The legendary section was supposed to be explaining why i use the legends, and if you want to switchout out the highend to legends you have that aren't those that would be fine, cards like nozari, deathwing, curator, brightwing, thekal, you can swap out, if you don't want to play them, ragnaros, and sylvannus are free and in standard if you want to use those.
There must be a rule or a principle of neutrality, simply because it would be utter chaos otherwise, in an international environment. It's called common sense, and it doesn't need to be written.
Even if we assume such a principle is not obvious, your argument is just as baseless (or relative) as mine.
Preposterous. Sporting events and award ceremonies have often been used to express political messages, so not only are you citing a rule which doesn't exist, when cornered you're claiming that the opposite of reality is "common sense".
Unless the rules prohibit it, there is no principle or common understanding that a winner can't talk about whatever he wants during an interview. If you have no argument left to present, just concede the point rather than insisting, sans reasoning, that my claims are as baseless as yours. They really really aren't, hence why I'm citing documents and statements and you keep moving the goalposts hither and tither.
You fail to fully understand what you read.
Common sense is not the stack of historical precedents, as you assumed in your firstpreposition.
Common sense is knowing that bringing up hot political issues in an international sports event may have consequences.
Common sense is preventing your sports events become a circus of political agendas in the future.
My argument has never moved beyond the difference between "rule" and "principle".
If you fail to understand my argument, by virtue of the non-written, as if it was a trial with a system of laws and lawyers (hint: it is not), it's not my problem.
At this point, i don't expect to my make myself any clearer to you (and i won't argue any further), but stop acting cocky. It doesn't make you smarter.
If it were such a common sense thing the GM rulebook would've explicitly mentioned it, the same way it mentions other totally obvious things players shouldn't do, like show up late, cheat, get convicted of crimes or make false endorsements.
There was nothing stopping blizzard from including a political speech clause, but they didn't.
Changing the argument from "blitzchung broke a rule" to "blitzchung broke an unstated principle" is a massive goalpost shift, and you know it. If Blitzchung broke the rule of "common sense" then Blizzard has no grounds to ban him.
If you can't articulate how I fail to grasp (and refute) your arguments, that's a terribly hollow claim indeed, especially when combined with the way your goal line keeps retreating.
There must be a rule or a principle of neutrality, simply because it would be utter chaos otherwise, in an international environment. It's called common sense, and it doesn't need to be written.
Even if we assume such a principle is not obvious, your argument is just as baseless (or relative) as mine.
Preposterous. Sporting events and award ceremonies have often been used to express political messages, so not only are you citing a rule which doesn't exist, when cornered you're claiming that the opposite of reality is "common sense".
Unless the rules prohibit it, there is no principle or common understanding that a winner can't talk about whatever he wants during an interview. If you have no argument left to present, just concede the point rather than insisting, sans reasoning, that my claims are as baseless as yours. They really really aren't, hence why I'm citing documents and statements and you keep moving the goalposts hither and tither.
You fail to fully understand what you read.
Common sense is not the stack of historical precedents, as you assumed in your first preposition.
Common sense is knowing that bringing up hot political issues in an international sports event may have consequences.
Common sense is preventing your sports events become a circus of political agendas in the future.
My argument has never moved beyond the difference between "rule" and "principle".
If you fail to understand my argument, by virtue of the non-written, as if it was a trial with a system of laws and lawyers (hint: it is not), it's not my problem, and i don't need to concede anything.
At this point, i don't expect to make myself any clearer to you, and i won't argue any further (i have no trial to win).
There must be a rule or a principle of neutrality, simply because it would be utter chaos otherwise, in an international environment. It's called common sense, and it doesn't need to be written.
Even if we assume such a principle is not obvious, your argument is just as baseless (or relative) as mine.
Preposterous. Sporting events and award ceremonies have often been used to express political messages, so not only are you citing a rule which doesn't exist, when cornered you're claiming that the opposite of reality is "common sense".
Unless the rules prohibit it, there is no principle or common understanding that a winner can't talk about whatever he wants during an interview. If you have no argument left to present, just concede the point rather than insisting, sans reasoning, that my claims are as baseless as yours. They really really aren't, hence why I'm citing documents and statements and you keep moving the goalposts hither and tither.
