If you were a data scientist, or were even reading the FORUM, you would know the issue is likely that CoF is just bugged.
The very first rank seems to never trigger for example.
1 Like
Guys, guys, its clear we are feeding a troll here.
Best we do is not click the video and disregard any troll info he is trying to spread.
1 Like
Except that i aint trolling. You can do the research yourself and come to same conclusion
You see, if you don’t have the skills to provide actual insight, you should consult an expert before speculating publicly about malicious business practices.
Only if an expert can back up your speculation with data that can be verified by basically everyone with the existing knowledge, you should go public.
This isn’t meant as disrespectful as it might sound, it’s basically a quote from a German comedian that likes some satire: “If one doesn’t have a clue, just stfu.”
Why do I say that? Speculations tend to turn into rumour, and rumour into damaged reputation, and damaged reputation into libel cases if things go south.
IIRC, you were already spreading the false narrative that EHG removed reviews from steam, which they cannot do themselves. But maybe I confuse you with some other user.
In the first 1 min of the video i state explicitly its my speculation, its in the description and in the title, why its a question. Again, people should watch the video before making assumptions
Now on them removing steam reviews, i never said they where being removed, i said i saw a video of someone claiming tencent was removing steam reviews, which lead to a long debate about the legality of removing posts on steam. Cant find the specific video anymore. The discussion was about someone claiming their post / discussion was deleted, not a review.
This was your post. A basic google search, one I did when I read your statement, showed that only Steam themselves can remove reviews.
I won’t watch your video, I will not grant you another click for your content farming.
The title of this thread - reflect on it. What cat is out of the bag when it’s only speculation?
It’s disingenuous clickbait drama farming - and that’s the best-case scenario.
4 Likes
Since I don’t really like the thumbnail of the OP, I decided to create my own; which I think is a positive counterbalance. I don’t like spiders so I put a puppy in it. 
It’s here !
4 Likes
Damn, I laughed so hard I woke up my wife. Don’t do this to me
1 Like
That is the exact post yes. It says, as i said right above, i seen videos on youtube of them deleting negative reviews. Where is that different from what i just said. And yes steam discussions are there, as i read them.
Me saying, i watched a video that said X/Y, is NOT the same as me saying it. One is me pointing out what someone ELSE said. Big difference, maybe learn to read.
Well, let’s entertain you and place both your sentences side by side.
- Video and Videos - singular and plural, giving a different impression.
- “someone claiming tencent was removing” vs “of them deleting negative reviews” - turning rumour (someone claiming) into a factual statement.
Big difference, maybe learn to formulate what you mean more precisely.
Edit: typo
2 Likes
I’m still curious what the original story is, that there is more to. Was there some prior conspiracy theory about EHG having predatory practices regarding their RNG? Or did the OP just make it up, along with the rest of the (so-called) research this entire pile of horseshit is being based on?
4 Likes
“Snowstorm” employees on every corner. Prolly shittin their pants 
If you watch my video you will see the videos main subject is Tencent and Nexon, and I simply suggest it may be in Last Epoch because Tencent is a publisher that is connected to both topics.
The original topic was that nexon owned a patent that would manipulate rng in their drops, and where found liable in court and fined by trade comission
You claim that i made it up is also uncalled for as i provide articles as proof, would know that if you watched it. I do not tolerate personal attacks, and will be tolerated for last time
Like telling people they should learn to read?
That was poster misreading it, he claimed i said something i never did. Then tried to use the justification one was plural or not to avoid the conversation. Which i just ignored
This case poster saying i made stuff up without research and calling it unpleasent words is a personal attack. One is an objective statement.
I gave two examples of how your two sentences differ in the semantic meaning, when you asked where that is different. I made two objective observations; therefore, I kept the conversation going and didn’t avoid it.
You said you just ignored it - which is avoiding the conversation.
Let’s elaborate a bit more on it.
- You, the sender, want to transport a message with an intended meaning. You phrase your message into words.
