Free Step Dodge

P2 will also fall prey and not succeed the win against a player who's not at all vocal to such things in regards to shit talking. P2 can also be a player who does not fall into that category and just wins because he's playing a game where the goal is to win.

Point being is that shit talking towards another can also fuel the opposite individual to perform better while making it worse than it has to be.

Yes, but "can" is not "will." You claimed that no matter how much shade one "inserts" it doesn't apply if they don't win. But it can apply, as we just concluded.

"Throwing shade" is not entirely synonymous with "shit talking." The goal of throwing shade is not always to "tilt" the opponent. Sometimes it's purely a matter of criticism with regard to an observed flaw.

Not saying you are incorrect, but such cases is more or less subliminal if we are putting everything into the common box. Usually the heroes tends to win such circumstances because they are provided a buff on succeeding the win that gave them a negative energy that's being placed by a negative person.

For example, I could say: "Some DOA 'trolls' are the type of people who would push an old lady down a flight of stairs and then shrug saying 'It was just a prank,' as if that absolves them of all guilt."

I'm throwing shade at lopedo. I probably couldn't beat lopedo in a game of DOA, but that's irrelevant with regard to the application of my "shade."

I don't really believe in "negative energies," "heroes" or "buffs" with regard to fighting game players in real life, outside the context of hyperbolic sarcasm. I don't think I'm on board with that note.

Criticism in "DOA" depends on the case if whether or not the individual is open to such criticism and how they proceed to take in such criticism.

Yes exactly, It's not truly applying anything if they are left of the losing side of things that does not benefit them at all (unless they say such things just to make themselves feel good about the scenario, or the individual they are providing such shade is letting them win vocally even in text/controlling.)

That's new. Is that an improved version of the urban term Shade now? they might as well provide a term that's more common so that people can clearly identify which is which from getting "tilt" or relations to shit talking.

As for the Lopedo case, I do agree with you there, though this is more probability if you do lose/win. What if you win? the shade holds more credibility at this point with the added fact that you beaten him in his own game.

I mean, if we are applying urban term Shade to actual interaction outside of DOA that's entirely different since the real world law applies there where people can express whatever they want to a limit until they get physical.

If you're only concerned with who "wins" in a video game contest then I suppose the shade was not "applied." If you're concerned with interactions between human beings, winning in the game is not of paramount importantance. For example, if my goal was to notify everyone that lopedo was a cunt, I would have succeeded completely. I don't give a damn about who wins DOA, as that was never the "benefit" I sought.

If you're trying to tie it all back to a framework that is only concerned with DOA outcomes, then literally everything is irrelevant and victory is the only thing that matters. You could break someone's fingers to ensure yourself an easy victory, and as far as DOA is concerned you won, and that's all that matters. But, most care about the perception of others - that they won fairly.

If you're also concerned with being a decent human being who is concerned with the feelings and perceptions of others, there are interpersonal, social dynamics to consider. Now that we're once again considering social perception/dynamics, things like criticism outside victory are once again relevant.

Let's run another hypothetical. Your interest in DOA is not in winning, but determining who the overall best player is at DOA. Jack thinks he's the best but Jill always wins. You tell everyone that Jill is better then Jack. Then someone claims that the shade you threw at Jack doesn't apply because you can't beat Jack, despite the fact that Jack can't beat Jill. Your shade still applied, because you were right.

Here we go with "shade" again

Winning is really only relevant because you care about getting recognition from winning. ie: you care what others think. ie: You care if people know that lopedo is a cunt. Unless you're trying to pay the bills with DOA tournament prize money, in which case you're a bit loony.

Criticism becomes relevant if the one providing it has a base knowledge of understanding with how things work towards another in regards to "DOA", outside boundaries have no quarrel here for the time being until they go that length should they choose to go that route.

Criticism also lies in the key factor on whether each side is a mindless drone or indoctrinated to their own ways of providing another with things they are either aware or not aware of.

@Chapstick - And? is this suppose to be a topic that's somehow granted special privileges with being unique? it made it's way as a status so there we go, +1.

But here is the logic with that. There is no base impact of providing shade when they do not have the means to provide it when the other user clearly did nothing wrong to allow the urban term Shade to apply. If the other user is quiet and is clearly destroying the other player, they are doing nothing but making themselves look silly pouting. Shade is no different than Shots fired/Shit talking in common sense.

"Criticism becomes relevant if the one providing it has a base knowledge of understanding with how things work towards another in regards to DOA"
-Note how victory plays no part in this validity framework.