Brack, in his post (in the news), mentions "rules" that Blitzchung agreed to upon participation.
And inconsistency of rule application does not imply the rule is wrong, nor that ALL its applications are wrong.
Blitzchung did the right thing, but he broke the rule/principle of neutrality of the event (hence the punishment). The two things can co-exist together. No contradiction is implied.
He references a rule but doesn't cite it. The only rule blizzard did cite is the aforementioned catchall clause. Obviously Blitzchung came to some sort of agreement with blizzard and they put out joint statements containing the same lawyerly language and including a non-admission by blitzchung that he "took the focus away from the game with his comments".
Which, again, and ad nauseam, isn't prohibited by any rule blizzard has produced thusfar.
I don't care about other inconsistent applications of rules, here I'm talking about blizzard's hypocrisy specifically. If you cannot show me the rule that blitzchung broke then I won't concede he did anything wrong. Here's the rulebook. Doing a simple word search gives us exactly zero hits for "politics" or "neutrality" and I couldn't find anything in the player conduct section, but maybe I'm wrong. Show me the rule or stop asserting that it exists.
There must be a rule or a principle of neutrality, simply because it would be utter chaos otherwise, in an international environment. It's called common sense, and it doesn't need to be written.
Even if we assume such a principle is not obvious, your argument is just as baseless (or relative) as mine, about Blitzchung acting correctly or not.
PS: i don't care of hypocrisy (in this my interventions in this thread). As i stated, my posts were directed to those who think there should have been no serious punishment for the Blitzchung case, by virtue of just cause.
Brack, in his post (in the news), mentions "rules" that Blitzchung agreed to upon participation.
And inconsistency of rule application does not imply the rule is wrong, nor that ALL its applications are wrong.
Blitzchung did the right thing, but he broke the rule/principle of neutrality of the event (hence the punishment). The two things can co-exist together. No contradiction is implied.
He references a rule but doesn't cite it. The only rule blizzard did cite is the aforementioned catchall clause. Obviously Blitzchung came to some sort of agreement with blizzard and they put out joint statements containing the same lawyerly language and including a non-admission by blitzchung that he "took the focus away from the game with his comments".
Which, again, and ad nauseam, isn't prohibited by any rule blizzard has produced thusfar.
I don't care about other inconsistent applications of rules, here I'm talking about blizzard's hypocrisy specifically. If you cannot show me the rule that blitzchung broke then I won't concede he did anything wrong. Here's the rulebook. Doing a simple word search gives us exactly zero hits for "politics" or "neutrality" and I couldn't find anything in the player conduct section, but maybe I'm wrong. Show me the rule or stop asserting that it exists.
I can't even make Paladin or Warlock portrait as favorite - well, I can click it, but the change never registers - ... for whatever obscure reason, it works for Rogue, but its the one I wasn't wanting to use ... Is this an other case of Spaghetti coding?
Seriously, read this guy's analysis of it. China wrote the apology. Blizzard is ever more lost to us than we realized. Blizzcon is going to be full or Pooh protests, Chinese flags, and all the forums will be "next question."
however as a first time offender he should have been given a slighter ban, tho the reduction is good. on the other hand the casters should have just been given a slap on the wrist. 6 months ban is too much let alone the initial punishment which was being fired, LOL that's dictatorship right there. no democratic justice works like that for first time offenders unless it's about serious crimes
Blitzchung broke the "no politics rule" and i don't need to prove it.
There is no "no politics" rule that blizzard can cite, or they would've. It's why the statement by Blizzard's president and Blitzchung both repeat the term "focus on the game" over and over again, and I've already explained at length how that standard can be applied to almost anything.
If a cop turns a blind eye against X, he may be corrupt, yet his action against Y can be correct, and according to sensible rules. And corruption does not affect the quality of the rules, when they are correctly upheld.
The crux of the issue here is the cop's conduct, not X or Y. Whether or not blitzchung did a bad thing, and I will vehemently argue he didn't, either way blizzard's conduct is inconsistent. And the direction of the inconsistency points toward ulterior motives/corruption.
My argument is based on the (unproven) impression that many in the community believe that since Blitzchung did a brave/right thing, Blizz had no rights to punish him (them).
If the assumption is incorrect, you can ignore all my posts, if it is not, the double-standard is not a counterargument.
