He's been misquoting and spinning his own narrative from the word go.  Removed*   He's the sort to take something you've said and run it to the extreme.  For example, you're not allowed quitting the CC program without ALSO quitting the game in his head.  He doesn't think one is justified without also doing the other.  And if you went that far, he'd move the goal post and probably say you're not allowed talking about it or saying anything bad about Wargaming.  He has a very narrow, black and white, highly-dramatized view of the world.  He doesn't allow for nuance or complex emotions in other people, reducing them to two-dimensional caricatures.   Look at how he latched onto my criticism of loot boxes, where the odds are not published and we must assume that they're not fair (Wargaming has a track record of short-lists, conditions based on account inventory and weighted prizes, after all).  He thinks this is an accusation of a "scam".  It's not.  It's simply part and parcel of loot box gambling when you don't have the odds disclosed.  The Missouri prizes could be weighted by player, by region, by account history, by date or simply have the odds per prize drop skewed.  Any of these methods would completely skew the results of any attempt to crowd-source data, never mind the inherent biases of crowd source data when it comes to collecting drop rate odds (such sample groups will always heavily bias towards "I got it early" and generally be lacking in those who make a few pulls and then stop). Proving that the odds are actually 1:41 is incredibly difficult, let alone any other pet theory anyone has and it would require an enormous and concerted effort from different community groups in order to achieve.  With that avenue unavailable, the only recourse is to exercise extreme caution with loot boxes.  Players should assume that the odds may be tampered with until Wargaming is willing to put it in writing what the actual odds are.  Hearing "trust me, they're fair," from a Community Manager does not put Wargaming in as much legal jeopardy as published odds.  They can always point towards Miss Communications and say that the employee was confused if their words weren't correct.  But no, nothing nuanced allowed.  Such criticism must be simplified down to "Mouse calls it a scam", distorting complexity to fit an overly dramatic narrative.  They'd make a good Angry YouTuber.   But watch, he'll backpedal and defend Wargaming again and try and put other words in my mouth without evidence.  I have to wonder what his end-goal is?  Is it to simplify the world into bad people and good?  Is it to justify his hobby-decisions to himself?  I have met more than a few people in my time in the industry that couldn't reconcile something they liked with being bad or toxic.  If they liked something, it had to be good.  If they disliked something, it was because it was obviously bad.  Anyone that didn't align with their views was obviously wrong and potentially bad too in extreme cases.   Anyway, I'm tapping out here.  Ping me if you need me.
    • Cool
    11