|
This thread is for discussing recent bans. Don't discuss other topics here. Take it to website feedback if you disagree with a ban or want to raise an issue. Keep it civil.NOTE: For those of you who want to find the actual ABL thread where the bans are posted. Please look in here: https://tl.net/forum/closed-threads/ |
On February 13 2021 00:14 ExpatRights wrote: if TL actually takes accusations of 'match fixing' seriously, why do they censor and warn you for pointing out very likely incidents?
the PM i got requested ACTUAL PROOF of match fixing... as if anyone except for the 2 involved will ever have it... without actual proof it is a conspiracy theory. While this does not make it untrue, it also comes far far short of making true. I feel like lots of people now a days (maybe always) do not understand that not being able to prove something false does not make it true.
|
That doesn't make it a conspiracy theory. There is no conspiracy. It is simply an accusation. Not being able to prove something false, does not make an accustion false either. Where did you get conspiracy theory from?
|
On February 13 2021 01:36 Dangermousecatdog wrote: That doesn't make it a conspiracy theory. There is no conspiracy. It is simply an accusation. Not being able to prove something false, does not make an accustion false either. Where did you get conspiracy theory from? From the definition. "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." that pretty much describes match fixing, and without proof it is a theory.
It is strange that so many don't understand what a conspiracy theory is and get offended when it is used, seems to be much like the word ignorant in that way.
|
What you've done is equate "theory" about a "conspiracy" with "conspiracy theory". It's like saying that a foxglove is the glove of a fox.
A definition without a source. Which I can say with utter certaincy that is not of a definition of a conspiracy theory but that of a definition of a conspiracy. Which is why you didn't link a source because we all know that it would lead to conspiracy and not conspiracy theory. Don't play nonsense semantic games just because you want to write an inappropriate diatribe against conspiracy theorists.
You want to talk about conspiracy theories, you can do so with a proper example and this isn't it. Match fixing accusations are not under what we call conspiracy theories and you know it. Yoda was certainly matchfixing. Was he part of a conspiracy theory? No, he was not. He was conspiring, but to theorise he is conspiring is not a conspiracy theory. Would matchfixing accusations of Yoda be a conspiracy theory even if he was not match fixing? That is a theory about a conspiracy. Again this cannot be descibed as a conspiracy theory.
|
Can't we call it a conspiracy theory because the user is implying that TL is somehow helping cover it up by silencing users that are voicing their concerns about a conspiracy to match fix?
con·spir·a·cy the·o·ry /kənˈspirəsē ˈTHiərē,ˈTHirē/ noun a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event. "they sought to account for the attacks in terms of a conspiracy theory" Definitions from Oxford Languages
TL is not a covert organization but it can be argued to be influential, and maybe the mods that are silencing the claims of match fixing are part of a covert organization which profits from said match fixing? 😂
|
But the user is NOT implying that TL is somehow helping cover it up by silencing users that are voicing their concerns about a conspiracy to match fix. He wrote something, got warned, then asked about it in this thread, then Kwark answered his question.
Defintions of Conspiracy theory:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/conspiracy-theory
Conspiracy theory, an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory (yes wikipedia I know, but as a it goes much more in depth than a single line from an online dictionary.
A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence.
Lets list the ways this doesn't fit your definition anyways.
TL.net is not covert. TL.net is not an influential organization. (Though we may wish it to be!) TL.net is not responsible for a circumstance or event. There is no explanation to reject in the first place. There is no accepted narrative, just Kwark replying to a question.
It takes quite a leap of faith to go from someone asking why his post was banned to him implying that TL is somehow helping cover a matchfixing game. Which still doesn't fall under the umbrella of a conspiracy theory anyways.
|
On February 13 2021 04:39 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What you've done is equate "theory" about a "conspiracy" with "conspiracy theory". It's like saying that a foxglove is the glove of a fox.
A definition without a source. Which I can say with utter certaincy that is not of a definition of a conspiracy theory but that of a definition of a conspiracy. Which is why you didn't link a source because we all know that it would lead to conspiracy and not conspiracy theory. Don't play nonsense semantic games just because you want to write an inappropriate diatribe against conspiracy theorists.