If Blitzchung had come out in support of the chinese government and had been banned for that reason I'd still disagree with blizzard's decision on principle. Now I don't think for a moment that that would've happened, but I'm not averse to supporting people with opinions I disagree with when they are being wronged.
Corporate corruption is connected to the Blitzchung event, but, i reiterate, it doesn't move by an inch the point about him. It is a different argument, and it requires Blitzchung action being proved equal to that of the US players (which i ignore).
The actions are exactly analogous. In both cases the players made a political statement on an official HS stream.
Brack, in his post (in the news), mentions "rules" that Blitzchung agreed to upon participation.
And inconsistency of rule application does not imply the rule is wrong, nor that ALL its applications are wrong.
Blitzchung did the right thing, but he broke the rule/principle of neutrality of the event (hence the punishment). The two things can co-exist together. No contradiction is implied.
yeah like most of the stuff in this deck i slotted it since i had it, BGH has been a favorite for me for a while and is really in there as a tech against quest pally, but i haven't fought against a lot of those so feel free to use subdue instead.
Blitzchung broke the "no politics rule" and i don't need to prove it.
There is no "no politics" rule that blizzard can cite, or they would've. It's why the statement by Blizzard's president and Blitzchung both repeat the term "focus on the game" over and over again, and I've already explained at length how that standard can be applied to almost anything.
We now have compelling evidence that Blizzard is talking out of both sides of their mouth BTW. While their English-language statement said: "our relationships in China had no influence on our decision.", the official hearthstone Weibo account tweeted out a statement that ended with " We will always respect and defend the pride of our country."
If a cop turns a blind eye against X, he may be corrupt, yet his action against Y can be correct, and according to sensible rules. And corruption does not affect the quality of the rules, when they are correctly upheld.
The crux of the issue here is the cop's conduct, not X or Y. Whether or not blitzchung did a bad thing, and I will vehemently argue he didn't, either way blizzard's conduct is inconsistent. And the direction of the inconsistency points toward ulterior motives/corruption.
My argument is based on the (unproven) impression that many in the community believe that since Blitzchung did a brave/right thing, Blizz had no rights to punish him (them).
If the assumption is incorrect, you can ignore all my posts, if it is not, the double-standard is not a counterargument.
If Blitzchung had come out in support of the chinese government and had been banned for that reason I'd still disagree with blizzard's decision on principle. Now I don't think for a moment that that would've happened, but I'm not averse to supporting people with opinions I disagree with when they are being wronged.
Corporate corruption is connected to the Blitzchung event, but, i reiterate, it doesn't move by an inch the point about him. It is a different argument, and it requires Blitzchung action being proved equal to that of the US players (which i ignore).
The actions are exactly analogous. In both cases the players made a political statement on an official HS stream.
I believe that consumers have a great deal of power over companies provided they vote with their wallet to punish bad corporate behaviour. If a company is behaving like shit, maybe stop supporting it.
I totally agree with this. Just logging into any of their games or watching them on Twitch is supporting them (with numbers), so all those that are going to join the protest are really ready to totally quit? How many will do such thing instead of just keep playing/watching and spam some "support HK" around the internet?
It's the difference between taking real action and just call out good words. Not that words aren't important, but they'll hardly change things if left alone (history has already proven that so many times).
Even the people spamming hongkong copypastas in GM twitch chat while they try to get free packs are still doing more than the jaded people trying to call out their supposed hypocrisy.
I don't really have a problem with slacktivists doing the bare minimum of "activism" from the comfort of their gamer chairs so long as they don't act too smug or self-congratulatory about it. Even going F2P instead of buying packs is still a message, it still affects Blizzard's bottom line. I don't think tweeting at blizzard is going to save Hong Kong, but I do think it can cause (other) companies to rethink their policies toward china going forward. If nothing else, I hope this controversy, as well as the NBA stuff, can accomplish that.
Grandmasters Season 2 Concludes With Playoffs Weekend!
Something most be wrong with the drops, i have been on stream all day and haven´t received the 3h and 6h packs.
Anyone with the same problem?
Some help and advice for Beast Hunter deck improvements.
Thanks all. I decided to go more beasty, than secrets. Basically it is cheaper, and I think I prefer it.
