't bear on these accusations in the slightest. Kitkatz told a story where she said she'd come pick up him and Savjz and then never showed and dodged their questions about it. Which is certainly odd because Kitkatz said it was her idea to come pick them up but that also doesn't lead directly to "is really two people cheating at Hearthstone." Maybe she just fucking got nervous and then felt silly and didn't know what to say. That seems several metric shit-tons more plausible to me than her doing it because she doesn't want them to find out she's really a dude in Canada. The most it's reasonable to conclude from anything I've seen is that lending Amy money and asking her for a ride are probably best avoided. And yet people think they KNOW that she's a serial scammer, botter, win-trader, identity faker, etc.
Attention given to MagicAmy, while possibly being unwarranted, isn't something special. Other similar events, such as the ones that surrounded RDU and Hosty, had similar level of 'reddit-ness' if you will: Statements made on reddit/twitter, past tournament vods looked at, people doubting "official" statements, character assassinations, etc. These level of scrutiny isn't something new.
Also why pick sex as a reason behind any possible special treatment of her. Take your pick, there are plenty unsubstantiated victim cards to choose from. Maybe it's because she's an Asian and people are just being plain racist, or maybe people just hate Koreans do well in hearthstone, or maybe homophobic people think she looks like a lesbian, or maybe she played too much hunter decks and that was too annoying. Or just go through them all and see if anything sticks.
|
On February 25 2015 19:41 NHY wrote:
Attention given to MagicAmy, while possibly being unwarranted, isn't something special. Other similar events, such as the ones that surrounded RDU and Hosty, had similar level of 'reddit-ness' if you will: Statements made on reddit/twitter, past tournament vods looked at, people doubting "official" statements, character assassinations, etc. These level of scrutiny isn't something new.
Nonsense. Both the Hosty and RDU situations started because something questionable demonstrably actually happened. Hosty demonstrably had the stream of his own match up. Someone demonstrably told RDU what was in Amaz's hand.
Also why pick sex as a reason behind any possible special treatment of her. Take your pick, there are plenty unsubstantiated victim cards to choose from. Maybe it's because she's an Asian and people are just being plain racist, or maybe people just hate Koreans do well in hearthstone, or maybe homophobic people think she looks like a lesbian, or maybe she played too much hunter decks and that was too annoying. Or just go through them all and see if anything sticks.
You mean other than the fact that the bulk of what people are citing as evidence against her is the rather questionable word of a couple of supposed ex-boyfriends? If I had a dime for every time I've seen someone claim that TempoStorm only signed her because she's female, I could retire comfortably right now. But sure, no sexism going on here at all. *eyeroll*
|
Also re: people questioning official statements about Hosty...the official statements about Hosty were that Amaz had good reason to release him beyond the Pinnacle thing. The thing people doubted was that a guy who had demonstrably done something to warrant a DQ from a tournament deserved to be released from his team. Unlike this situation where the official statement is that there's no evidence that the person in question did anything wrong and had the full support of their team but somehow she still deserves to be e-pilloried because reasons. Context matters, yo.
|
On February 25 2015 14:58 piegasm wrote:
You seem to be having some difficulty understanding what words mean. You keep accusing me of being all black and white and yet you're the one saying that I'm not convincing anyone. I'm engaging in a discussion because I think people are mostly reasonable and I think there are probably people lurking who may be on the fence and just need to see the craptastic arguments addressed in order to come down on the right side. You're telling me to stop because people aren't going to be convinced no matter what I say. You seem to be the one who thinks everyone in the community is clearly on one side of the fence or the other and is unable or unwilling to change their mind.
It is a kind of funny logic, as in completely irrational. Where the hell else would I air my opinion about something going on in Hearthstone than a Hearthstone community web site? Why should criticizing the Hearthstone community make me feel negative about myself? Because I'm a part of a community you think I think so little of? I don't think little of it. I think it's capable of being A LOT better, particularly the LiquidHearth community. So I criticize it because I care about it, it's something I want to be a part of, and because I think it's capable of being better. I'm not the one telling people to just not bother because nothing will ever change. That would be you. You're the one who seems to be content to let the howling man-children be the only voices anyone hears from the Hearthstone community.
