Hey smartiepants. The onus is on the reader not the joker/poster. Why? Because all great jokes need to walk that fine line. If the joker makes the joke 100% obvious then it gets received as pure troll and dismissed.
This post, at 70% obvious (being generous), is what provides the true entertainment and effectiveness as a satirical piece.
Good day to you sir.
Really? Because the way he framed it, it is exactly the same as the majority of complaint threads posted in this forum in a daily basis so what exactly do you suggest people should take him differently from others doing this seriously? In reality, nothing, which means you should take every single other post framed the same was as this one as satire rather than seriously, except they are mostly serious. If there is no active reason why one should distinguish this as it is framed the same way, are you just going to arbitrarily flag this one as satire and the others not? Or is that a distintion you make further in the thread after a bunch of posts? (Which entails you required further explanation to understand and it wasn't obvious enough like you are stating)
Then you're in the 30%. Sorry but not every joke can land with 100% of the audience.
Imagine if Ricky Gervais tried to make everyone happy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Anger is the punishment we give ourselves for someone else's mistake.
The point of the thread should be present clearly in the original post, whatever the point may be. If it is not there, and people miss the point because of that flaw, it is a mistake from the person that created the thread, not the readers or commentors.
Wow lmao this is a bold statement from someone who skipped most of the posts lmao. I READ BACK OF BOOK NO NEED TO READ WHOLE THING I SMART DUH?
I think this guy is trying to get some sort of achievement for getting hundreds of responses to his post. Lets give him the attention he doesn't deserve.
The dumber someone is, the more upset they get when they’re proven wrong. Why else do you think he’s doubling down and blaming everyone else for being wrong.
Someone’s all mad that they didn’t realize it was very blatant sarcasm, and they’ve been doubling down on that for a good while so far. Pretty sure he’s the only reason this thread is still alive. Long as he doesn’t get too bad with insulting everyone, mods probably won’t lock it either.
Seriously though, how difficult can it be to think “if everyone else says I’m wrong, maybe I’m not the singular one who’s right.”
Edit: and looking back at his original comment, he genuinely started it out by basically calling someone a moron. (The person said Hunter’s hero power is OP because Warlock deals 2 damage to itself, while Hunter does it to the opponent.)
The OP has the obligation to provide a clear and well structured point of start for the discussion he is introducing.
No.
Could you please post a reference to the law that FORCES the OP to provide a clear post ?
Maybe you prefer well-structured posts (I do too), but this is nowhere near an obligation for anyone on this forum (except maybe moderators/administrators ?).
He should include as much and be as thorough with his post as possible so users don't need to read through the whole thread looking for the point of the read, but simply have to read the first one and see what the OP wants to state.
"should" feels less extreme than "obligation" (though English isn't my native language, which means I might miss some subtle differences), so I kinda agree on this.
When the OP wants to to make a point and create discussion/debate on some topic, he should definitely try his best to be as clear as possible. Otherwise, the discussion might "derail" into sterile statements due to misunderstandings, which "ruins" the purpose of the thread. However, there are also other threads that are not as serious by essence.
Let's talk about Salt threads. Sometimes they are just blatant and obvious rage thread with no argumentation at all ("annoying", "not interactive", "cancer", ...), but the point of the thread is just to complain, so it's pretty clear. Other posts try to argument with fallacious ideas and one-sided view, and while seemingly trying to create a constructive debate (if you don't pay attention) actually try to force their opinion down your throat, and will later reject any counter-argument. This second type has a less "clear" purpose, though it is more well-structured in a propaganda-esque way, so which one is better ?
Finally, there are joke threads, though less common than others. Some jokes (not about hearthstone of hearthpwn here) cannot be understood by everyone, AND THAT'S OK. Example of a math joke : "An infinite number of mathematicians walk into a bar. The first one orders a beer, the second one orders half a beer, the third one orders 1/4 of a beer. The bartender then says "Ok, I've got it" and just pours 2 beers." Obviously, not all people can understand this joke. Does it mean no one should ever make that joke without first stating that this is a joke aimed at people with enough math knowledge ? The whole satire genre is based on the fact that it looks (kinda) serious, have similar aspects with serious texts, but is actually not meant to be taken seriously. Making a satire too obvious renders it unfunny, while making it not obvious enough make most readers question if this is satire or not. A good satire can never be perfect, as some will find it obvious and other will think the joker is actually serious. Thus, almost by definition, a satire (that is supposed to be funny) CANNOT be 100% obvious and fills your "obligation" criteria. The line between a good satire and most extreme cases of (stupid) "serious" posts is a really fine line, but this is part of why this feels so good and is so funny to some people.
In my experience, here are some tips to differentiate the various types of posts :
- Serious thread about possible nerf of mana wyrm will compare it to tunnel trogg, but states pros and cons of both ("on one hand"/"on the other hand"). It will explain that yes, mana wyrm can grow more often because mage has more good spells than shaman had good overloads, and can benefit from the coin, but overload minions can push more tempo and early additionnal minions (2 mana 3/4 or 4 mana 7/7) will often helps the snowball effect more than early frostbolt to the face.