This is the next version:
Wild · Midrange Hunter · by frenzy · 6 years, 11 months ago
Singleton control dragon paladin.
The legendary section was supposed to be explaining why i use the legends, and if you want to switchout out the highend to legends you have that aren't those that would be fine, cards like nozari, deathwing, curator, brightwing, thekal, you can swap out, if you don't want to play them, ragnaros, and sylvannus are free and in standard if you want to use those.
Blitchung kicked out of GM
If it were such a common sense thing the GM rulebook would've explicitly mentioned it, the same way it mentions other totally obvious things players shouldn't do, like show up late, cheat, get convicted of crimes or make false endorsements.
There was nothing stopping blizzard from including a political speech clause, but they didn't.
Changing the argument from "blitzchung broke a rule" to "blitzchung broke an unstated principle" is a massive goalpost shift, and you know it. If Blitzchung broke the rule of "common sense" then Blizzard has no grounds to ban him.
If you can't articulate how I fail to grasp (and refute) your arguments, that's a terribly hollow claim indeed, especially when combined with the way your goal line keeps retreating.
Apxvoid's Tempo Mage
I actually cut 4 cards, in order to add 2 fireball as well, I cut Witchwood Piper, cut Frost Nova , and one Mirror Image, and one Shooting Star .
P.s. sorry for answering so late.
If you want, I made a video, and you can check the deck in action.
Singleton control dragon paladin.
If you need me to go into more detail about something let me know!
Blitchung kicked out of GM
You fail to fully understand what you read.
Common sense is not the stack of historical precedents, as you assumed in your first preposition.
Common sense is knowing that bringing up hot political issues in an international sports event may have consequences.
Common sense is preventing your sports events become a circus of political agendas in the future.
My argument has never moved beyond the difference between "rule" and "principle".
If you fail to understand my argument, by virtue of the non-written, as if it was a trial with a system of laws and lawyers (hint: it is not), it's not my problem, and i don't need to concede anything.
At this point, i don't expect to make myself any clearer to you, and i won't argue any further (i have no trial to win).
Quest Trading - Play A Friend!
Battletag: Medj#1560
Region: EU
Trade Only?: Yes, you go first.
Blitchung kicked out of GM
Preposterous. Sporting events and award ceremonies have often been used to express political messages, so not only are you citing a rule which doesn't exist, when cornered you're claiming that the opposite of reality is "common sense".
Unless the rules prohibit it, there is no principle or common understanding that a winner can't talk about whatever he wants during an interview. If you have no argument left to present, just concede the point rather than insisting, sans reasoning, that my claims are as baseless as yours. They really really aren't, hence why I'm citing documents and statements and you keep moving the goalposts hither and tither.
Blitchung kicked out of GM
There must be a rule or a principle of neutrality, simply because it would be utter chaos otherwise, in an international environment. It's called common sense, and it doesn't need to be written.
Even if we assume such a principle is not obvious, your argument is just as baseless (or relative) as mine, about Blitzchung acting correctly or not.
PS: i don't care of hypocrisy (in this my interventions in this thread). As i stated, my posts were directed to those who think there should have been no serious punishment for the Blitzchung case, by virtue of just cause.
Blitchung kicked out of GM
He references a rule but doesn't cite it. The only rule blizzard did cite is the aforementioned catchall clause. Obviously Blitzchung came to some sort of agreement with blizzard and they put out joint statements containing the same lawyerly language and including a non-admission by blitzchung that he "took the focus away from the game with his comments".
Which, again, and ad nauseam, isn't prohibited by any rule blizzard has produced thusfar.
I don't care about other inconsistent applications of rules, here I'm talking about blizzard's hypocrisy specifically. If you cannot show me the rule that blitzchung broke then I won't concede he did anything wrong. Here's the rulebook. Doing a simple word search gives us exactly zero hits for "politics" or "neutrality" and I couldn't find anything in the player conduct section, but maybe I'm wrong. Show me the rule or stop asserting that it exists.
https://bnetcmsus-a.akamaihd.net/cms/page_media/w4/W4NWIBHB74T31564507077190.pdf
PROBLEM WITH 1000 WINS PORTRAITS
It's a soon to be fixed bug.