OK, the "right side". ´Nuff said I guess. Seems like I´m the one who thinks only black and white, left and right side of the fence. (Haha, yeah right ...) Thats sad, because my (originally only) point in this thread was to say, that we don´t know facts for sure (more or less what you said), but (what others and I said) we see some things that might raise suspicions. I´m not saying, that these things are true (how should I? It is not that I can prove or disprove anything here) and that´s it.
And yes, I think that as some kind of middle ground, because I neither believe those accusations must be true because reasons, nor do I think that all these must be untrue because reasons. It is that simple to me. Seems like I´m not the only one having problems with understanding words. I don´t have to choose sides here.
And if you want to improve the community: Have fun and nerves of steel. You will need it. I really wish you the best of luck, but sadly I don´t think you will succeed. Maybe a little, maybe thats enough.
And also you are right in the following: I don´t think that internet mentality will change. For many people all these things you (and I or others here) wrote are just an oppinion. It is not like that they have to side with you (or me or whoever). After all you and me are mostly unknowns, so there is no reason to value our oppinions that much. If you want to reach people you have to be someone known in the community like Amaz (or Nazgul, or whoever else). Someone known who is respected, liked or else for whatever reason.
Well, anyways: Good luck in your plans to improve the community! Little less aggressiveness would help you there 
|
On February 25 2015 15:34 piegasm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2015 12:15 SunaSunaSuna wrote:
Now sure, you can say 1 and 2 are vindicative and not happy with how it went.. but seeing the SS's YOU Know theyr not lying.. and if that much is true, who says she wasnt cheating or someone wasnt playing ? Saying NO evidence is like looking away when you're finding out about circumstantial evidence.
This shit right here? Is stupid. Someone behaving less than honestly with people in their personal life is not evidence that they committed some completely different dishonest behavior with vastly greater negative consequences under completely different circumstances. If someone is accused of murdering Joe, the fact that they murdered Steve two years ago is generally not admissible because they're two completely separate events. Depending on context, it may speak to some small degree to that person's ability to kill another but it is not evidence that they did what they're currently accused of. Further, the thing about circumstantial evidence is that it requires inference to draw a conclusion. It, by definition, requires that there is more than one possible conclusion. You need many pieces of it, all corroborating each other and all pointing more strongly at one conclusion than another before you can reasonably say you've proven anything. Not talking to Forsen on Skype could be because she doesn't want to give away that she doesn't know anything about Hearthstone but a far more likely explanation is that she just doesn't want to talk to Forsen. Celerity shows bank records which show him sending lots of money to Hyerim Lee. Great. Those numbers don't show whose idea sending that money was or what expectations either had about whether it would be paid back or what it would be used for. And this is where the charges of sexism are coming in. Because people don't treat male players this way. When Hosty was accused of cheating, people looked only at the screen shots showing the tournament stream reflected in the picture on his wall. And even in the face of conclusive evidence that he'd done something deserving of getting DQd from a tournament (if he hadn't lost by the time it was discovered), people still defended him and criticized Amaz for cutting him loose. A lot of people weren't even curious about what else might have happened to make Amaz not want him on the team. Amaz was the one who was not believed when he said it wasn't only about the Pinnacle situation. And they certainly didn't go trawling back through Hosty's entire life to find excuses to call everything he'd ever said or done into question. And don't try to tell me people aren't doing this with Amy. I'm seeing people referencing her never wanting to talk to Forsen on Skype. I'm sure Forsen is an awesome guy that literally everyone in the world always wants to talk to but it really doesn't bear on these accusations in the slightest. Kitkatz told a story where she said she'd come pick up him and Savjz and then never showed and dodged their questions about it. Which is certainly odd because Kitkatz said it was her idea to come pick them up but that also doesn't lead directly to "is really two people cheating at Hearthstone." Maybe she just fucking got nervous and then felt silly and didn't know what to say. That seems several metric shit-tons more plausible to me than her doing it because she doesn't want them to find out she's really a dude in Canada. The most it's reasonable to conclude from anything I've seen is that lending Amy money and asking her for a ride are probably best avoided. And yet people think they KNOW that she's a serial scammer, botter, win-trader, identity faker, etc.
