Kaepernick An 81 OVR FA QB In Madden 21

[whatdrought]

8 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

I have no clue.  His last rating was an 81 and there has been zero film on him since. I do not know how they would adjust his rating in the absence of film and I haven't seen anything to suggest they won't update his rating in the event he gets signed and there's something tangible to base it on.

 

Now I have an ask for you.  Now armed with the definitions, make your case that a video game rating meets the criteria for virtue signaling.

Weak.  

 

Actually, his last rating was a 74 in the 2017 game which was reflective of his getting benched in 2016 after playing quite poorly. (he started 16 with an 81 rating)

I'd like to see where any other free agent is given such a generous curve rating wise. 

 

 

I think it's quite clear that his rating is artificially inflated based on his off field persona. Any argument otherwise would say that the likely assumption is a player that had steadily decreased over his last four years on the game (from 2013-2017 dropping from 89 to 74) would all the sudden increase his rating by 8% following a four year absence. I don't think that's a tenable argument at all. 

 

At that point you're left with the question: Is increasing his rating as a football player (as the rating is meant to reflect his capacity on the field exclusively) because of his off field activities disingenuous? I think it clearly is as it goes outside of their own standard and rating system, so we ask the motives for doing it, and that seems pretty obvious - to cater to those who are pro-Kaep right at this point in time - And it clearly strikes as moral/political/social statement. So when we lay it over the above definition:

 

Quote

"The conspicuous and disingenuous expression of moral values with the intent to enhance one's own image.”

 

And there we are. 

 

It's conspicuous as it was done publicly and they released statements about it, drawing attention to it. 

 

It's disingenuous (see above) 

 

It's clearly an expression of moral values 

 

And it's clearly done to curry favor with those who would look upon it favorably. 

[HamSandwhich]

2 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

Is it virtue signaling if the entity making the statement believes it?  

My premise is that they don’t believe it. They are doing it to signal their virtue, to show they can be progressive, to gain sales. Simple. You can go ahead is reject that premise if you wish but I believe this to be the case.

6 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Actually, his last rating was a 74 in the 2017 game which was reflective of his getting benched in 2016 after playing quite poorly. (he started 16 with an 81 rating)

I'd like to see where any other free agent is given such a generous curve rating wise. 

 

 

I think it's quite clear that his rating is artificially inflated based on his off field persona. Any argument otherwise would say that the likely assumption is a player that had steadily decreased over his last four years on the game (from 2013-2017 dropping from 89 to 74) would all the sudden increase his rating by 8% following a four year absence. I don't think that's a tenable argument at all. 

 

At that point you're left with the question: Is increasing his rating as a football player (as the rating is meant to reflect his capacity on the field exclusively) because of his off field activities disingenuous? I think it clearly is as it goes outside of their own standard and rating system, so we ask the motives for doing it, and that seems pretty obvious - to cater to those who are pro-Kaep right at this point in time - And it clearly strikes as moral/political/social statement. So when we lay it over the above definition:

 

 

And there we are. 

 

It's conspicuous as it was done publicly and they released statements about it, drawing attention to it. 

 

It's disingenuous (see above) 

 

It's clearly an expression of moral values 

 

And it's clearly done to curry favor with those who would look upon it favorably. 

He doesn’t realize he is making our case with when trying to discredit. It’s quite interesting actually.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

6 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Actually, his last rating was a 74 in the 2017 game which was reflective of his getting benched in 2016 after playing quite poorly. (he started 16 with an 81 rating)

I'd like to see where any other free agent is given such a generous curve rating wise. 

 

 

I think it's quite clear that his rating is artificially inflated based on his off field persona. Any argument otherwise would say that the likely assumption is a player that had steadily decreased over his last four years on the game (from 2013-2017 dropping from 89 to 74) would all the sudden increase his rating by 8% following a four year absence. I don't think that's a tenable argument at all. 

 

At that point you're left with the question: Is increasing his rating as a football player (as the rating is meant to reflect his capacity on the field exclusively) because of his off field activities disingenuous? I think it clearly is as it goes outside of their own standard and rating system, so we ask the motives for doing it, and that seems pretty obvious - to cater to those who are pro-Kaep right at this point in time - And it clearly strikes as moral/political/social statement. So when we lay it over the above definition:

 

 

And there we are. 

 

It's conspicuous as it was done publicly and they released statements about it, drawing attention to it. 

 

It's disingenuous (see above) 

 

It's clearly an expression of moral values 

 

And it's clearly done to curry favor with those who would look upon it favorably. 

 

If he was an 81 in ultimate team, sure... whatever.  But to put him in franchise mode when he hasn't played since 2016 and make him an 81?  It's stupid.  He's going to get picked up by a random team, start, and totally ruin the like "simulation" element of the game that people like.  I heard this year's madden was terrible anyway so I decided not to get it.  

