coolwhip
Master
Oh my Jesus Christ. I swear I'm arguing with a robot.Because you are effectively snuffing out another players thought on tier simply because he's not your boy. .
OK here's literally what I wrote in my last reply to you:
"But what you guys fail to see is nobody's chastising Ra simply because he's not 16 Bit. Hell, I talk about my character all the time, and I've never been to a tournament. That's not what it's about. The difference is, reliability and credibility lies not only in your accomplishments, but in your logic and arguments. The main problem with Ra is much of what he says is just inaccurate in the eyes of many, and not just because he never went offline. Since when does disagreeing with anyone means we're doing it because he doesn't have someone else's track record? PL is the most successful Kung Lao player by far, but he flipflops on Kung Lao's match-ups every day. So I'm not putting too much stock in his numbers. However, when you have someone who combines success with rationality, willingness to change his opinion based on knowledge (see 16 Bit backtracking on Catwoman losing to Green Lantern for example), and the ability to convince through logic, then yeah, I'm going to trust them more than 'Cat-Woman is A- tier, finalized!!!'"
So please explain to me how the fuck is disagreeing with Ra because his logic is terrible and he says a lot of dumb things = disagreeing with him because he's not 16 Bit? Like do you honestly disregard arguments that are inconvenient to your case on purpose just because you're that desperate to come off as the voice of reason?
I disagree with Ra because his match-up analysis is simplistic and basic. And I don't care if it's a thought-to-text thing since I'm not in his head. I can only read what he writes. He once seriously argued that online > offline. He argued that doing well in tournament isn't necessarily an indicator of skill, but rather, being good in a FT2/FT3. He said that the most successful Catwoman player "lacks skill." He said that if he beats Max in an online set (FT10), the match-up is confirmed 5-5. He spread false information that has been proven wrong (he says you can't stuff a delayed wake-up), and refuses to change his mind even when challenged with facts, and chooses instead to randomly give history lessons about the world. Should I seriously keep naming every single "questionable" statement he made and explain to you that THAT is why I don't find him too reliable or credible (which is by no means a reflection on his skills as a player) or are you still going to repeat the same tired argument that I'm simply disagreeing with him because he's not "my boy" just so that you can keep spreading your repetitive false narratives?