"nfidel2k;c-2391717" wrote:
I’m not going quote so we don’t keep nesting the quotes, but if the intent is to disprove CG’s statement about skill squish, we have to start by assuming it is true. We can’t prove something is false by assuming from the start it is false.
This leads to plausible explanation. Basically, is there any plausible way the events could have happened if CG’s statement is in fact true? The answer is yes - because it is entirely possible for it to be two separate events that appear to be linked.
Skill squish can lower your rating. Simultaneously, an adjustment of the skill rating cutoff could place your account in a position where it could or even does drop into a new division or league. There is no proof of a connection between these two events; we can’t assume that because both are tied to skill rating, that means they are linked.
Since we are assuming that the statements from CG are true, then cause of the drop must be the skill rating cutoff adjustment, since the squish can’t change your division or your rank within a division. This means that the cause of the drop is directly linked to what caused the skill rating cutoff adjustment. In order to say the cause of the drop was skill squish then, we have to show that skill squish is what caused the skill rating cutoff adjustment.
And currently my opinion is that the skill rating cutoff adjustment, if it was made, was because of overpopulation, which unfortunately also can’t be linked to skill squish. If there was data that showed skill squish actually moving a player, then all the other evidence is already in place. But none of it works without showing squish movement, or showing that it is impossible for anything else to have caused the movement.
But the proof is already there. If one gets squished and gets demoted eventhough they won a fight, that is a direct effect of the squish and nothing else. The SR gets changed from the outside, not because you lost and/or played bad, but because a force from outside did so. You had no influence over it what so ever.
You then win a fight but because you lost points to the squish and not your play, you get demoted. I don't know how else one can see this but as a direct outcome of the squish that took points away from you and caused you to drop eventhough you won. So there already is the proof that what CG said is not totally correct.
One could now argue they only said the squish will not change your position, which technically could be considered true, but only because they relay the effect to after your first fight. So in the end it influences your position just not immediately. I would not directly call it a lie, but it is also not the whole truth. To be honest, at least to me personally, it is not about wether they lied or not. I don't care about that aspect. There is no use in pointing fingers if one tries to give constructive feedback and tries to give a reason why something is not ideal and have a good discussion about it. What I do care about is the player experience and what effects it has on it. And if you point fingers all you do is make the other party feel like they have to defend themselves instead if trying to find a solution or an explanation. That's why I didn't talk about wether I think CG lied or not in my comments before, because it is not relevant, and stayed purely on the topic and what effects it has.
And that's why I also would like to stay on that topic instead of trying to define semantics. I only did so now in this comment because I didn't want to ignore the points you made. ?