[Jauronimo]

Just now, whatdrought said:

 

Actually, his last rating was a 74 in the 2017 game which was reflective of his getting benched in 2016 after playing quite poorly. (he started 16 with an 81 rating)

I'd like to see where any other free agent is given such a generous curve rating wise. 

 

 

I think it's quite clear that his rating is artificially inflated based on his off field persona. Any argument otherwise would say that the likely assumption is a player that had steadily decreased over his last four years on the game (from 2013-2017 dropping from 89 to 74) would all the sudden increase his rating by 8% following a four year absence. I don't think that's a tenable argument at all. 

 

At that point you're left with the question: Is increasing his rating as a football player (as the rating is meant to reflect his capacity on the field exclusively) because of his off field activities disingenuous? I think it clearly is as it goes outside of their own standard and rating system, so we ask the motives for doing it, and that seems pretty obvious - to cater to those who are pro-Kaep right at this point in time - And it clearly strikes as moral/political/social statement. So when we lay it over the above definition:

 

 

And there we are. 

 

It's conspicuous as it was done publicly and they released statements about it, drawing attention to it. 

 

It's disingenuous (see above) 

 

It's clearly an expression of moral values 

 

And it's clearly done to curry favor with those who would look upon it favorably. 

The message needs to be disingenuous not the player rating.  The message appears completely in line with the rest of EA's corporate policy and messaging.  Is their corporate DE&I policy virtue signaling?

 

They overrate players all the time based on their public image.  Every year some rookie who the public loves gets an absurd rating because EA knows what fans want.  Is the entire profit motive virtue signaling?

 

Virtue signaling was a thin premise to begin with, the best example of which was viral slacktivism.  People on social media changing their status to Kony2012, Paris backdrops, RIP Harambe and other cheap displays of outrage.  The term is wildly overused and has no meaning when any public statement, action tangentially related to social justice is written off as virtue signaling.  In the very link I provided, it has been argued that the act of calling out virtue signaling is a form of the offense unto itself.  

[whatdrought]

Just now, Jauronimo said:

The message needs to be disingenuous not the player rating.  The message appears completely in line with the rest of EA's corporate policy and messaging.  Is their corporate DE&I policy virtue signaling?

 

They overrate players all the time based on their public image.  Every year some rookie who the public loves gets an absurd rating because EA knows what fans want.  Is the entire profit motive virtue signaling?

 

Virtue signaling was a thin premise to begin with, the best example of which was viral slacktivism.  People on social media changing their status to Kony2012, Paris backdrops, RIP Harambe and other cheap displays of outrage.  The term is wildly overused and has no meaning when any public statement, action tangentially related to social justice is written off as virtue signaling.  In the very link I provided, it has been argued that the act of calling out virtue signaling is a form of the offense unto itself.  

 

You're welcome to hold this point of view and to argue the minutia of it all you care to. That being said, I think it's quite clear what they are doing and it is by your definition (and every other applicable and commonly used definition) virtue signaling. You're free to disagree. 

 

I appreciate you clarifying your points so we could have this discussion! 

 

The real tragedy here is that Josh Allen is only a 77 when he's clearly at least a 99.

[dorquemada]

Hey good news everyone!

 

https://babylonbee.com/news/madden-now-allows-you-to-select-greta-thunberg-as-your-qb/?utm_content=buffer9580d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

 

[whatdrought]

1 minute ago, dorquemada said:

Hey good news everyone!

 

https://babylonbee.com/news/madden-now-allows-you-to-select-greta-thunberg-as-your-qb/?utm_content=buffer9580d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

 

 

 

Quote

"After we added socially conscious non-football-player Colin Kaepernick as a playable QB on every team in Madden, we realized we didn't have to stop there," said EA's CEO Andrew Wilson. "We are thrilled to be adding Greta Thunberg to the mix as a tremendously overpowered character! With every down, Greta will help Madden fans remember how terrible they are for killing the planet."

 

 

😆

 

99ovr

[dorquemada]

9 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

 

 

 

😆

 

99ovr

 

I'm super looking forward to playing Anita Sarkeesian and Adam Schiff.  Those toxicly masculine sportsball players wont know what hit them

 

[Jauronimo]

49 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

You're welcome to hold this point of view and to argue the minutia of it all you care to. That being said, I think it's quite clear what they are doing and it is by your definition (and every other applicable and commonly used definition) virtue signaling. You're free to disagree. 

 

I appreciate you clarifying your points so we could have this discussion! 

 

The real tragedy here is that Josh Allen is only a 77 when he's clearly at least a 99.