- Salt thread will only push one side of the argument. Comparing mana wyrm to tunnel trogg, but only saying that mana wyrm is better because more spells than overload and the coin, completely disregarding other aspects. They will also often denigrate players that use this card, and Blizzard/Team5.
- Satire threads will go over-the-top by "salting" over a okay-ish card. They will compare it to cards with clearly higher power level (dire mole to mana wyrm/tunnel trogg : "beast tag" vs "growing/snowballing effect" is not really comparable). They will usually copy the style and title of another recent salt thread (ok, for this you need to see the post "early" before the salt thread disappears). They will use a lot of punctuation (!!!1!?!), though some salt thread also do it. They will make some comment about a good thing being bad, disregarding some more-than-obvious considerations (here "warlock hero power is just negative, because all it does is doing damage to your own face", though not stating this way, and what is basically said, disregarding completely the card draw effect) ; some other example would be to state that war golem is an obvious power creep to Lynessa (are you serious ? 7 mana for a 7/7 ?!!!,!? look at Lynessa, a 7 mana 1/1, THIS is fair, not bullsh*t powercreep war golem !).
This much needed dire mole nerf (also nerf hunter) is clearly evolving into a Team 5 nightmare, starting right at the top. Team 5 is being deystroyed from within. Given a few more weeks, it will likely infiltrate other blizzard games due to its powerful OP'ness
Look at what its doing to the Hearthpwn community. Pitting us against each other while spreading fear, anger over its seemingly innoccent 1/3 stats.
The OP was trying to save us all. Plz, lets heed his warning b4 its past the point of no return.
(I removed the text because it was being automatically formatted in an extremely weird way, and being long, it is better to just have it this way)
There is no law, still, if the OP for some reason expects readers to look around in the multiple pages of the thread for the point of the thread, which should be present in the original post, he has to expect people to not take this in the tone he didn't make clear in the initial post. No reader is required to read anything other than the starting post, everyone is discussing the subject made on the first post unless they decide to do so otherwise, that is the entire objective of creating these. What good is a point made on page 50 of a thread as mostly no users will be looking for that point there, but rather in the original post. So yes, it is not a legal obligation, it is just an obligation derived from common sense :) .
I will just tell you this. That second type type of "Salt" Threads is exactly the reason why I saw this thread as a normal complaint thread rather than the satire is it supposedly intended. In a see of threads created in a serious manner using the exact same framing as this one with the exact same kind of non-sense argumentation as this one, it is not possible to distinguish this one from just another of the serious posts made on a daily basis, and hence why it should be clear in the original post what this was. Because we get serious threads framed like this one on a daily basis.
I still disagree. When you frame yourself the exact same way as others doing this seriously, no minimal effort to distinguish yourself, there is no reason why people should see you as a satire rather than the exact same thing everyone else does seriously. It needs to be done corretly for the environment in question. This one didn't feel even the slightest bit odd because when you look at it compared to the environment in which it is made, it doesn't distinguish itself. Are you supposed to arbitrarily guess this one is satire while the others are not? I don't see how that is logical, to have to arbitrarily guess that rather than understand it by something tiping you off, which requires context which seems the OP ignored. When taken into context, this thread looks the same as the serious ones. Nothing odd about it.
My issue with the 3 types you made is that the OP manage to mix them all into one while not going over the top, not in a way one can consider over the top when you know the spectrum of players in this game. Reality is there are players out there that do believe the Warlock/Hunter Hero Power argument, and when you know this, how are you supposed to look at this as satire? When this is something people would do seriously? When you look at other nerf or salt threads and you see the same obvious non-sense logic being applied in an actual serious manner?
And I'll add that if he were to present the Lynessa/War Golem argument, that would tip me off because that is going tooooo far, that is going beyond what any player would go. The Warlock/Hunter Hero Power at least has basic mathematic principles one can understand, if you just disregard basic concepts of card games, Lynessa is harder to make it fly like a serious argument.
It's alright there is also some people who also doesn't get the joke, but some of them finally get it and laugh it off.Come let me give you a hugs if you feel no one understand you, no need to be mad.
I don't understand why people being rude to you. My 4 years old cousin also doesn't understand me sometimes, but i give him an explanation not bashing him like everyone in this mean forum bashing you for not getting a joke. Shame on them for not understand you.
If you look at his first comment he started out by basically calling someone stupid for what they had said, so yeah it kind of makes sense he’s getting this response. He keeps calling other people stupid, when he’s the one that can’t understand a joke.
The only time before we saw a 1-mana 1/3 neutral (or better, that didn't have a downside) was in Sir Finley Mrrgglton - and its effect could be argued was a downside in some classes, but you couldn't run two in your deck to increase the chances of a T1 1/3.