You want to talk about conspiracy theories, you can do so with a proper example and this isn't it. Match fixing accusations are not under what we call conspiracy theories and you know it. Yoda was certainly matchfixing. Was he part of a conspiracy theory? No, he was not. He was conspiring, but to theorise he is conspiring is not a conspiracy theory. Would matchfixing accusations of Yoda be a conspiracy theory even if he was not match fixing? That is a theory about a conspiracy. Again this cannot be descibed as a conspiracy theory. It was the top answer from the google search "define conspiracy theory". Pretty easy for you to replicate I thought.
I was not playing games, and you are just being your usual over aggressive self when you dig in over something stupid and are willing to die on that hill for no gain.
Here is another definiton.
a theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy-theory
and another
"a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy theory
Another
Conspiracy theory, an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/conspiracy-theory
All would work for a match fixing scandal with no proof.
I'm not sure why this is so hard for you, if you agree something could be defined as a conspiracy and someone has a theory on it (no proof), then it is a conspiracy theory. You are over thinking or something and it is making you very wrong.
Edit:
To your last point. Yes it does, the small powerful group is the people who have the power to fix the match, the harm is to those negatively effected by the fix and it rejects the narrative that player a beat player b.
For the second The sinister group is the one pulling the strings to make it happen, the more probable is that player A beat player B because he was better that game. And clearly his accusation has insufficient evidence so it being rooted in prejudice (he does not like one or both) is likely.
As to your list of things TL net is not, your are just blatantly wrong on all of them. Of course TL is influential in the sc world. And the mods and so on wield a lot of power in this space. Your simply way off.
|
i think we can all agree that the cabal of moderators on this forum have an agenda for silencing dissenting opinions. I’d say ask Danglars BUT WE CANT.
checkmate nerds.
just to clarify, light hearted sarcasm. <3
|
Hyrule18768 Posts
just fyi this is the the ABL thread not the Definition of "Conspiracy Theory" thread
|
Northern Ireland20722 Posts
On February 13 2021 07:41 tofucake wrote: just fyi this is the the ABL thread not the Definition of "Conspiracy Theory" thread Why was this the first hit when I Googled ‘Team Liquid’s Definition of Conspiracy Theory thread’ then?
|
On February 13 2021 07:41 tofucake wrote: just fyi this is the the ABL thread not the Definition of "Conspiracy Theory" thread They're silencing us again! Conspiracy theory confirmed.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES48987 Posts
On February 13 2021 08:42 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2021 07:41 tofucake wrote: just fyi this is the the ABL thread not the Definition of "Conspiracy Theory" thread Why was this the first hit when I Googled ‘Team Liquid’s Definition of Conspiracy Theory thread’ then?
surprised it didn't send you to USPOL
|
It's quite simple. ExpatRights asked why he was warned for accusations of matchfixing. Kwark answered his question. The guy didn't imply there is a conspiracy theory or a cover up or anything. He asked a question and the next post answered it. He seems satisfied by the answer. Then you decided to go on a random tirade about conspiracy theory. That's the exact event chain.
I'm not the one who brought up the definition of a conspiracy theory (actually just conspiracy), that was JimmieC. I pointed out that a theory of a conspiracy is not a conspiracy theory. That's separate to the issue and I don't care what people think the definition is.
Example: WESG 2018 Macsed vs diamond protoss. I made accusations of matchfixing. Thread was eventually closed. I asked why and got an answer. Where the conspiracy theory?
|
On February 15 2021 01:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote: It's quite simple. ExpatRights asked why he was warned for accusations of matchfixing. Kwark answered his question. Where's the conspiracy theory? The guy didn't imply there is a conspiracy theory or a cover up or anything. He asked a question and the next post answered it. He seems satisfied by the answer. Then you decided to go on a random tirade about conspiracy theory. That's the exact event chain.
I'm not the one who brought up the definition of a conspiracy theory (actually just conspiracy), that was JimmieC. I pointed out that a theory of a conspiracy is not a conspiracy theory. That's separate to the issue and I don't care what people think the definition is.
Example: WESG 2018 Macsed vs diamond protoss. I made accusations of matchfixing. Thread was eventually closed. I asked why and got an answer. Where the conspiracy theory? Its all good, you think he had a theory on a conspiracy but that it was not a conspiracy theory. It is a interesting hot take.
|
Ok, you clearly didn't read what I wrote. I don't think he had a theory on a conspiracy. I literally wrote and this is in the very same quote you just had of mineOn February 15 2021 01:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote: That's separate to the issue and I don't care what people think the definition is.
Don't be a Danglars, because you want to win an internet argument. I don't care nor want to talk about your definitions of a conspiracy.