Holy shit, you are so annoying that it made me post another reaction. You are comparing two absolutely individual and different cases and here is a simple explanation:
1. HOSTY - random male pro HS player. There are tens of players like him. There is nothing that would make him special. This guy was accused of cheating by watching a stream of the tournament he is participating in. There was nothing else, just cheating in this specific tournament. This case was examined by his team and they came to a conclusion to release him (supposedly not based on the mentioned tournament situation). Still there are people that believe he was innocent and people that say he is guilty. This is not a big deal. One of the many is gone now. No need for further investigation or whatsoever. Nobody cares any more.
2. MAGICAMY - the best female HS player in the world. I repeat the best in the world. After some time with her on the scene, there is a wild allegation that she does not play her games and that she might not even be real. Gradually people start coming up with more and more information about her and her personality. This is absolutely logic as the whole scene is eager to find out the truth, therefore anyone who knows something adds to the collective knowledge. Afterall it is the best female HS player in the world. HS is mostly play by men, so that makes it even more interesting. It is perfectly normal and natural behaviour for men to be more interested if it involves woman.
After a while there are multiple accustations of her acting shady, greedy, cheating, you name it. Every rationally thinking person would think now: "Well, there is definitaly something not right in here. It might even be true that she does cheat and not play her games and she is not THE BEST FEMALE HEARTHSTONE PLAYER IN THE WORLD". Normal rationally thinking person is now looking for a proof. The only proof of her playing her games is to see her playing with your own eyes. She was given the chance to give us all the proof we are looking for, but she refused to do it and rather gave up on Hearthstone. I explained in my other post why this action made me believe that she is guilty even more than before.
This whole thing is not about the community being misogynistic, but it is about the commuinty being rational and having common sense. Sure there might be some vocal individuals that might be misogynist, but calling the whole commuinty on that is way overboard. To be honest i am sick of your feministic posts that accuse people like me being misogynist, just because i don't believe this MagicAmy individual after multiple reasons i was given. You are shallow and hugely biased by your feministic point of view compared to me being rational and neutral. I have nothing against women and i would strongly welcome more female gamers/progamers in the gaming community. The MagicAmy incident even made me sad afterall as we lost potentially The best female player in the wolrd.
|
On February 26 2015 00:03 Elizar wrote:
I don´t have to choose sides here.
You say there's not enough evidence for you to know either way. Fine. But yet you've made a choice about whose behavior to criticize and it isn't that of people who made it their business to ruin someone's career over this evidence you admit there's not enough of to do anything with. You've chosen a side, despite your claims to the contrary.
|
@ Ricjames
a) I didn't make you do shit.
b) You literally just described the community reacting differently to MagicAmy entirely because she's female ("It is perfectly normal and natural behaviour for men to be more interested if it involves woman.") and then claimed that's not sexism. Well done. QED I guess.
c) You seem to be working with rather unusual definitions of "rational" and "neutral".
|
On February 26 2015 00:58 piegasm wrote:You say there's not enough evidence for you to know either way. Fine. But yet you've made a choice about whose behavior to criticize and it isn't that of people who made it their business to ruin someone's career over this evidence you admit there's not enough of to do anything with. You've chosen a side, despite your claims to the contrary.
Nope, I have not. Or at least I have chosen neither side of your fence. Just because there is no "hard proof" doesn´t automatically make it impossible that there is sth. true about those claims. I just criticize you for thinking you hold the undisputable truth, or at least behaving like you have it. I even partially agree with you, that based on those "facts" we can´t say she is "guilty", but neither can we say that the claims must be completely false, because there is no "hard proof" on that either.
But who am I kidding here. I said that much like three times already. You simply don´t want to understand me. Maybe I have more luck explaining my oppinion to a rock ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