I do not think 1-mana 1/3s are OP, but I don't think they should be neutrals. In context of the other powerful early neutral minions (because HS is not played in a vacuum and you cannot simply look at a card's mana cost and stats and say it's good or bad), a 1-mana 1/3 as a neutral allows every class to be an aggressive token deck and snowball the early game. Where's the class identity? I want a Hearthstone where playing against a Priest feels different than playing against a Druid, which feels entirely different than playing against a Mage. I don't want Neutralstone where any class can run the same 20 to 24 card package.
tl;dr - 1-mana 1/3s should be class cards, not neutrals. Dire Mole isn't the problem, but part of a larger problem of too many high value neutral minions that have surpassed class minions.
Anger is the punishment we give ourselves for someone else's mistake.
LOL! RIP hearthstone. The all mighty dire mole could not be stopped!
Guys could we PLEASE make a new player archetype (Timmy/Johnny/Spike) for Mr. I don't get the fucking joke
Maybe we can guide this discussion in that manner instead of talking about all the OP cards in HS.
We should focus on flushing the toxic FUNSPONGE out of the conversation
Everyone else in the world must look small on that horse you ride
Guys calm yourselves. This is why the turn 1 double innervate into Hemet Nesingwary was invented.
Oh wait.
Druid nerf.
Riiiiight.
But at least there's still the turn 2 coin+ double innervate into hemet if you have survived the tempo created by the infamous dire mole
Proud member of the real casual play network
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/general-discussion/222850-new-third-game-mode-real-casual-play-network
Hit rank 15 with a homebrew back in the KOFT days.
Yaayyy...
There's all my notable achievements.
i cant believe this is a thread still
𝔅𝔶 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔢𝔩𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰 𝔠𝔬𝔪𝔟𝔦𝔫𝔢𝔡!
You must be a lot of fun at parties.
*note: This comment is directed at two people in this thread, one with sincerity the other with sarcasm.
Anger is the punishment we give ourselves for someone else's mistake.
If you're being meta right now you win the universe, if not, then this thread has achieved glorious levels of irony.
Win/win
EDIT: read back a few pages, glorious irony has already been achieved.
Humans are very special...
Anger is the punishment we give ourselves for someone else's mistake.
Must be troll
Nobody agrees with you. Let it go.
His joke landed with 90% of the people here. You're in the 10%. Therefore he was successful and justified.
Can't please everyone.
Anger is the punishment we give ourselves for someone else's mistake.
This much needed dire mole nerf (also nerf hunter) is clearly evolving into a Team 5 nightmare, starting right at the top. Team 5 is being deystroyed from within. Given a few more weeks, it will likely infiltrate other blizzard games due to its powerful OP'ness
Look at what its doing to the Hearthpwn community. Pitting us against each other while spreading fear, anger over its seemingly innoccent 1/3 stats.
The OP was trying to save us all. Plz, lets heed his warning b4 its past the point of no return.
It's alright there is also some people who also doesn't get the joke, but some of them finally get it and laugh it off.Come let me give you a hugs if you feel no one understand you, no need to be mad.
I don't understand why people being rude to you. My 4 years old cousin also doesn't understand me sometimes, but i give him an explanation not bashing him like everyone in this mean forum bashing you for not getting a joke. Shame on them for not understand you.
If you look at his first comment he started out by basically calling someone stupid for what they had said, so yeah it kind of makes sense he’s getting this response. He keeps calling other people stupid, when he’s the one that can’t understand a joke.
Here's how you counter dire mole:
1. mana crystal + frostbolt
2. spam with Northshire Cleric
3. Shadow Word Pain
4. turn 2, play a 1 mana weapon + mana crystal + 2x that minion that gets charge
happy now? There is even more than this.
Can we discuss this card on a serious note?
The only time before we saw a 1-mana 1/3 neutral (or better, that didn't have a downside) was in Sir Finley Mrrgglton - and its effect could be argued was a downside in some classes, but you couldn't run two in your deck to increase the chances of a T1 1/3.
1-mana neutrals
And for comparison, of the 1-mana class cards, SOME of them are 1/3s but ALL of them have some special effect that has class specific synergy.
1-mana class minions
I do not think 1-mana 1/3s are OP, but I don't think they should be neutrals. In context of the other powerful early neutral minions (because HS is not played in a vacuum and you cannot simply look at a card's mana cost and stats and say it's good or bad), a 1-mana 1/3 as a neutral allows every class to be an aggressive token deck and snowball the early game. Where's the class identity? I want a Hearthstone where playing against a Priest feels different than playing against a Druid, which feels entirely different than playing against a Mage. I don't want Neutralstone where any class can run the same 20 to 24 card package.
tl;dr - 1-mana 1/3s should be class cards, not neutrals. Dire Mole isn't the problem, but part of a larger problem of too many high value neutral minions that have surpassed class minions.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!