You really can't suggest I am the one arguing the minutiae when your point revolves around the inner workings of EA's proprietary player rating system.

 

Virtue signaling as a term needs to be retired. It is the bastion of cynical nitwits but you are free to continue to label anything in the realm of social justice as virtue signaling.  I mean, what other motivations could a person or entity have for supporting ridiculous causes like Kaepernick's police brutality campaign, equality, and justice except trying to signal their moral superiority and elevate their public standing?  I mean, no one actually believes this crap, right?

 

1 hour ago, HamSandwhich said:

My premise is that they don’t believe it. They are doing it to signal their virtue, to show they can be progressive, to gain sales. Simple. You can go ahead is reject that premise if you wish but I believe this to be the case.

He doesn’t realize he is making our case with when trying to discredit. It’s quite interesting actually.

It would be easier to accept the premise you understand and can identify virtue signaling if you weren't still struggling with homonyms.  

Edited September 9, 2020 by Jauronimo

[dorquemada]

5 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

You really can't suggest I am the one arguing the minutiae when your point revolves around the inner workings of EA's proprietary player rating system.

 

Virtue signaling as a term needs to be retired. It is the bastion of cynical nitwits but you are free to continue to label anything in the realm of social justice as virtue signaling.  I mean, what other motivations could a person or entity have for supporting ridiculous causes like Kaepernick's police brutality campaign, equality, and justice except trying to signal their moral superiority and elevate their public standing?  I mean, no one actually believes this crap, right?

 

 

Is your point that Kaepernick deserves an 81?  If not, then why do you believe that EA is giving him such a high rating?  that's the virtue signalling, which is, we are so desperate to be seen as supporting this cause that we're going to take one of it's figureheads and shoehorn him into our flagship game in the hopes that the rubes customers will want to be a part of that.  "Social Justice" is now being used as a synonym for pretty much the entire leftist wishlist that's been around for 50 years.  Free college?  Social justice!  Legalize weed?   Social justice!   Kill all the landlords?  SOCIAL JUSTICE!!!!

 

I mean if they really want to get on the BLM bandwagon, why not put Talcum X in with a 99?

[whatdrought]

21 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

You really can't suggest I am the one arguing the minutiae when your point revolves around the inner workings of EA's proprietary player rating system.

 

Virtue signaling as a term needs to be retired. It is the bastion of cynical nitwits but you are free to continue to label anything in the realm of social justice as virtue signaling.  I mean, what other motivations could a person or entity have for supporting ridiculous causes like Kaepernick's police brutality campaign, equality, and justice except trying to signal their moral superiority and elevate their public standing?  I mean, no one actually believes this crap, right?

 

 

Ah yes, the point of the debate wherein we have reached the ever so subtle insults and appeals to misdirection and emotion.

 

3 things and I'm outie: 

 

1- The whole question comes down to whether or not they rated him based on his actual performance or his off field activities. You said you didn't know- I presented an argument that no reasonable person can say they rated him explicitly on his football skills. You didn't respond either way, but that's fine- as you said, you don't know. 

 

2- If they did in fact rate him based on off field and not on field qualities (as seems obvious to me and just about every other person in this thread) then them saying his rating is football based in incorrect and disingenuous. Even if they admitted that they rated him higher due to his off field life- that's still a pretty big digression from their norm... I wonder why they would have done this... Could it be they're trying to signal something?... Hmm...

 

3- 

Quote

I mean, what other motivations could a person or entity have for supporting ridiculous causes like Kaepernick's police brutality campaign, equality, and justice except trying to signal their moral superiority and elevate their public standing?  I mean, no one actually believes this crap, right?

 

Right here you've made it quite clear that the conversation does not revolve around Kaepernick's football skills, but rather his off field activities and campaigns. Is your argument that they artificially boosted him into the top 15 of NFL QB's as a way of showing support for his cause? If so, I encourage you to come back with some backup in the "not virtue signaling" department. 

 

Think what you want, assume what you want. I know where I stand and I now know where you stand, and I didn't even have to do the homework, Nancy. 

 

Anyway - Nitwit out. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by whatdrought

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

I have a golf tee time that I have to get to but this was a very interesting and informative 1.5 hours. 

[HamSandwhich]

44 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

You really can't suggest I am the one arguing the minutiae when your point revolves around the inner workings of EA's proprietary player rating system.

 

Virtue signaling as a term needs to be retired. It is the bastion of cynical nitwits but you are free to continue to label anything in the realm of social justice as virtue signaling.  I mean, what other motivations could a person or entity have for supporting ridiculous causes like Kaepernick's police brutality campaign, equality, and justice except trying to signal their moral superiority and elevate their public standing?  I mean, no one actually believes this crap, right?