Where did the guy wrote there is a conspiracy theory? You labelled him as a conspiracy theorist for no reason. He asked a reasonable question and got a reply from Kwark. That's all that happened.
User was warned for this post.
|
On February 15 2021 01:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Ok, you clearly didn't read what I wrote. I don't think he had a theory on a conspiracy. I literally wrote and this is in the very same quote you just had of mine Show nested quote +On February 15 2021 01:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote: That's separate to the issue and I don't care what people think the definition is. Don't be a Danglars, because you want to win an internet argument. I don't care nor want to talk about your definitions of a conspiracy. Where did the guy wrote there is a conspiracy theory? You labelled him as a conspiracy theorist for no reason. He asked a reasonable question and got a reply from Kwark. That's all that happened. I disagree with you, I've explained why. I did not label him a conspiracy theorist, I said he had presented a conspiracy theory, this was not a insult but a statement of fact. Having a conspiracy does not make someone bad, nor does believing it, it only becomes a problem when people start treating their theories like facts.
You agree he spoke of a conspiracy, you agree he had a theory (did not have proof) why you think that is not a conspiracy theory is beyond me but by all means feel free to continue, you just will do so without me.
Also, there is no need to insult me and I am nothing like Danglars.
|
Supporting explicitly wrong arguments and being totally closed to the discussion but with "best regards" and "cordially" is ok, however pointing it out is not? Am I missing something?
|
On February 15 2021 01:22 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2021 01:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Ok, you clearly didn't read what I wrote. I don't think he had a theory on a conspiracy. I literally wrote and this is in the very same quote you just had of mine On February 15 2021 01:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote: That's separate to the issue and I don't care what people think the definition is. Don't be a Danglars, because you want to win an internet argument. I don't care nor want to talk about your definitions of a conspiracy. Where did the guy wrote there is a conspiracy theory? You labelled him as a conspiracy theorist for no reason. He asked a reasonable question and got a reply from Kwark. That's all that happened. I disagree with you, I've explained why. I did not label him a conspiracy theorist, I said he had presented a conspiracy theory, this was not a insult but a statement of fact. Having a conspiracy does not make someone bad, nor does believing it, it only becomes a problem when people start treating their theories like facts. You agree he spoke of a conspiracy, you agree he had a theory (did not have proof) why you think that is not a conspiracy theory is beyond me but by all means feel free to continue, you just will do so without me. Also, there is no need to insult me and I am nothing like Danglars. dmcd is right. i dont think you know how to use the term "conspiracy theory" properly.
|
Czech Republic12116 Posts
Am I the only who thought the conspiracy theory was about the matchfixing itself and not about the TL staff modding the stuff out of the pages?
On February 13 2021 11:32 BLinD-RawR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2021 08:42 WombaT wrote:On February 13 2021 07:41 tofucake wrote: just fyi this is the the ABL thread not the Definition of "Conspiracy Theory" thread Why was this the first hit when I Googled ‘Team Liquid’s Definition of Conspiracy Theory thread’ then? surprised it didn't send you to USPOL even Google has some dignity and standards?
|
On February 15 2021 18:43 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2021 01:22 JimmiC wrote:On February 15 2021 01:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Ok, you clearly didn't read what I wrote. I don't think he had a theory on a conspiracy. I literally wrote and this is in the very same quote you just had of mine On February 15 2021 01:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote: That's separate to the issue and I don't care what people think the definition is. Don't be a Danglars, because you want to win an internet argument. I don't care nor want to talk about your definitions of a conspiracy. Where did the guy wrote there is a conspiracy theory? You labelled him as a conspiracy theorist for no reason. He asked a reasonable question and got a reply from Kwark. That's all that happened. I disagree with you, I've explained why. I did not label him a conspiracy theorist, I said he had presented a conspiracy theory, this was not a insult but a statement of fact. Having a conspiracy does not make someone bad, nor does believing it, it only becomes a problem when people start treating their theories like facts. You agree he spoke of a conspiracy, you agree he had a theory (did not have proof) why you think that is not a conspiracy theory is beyond me but by all means feel free to continue, you just will do so without me. Also, there is no need to insult me and I am nothing like Danglars. dmcd is right. i dont think you know how to use the term "conspiracy theory" properly. I disagree with you also, and agree with the definitions, go figure. But feel free to pm me or start a thread as tofu does not want this boring discussion on this thread.
|
|
|
|