PROBLEM WITH 1000 WINS PORTRAITS
I can't even make Paladin or Warlock portrait as favorite - well, I can click it, but the change never registers - ... for whatever obscure reason, it works for Rogue, but its the one I wasn't wanting to use ...
Is this an other case of Spaghetti coding?
Nozari
In case anyone was wondering, Nozari is a terrible pick against the Plague Lords, Tekahn or most Dungeon bosses
Singleton control dragon paladin.
Dragon Paladin, now that's an archetype that been - unsuccessfully - pushed for a while now ...
I'm curious to read this guide when it comes
The Pepper Thread - Share Some Good Vibes!
Bragging Right Unlocked :
ThatsAdmirable Cancels BlizzCon Casting, Sottle Still On Board, American University Hearthstone Team Forfeits Matches
It was written by China. A user on Twitter details all the ways that a nonnative speaker uses English in slightly odd ways.
https://twitter.com/sgbluebell/status/1182817588147052544
Seriously, read this guy's analysis of it. China wrote the apology. Blizzard is ever more lost to us than we realized. Blizzcon is going to be full or Pooh protests, Chinese flags, and all the forums will be "next question."
[Android] Hearthstone is freezing/crashing ingame since latest patch (15.4.34670)
Maybe. I saw the same. Too bad it's one week from now. Would have expected a quicker response
[Android] Hearthstone is freezing/crashing ingame since latest patch (15.4.34670)
Ah popup appeared about server maintenance planned for the 18th in EU.
Maybe it's related to the issue.
Blizzard President J. Allen Brack Issues Statement on Grandmasters China Controversy
however as a first time offender he should have been given a slighter ban, tho the reduction is good. on the other hand the casters should have just been given a slap on the wrist. 6 months ban is too much let alone the initial punishment which was being fired, LOL that's dictatorship right there. no democratic justice works like that for first time offenders unless it's about serious crimes
Blizzard President J. Allen Brack Issues Statement on Grandmasters China Controversy
every extreme decision is a bad one. having said that, im happy to see more people on Destiny 2.
Blitchung kicked out of GM
Brack, in his post (in the news), mentions "rules" that Blitzchung agreed to upon participation.
And inconsistency of rule application does not imply the rule is wrong, nor that ALL its applications are wrong.
Blitzchung did the right thing, but he broke the rule/principle of neutrality of the event (hence the punishment). The two things can co-exist together. No contradiction is implied.
Singleton control dragon paladin.
yeah like most of the stuff in this deck i slotted it since i had it, BGH has been a favorite for me for a while and is really in there as a tech against quest pally, but i haven't fought against a lot of those so feel free to use subdue instead.
Blitchung kicked out of GM
There is no "no politics" rule that blizzard can cite, or they would've. It's why the statement by Blizzard's president and Blitzchung both repeat the term "focus on the game" over and over again, and I've already explained at length how that standard can be applied to almost anything.
We now have compelling evidence that Blizzard is talking out of both sides of their mouth BTW. While their English-language statement said: "our relationships in China had no influence on our decision.", the official hearthstone Weibo account tweeted out a statement that ended with " We will always respect and defend the pride of our country."
https://imgur.com/a/FjiSJvC
The crux of the issue here is the cop's conduct, not X or Y. Whether or not blitzchung did a bad thing, and I will vehemently argue he didn't, either way blizzard's conduct is inconsistent. And the direction of the inconsistency points toward ulterior motives/corruption.
If Blitzchung had come out in support of the chinese government and had been banned for that reason I'd still disagree with blizzard's decision on principle. Now I don't think for a moment that that would've happened, but I'm not averse to supporting people with opinions I disagree with when they are being wronged.
The actions are exactly analogous. In both cases the players made a political statement on an official HS stream.
Blitchung kicked out of GM
Even the people spamming hongkong copypastas in GM twitch chat while they try to get free packs are still doing more than the jaded people trying to call out their supposed hypocrisy.
I don't really have a problem with slacktivists doing the bare minimum of "activism" from the comfort of their gamer chairs so long as they don't act too smug or self-congratulatory about it. Even going F2P instead of buying packs is still a message, it still affects Blizzard's bottom line. I don't think tweeting at blizzard is going to save Hong Kong, but I do think it can cause (other) companies to rethink their policies toward china going forward. If nothing else, I hope this controversy, as well as the NBA stuff, can accomplish that.