 

It would be easier to accept the premise you understand and can identify virtue signaling if you weren't still struggling with homonyms.  

Ah, attacking my intelligence. The tool of the fool. 

[Jauronimo]

1 minute ago, whatdrought said:

 

Ah yes, the point of the debate wherein we have reached the ever so subtle insults and appeals to misdirection and emotion.

 

3 things and I'm outie: 

 

1- The whole question comes down to whether or not they rated him based on his actual performance or his off field activities. You said you didn't know- I presented an argument that no reasonable person can say they rated him explicitly on his football skills. You didn't respond either way, but that's fine- as you said, you don't know. 

 

2- If they did in fact rate him based on off field and not on field qualities (as seems obvious to me and just about every other person in this thread) then them saying his rating is football based in incorrect and disingenuous. Even if they admitted that they rated him higher due to his off field life- that's still a pretty big digression from their norm... I wonder why they would have done this... Could it be they're trying to signal something?... Hmm...

 

3- 

 

Right here you've made it quite clear that the conversation does not revolve around Kaepernick's football skills, but rather his off field activities and campaigns. Is your argument that they artificially boosted him into the top 15 of NFL QB's as a way of showing support for his cause? If so, I encourage you to come back with some backup in the "not virtue signaling" department. 

 

Think what you want, assume what you want. I know where I stand and I now know where you stand, and I didn't even have to do the homework, Nancy. 

 

Anyway - Nitwit out. 

You have a real talent for highly convenient interpretation of text.  

 

The point of that statement is virtue signaling by definition is a hollow, disingenuous act.  Your view of this action and many others exposes your underlying bias, that Kaepernick's campaign and similar causes are of questionable legitimacy.   Sentiments that you rarely pass up an opportunity to express.  You view it as another fleeting cause celebre that organizations attach themselves too to win "woke points".  Any support could have no other motivation than winning cheap woke points since the movements are without merit.  You cannot accept that organizations act on matters of social justice in earnest.  That's why you and others label it all incorrectly as virtue signaling.  Virtue signaling is not a catch all for political statements you disagree with pertaining to social matters.  

 

When Brees wraps himself in the flag and waxes poetically about his patriotism why isn't that virtue signaling? Why aren't the "I support our troops" stickers virtue signaling?  Blue lives matter? Pro life bumper stickers?

 

2 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

Ah, attacking my intelligence. The tool of the fool. 

This might be the most beautifully ironic statement crafted today.  

[HamSandwhich]

7 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

You have a real talent for highly convenient interpretation of text.  

 

The point of that statement is virtue signaling by definition is a hollow, disingenuous act.  Your view of this action and many others exposes your underlying bias, that Kaepernick's campaign and similar causes are of questionable legitimacy.   Sentiments that you rarely pass up an opportunity to express.  You view it as another fleeting cause celebre that organizations attach themselves too to win "woke points".  Any support could have no other motivation than winning cheap woke points since the movements are without merit.  You cannot accept that organizations act on matters of social justice in earnest.  That's why you and others label it all incorrectly as virtue signaling.  Virtue signaling is not a catch all for political statements you disagree with pertaining to social matters.  

 

When Brees wraps himself in the flag and waxes poetically about his patriotism why isn't that virtue signaling? Why aren't the "I support our troops" stickers virtue signaling?  Blue lives matter? Pro life bumper stickers?

 

This might be the most beautifully ironic statement crafted today.  

Go ahead, say what you mean. Why is it ironic? 

[Jauronimo]

3 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

Go ahead, say what you mean. Why is it ironic? 

You stated that attacking someone's intelligence is the tool of a fool.  You also called me a fool, thus attacking my intelligence.  The natural implication now is that you are a fool. 

 

I'm not even mad.  I'm just impressed.

[HamSandwhich]

6 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

You stated that attacking someone's intelligence is the tool of a fool.  You also called me a fool, thus attacking my intelligence.  The natural implication now is that you are a fool. 

 

I'm not even mad.  I'm just impressed.

A fool does not make a person unintelligent, I actually think you are intelligent. You have coherent arguments, they are just informed incorrectly in my view. That’s why I say we should agree to disagree, we are not going to see eye to eye. We are too far apart. That’s ok though, if we were to meet in person, I would hope we could still have a drink, talk about the Bills and speak intelligently about subjects that we would not necessarily agree with each other with without calling each other “evil” or appealing to our own tribe to call the other evil. That’s what this country needs. No ones perfect, certainly not myself, but we have a commonality in that we live in the awesome country (some don’t even believe that’s true) and we both love the Bills. So agree to disagree. I don’t need to character assassinate and I don’t think you need to either. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by HamSandwhich