- On a factual level, your sentences differ. Since the semantic meaning of a complex expression is formed by the sum of its parts.
- communication has a subjective part. The receiver of a message uses the actual message, context, bias, etc. to interpret what the message means for them.
With that little baseline established, let’s talks about the semantic differences.
- The difference between singular and plural already shifts how a receiver would likely interpret your message: you saw multiple videos, so there are probably more people reporting on deleted reviews. More people reporting on an incident usually evokes a feeling of credibility. It is not unheard of that people exaggerate numbers to strengthen their message: many studies (reality: 1 or 2) have shown; there were plenty of witnesses (2 or 3); etc.
- “someone claiming” is adding a major part to your message. It is a claim, suggesting no reliable proof was given. Furthermore, it leaves room for the receiver of the message to believe that you are sceptical about the content of the video.
- “video of them (context reading: EHG, not Tencent) deleting …” is a much stronger statement. You say it shows them doing it. Not “supposedly doing it”. There is nothing that adds a semantic interpretation that you have any doubt about the content of the video, you didn’t provide any caveats; this doesn’t mean that it was your intent to present this as a fact. We are all prone to misunderstandings.
Since you asked me where it was different, I gave you my reasoning.
I would like to know why you think your two messages are the same, if you don’t mind.
Nope, in fact, it was not a statement. @DirePenguin asked a question, he speculated.
You read insinuation/intent into it. To be fair, I consider this as a verbal jab, too 
I hope you can take this as an example why your “speculation” is more than just a speculation in the ears and eyes of many. I mean, your graphic uses very strong words, including criminal charges: Greed, Lies, Corruption, Greed, Theft, Fraud
Put stuff into context:
- the title here in the forum
- the picture
- the text of your link to your video, which, I assume, is the video’s title.
- your text. “Concerned about what I found. As it directly impacts Last Epoch” ← which again is a factual statement. It impacts Last Epoch directly. Not “could potentially be the case for Last Epoch, too” or something like that.
- to be fair: you add your caveat at the end of the text. My advice: put something like that right at the front as a preamble: “My concerns might be unfounded, but after doing a bit of research, I’m afraid that the technology in question could be implemented in Last Epoch, too.”
1 Like
“Spoiler alert: Lagon can be beaten”
God-fucking-damnit. Thank you.
2 Likes
Posts a thinly veiled accusation that EHG is engaging in predatory practices.
Proceeds to get butthurt about personal attacks regarding this nonsense.
Seriously, you can’t make this kind of comedy up.
A bit of advice: If you want to have a discussion about this, then post the Nexon video… along with links to the supporting evidence, and let people form their own conclusions. Instead, you post a very accusatory thread title, with another very accusatory graphic cover on your video – specifically mentioning EHG(Last Epoch).
Yes, I think it’s bullshit. If you want to take that as a personal attack, grow thicker skin. Maybe EHG could/interpret your accusations as slander, and take you to court over it? They would be, if they were as easily offended as you obviously are.
Exactly, and maybe leave out all the clickbait, accusatory nonsense? I can’t walk up to someone, kick them in the stomach, and then say, “hey, I think we should have a talk about something”. And then expect everything to be calm and rational.
3 Likes
Sadly I watched it too. 13 mins of flat earth “level” research & “evidence”.
It was a good cake, though there was a miscommunication with reception & they put it out for people to eat today rather than tomorrow (Red Nose Day).
No, you don’t, it’s mostly just some waffle about how maybe EHG could be doing bad things 'cause different people in different companies in different countilries were doing bad things. You don’t explain anything or give any evidence.
Other writers of fiction manage, I’m sure you can too.
That is an understatement.
Don’t forget that people don’t understand statistics, especially the “independent journalists/data scientists”.
Sorry, what will be tolerated for the last time? You or “personal attacks” (ie, people calling you out for your slanderous crap & you getting huffy about it)?
7 Likes
No one is going to watch your video