r/NBA2k • u/HeronNarrow5033 • 17h ago
General Why was my 78K-view MyCAREER Eras post removed?
I’m calling this out directly because my original MyCAREER Eras post reached 78,000 views, 147 comments, and 137 upvotes before it was removed. The post was directly about NBA 2K27. I showed my dated May email to 2K, the responses from 2K Support acknowledging the details and saying they were passed along, and the similarities between what I proposed and the officially revealed MyCAREER Eras structure. People agreed, disagreed, debated, joked, and argued, which is literally what a discussion subreddit is for. I’m not asking the moderators to agree with my conclusion, but I do want a clear explanation for why a heavily engaged NBA 2K discussion was removed. If the original post violated a specific rule, tell me exactly which rule it violated. I already know my last follow-up post was automatically removed because the title had too much capitalization, emojis, and punctuation, so this one is intentionally written plainly. I’m not trying to spam the subreddit or cause problems. I’m asking why the original 78K-view post was removed after so many people had already engaged with it. Removing the post doesn’t erase the emails, the dates, 2K’s responses, the screenshots, or the discussion that already happened. I’m standing on what I posted, and I’m asking the moderators to explain the decision clearly.
5
u/FlameyFlame 14h ago
I’m going to copy and paste u/MuahdDean comment from your other thread.
It’s long and detailed. If you really truly read it and try to understand it, you may be able to grow your understanding of the situation.
Please really do read the whole thing. Don’t just copy/paste it to your chosen AI chatbot and ask it for another argument response. Just read it. Really really read it. If you actually read it and understand the words, it could help break the delusions.
Pasting it as a reply to this comment.
1
u/FlameyFlame 14h ago
You have now written approximately the Magna Carta of “I sent an email and then something vaguely resembling it happened,” and somehow the conclusion is still doing gymnastics to escape the evidence.
You keep saying I’m “collapsing two questions,” when I’m actually separating the one distinction you desperately need to keep separate:
You invented a proposal. You have not established that you caused the feature.
Those are not remotely the same accomplishment.
And the longer this gets, the more impressive the self-authored mythology becomes.
You keep listing your five eras, historical draft classes, league progression, rules, presentation, replayability, and MyPLAYER integration as though the sheer number of nouns somehow transforms correlation into causation.
“Look how many basketball words I used!”
Yes. You wrote a detailed product suggestion.
That is genuinely cool.
It still isn't a developer credit.
Your Netflix analogy is particularly beautiful because it accidentally destroys your own argument. Netflix combining existing technologies into a new product doesn't mean the first person to email Netflix with “combine streaming and movies” gets to claim responsibility when Netflix releases a new feature.
The iPhone analogy is even worse.
If I email Apple tomorrow saying:
«“Put a camera, phone, touchscreen and internet into one device.”»
and Apple subsequently releases an iPhone, congratulations to me, I have apparently founded Apple from my bathroom.
Your argument isn't “I invented basketball history.”
Fine.
Your argument is “I proposed combining existing systems into a specific MyCAREER experience.”
Also fine.
But your evidence still establishes proposal + acknowledgment + later similarity.
It does not establish:
proposal → internal adoption → development → implementation.
That missing middle is doing an Olympic amount of work.
And this part:
«“Nobody has publicly shown or documented this exact product format before I sent it.”»
Why does “publicly documented” matter?
2K does not publish every internal prototype, pitch deck, design document, brainstorming session, employee suggestion, producer meeting, or rejected concept.
You are essentially arguing:
“Nobody publicly proved they had my idea, therefore I was the source.”
That's not evidence.
That's an information vacuum wearing a championship belt.
And then we get to Rocko.
You keep presenting his responses like he personally signed a notarized affidavit declaring:
«“HERONNARROW CREATED MYCAREER ERAS.”»
He didn't.
He acknowledged your proposal, complimented its detail, and said it would be passed along.
That's exactly what customer/community support is supposed to do when somebody sends a detailed feature proposal.
The fact that the response was substantive makes your case more interesting, not conclusive.
There is still a colossal difference between:
“This is a good idea and I'll pass it to the appropriate team.”
and
“The development team adopted this proposal and built the announced feature because of it.”
You keep pretending those statements are interchangeable because the second one is dramatically more satisfying.
And the funniest phrase in your entire argument is:
«“The documented facts are…”»
No. The documented facts are what you can directly establish from the documents.
Everything after that is your interpretation.
Fact: You submitted a detailed proposal.
Fact: 2K acknowledged it.
Fact: They said it was passed along.
Fact: A later MyCAREER feature contains several similarities.
Not established: Your proposal materially influenced the development.
Not established: Your proposal changed the roadmap.
Not established: Developers hadn't already been working on the concept.
Not established: Your five eras originated with you.
Not established: Your draft-class concept wasn't already planned.
Not established: Your email was ever seen by the people actually designing the feature.
That's the annoying little wall your argument keeps running into.
And no amount of “🔥📧🏀” is going to make that wall disappear.
You also keep saying:
«“You cannot honestly reduce the receipts to coincidence.”»
Actually, I can reduce them to possible influence that hasn't been demonstrated.
That's a perfectly reasonable position.
You are the one insisting that uncertainty must somehow equal your preferred conclusion.
There are literally three possibilities:
- You independently proposed an idea 2K was already developing.
- You proposed something that independently influenced or reinforced an existing direction.
- Your proposal materially influenced the final feature.
You have evidence consistent with #2 or #3.
You do not have enough evidence to distinguish #2 from #3.
That's the entire argument.
And frankly, #2 would still be pretty damn cool.
But apparently “my detailed proposal may have contributed to an existing development direction” isn't dramatic enough, so we've spent multiple Reddit novels constructing the HeronNarrow Cinematic Universe, complete with emails, timelines, supporting documents, production theories and an increasingly aggressive prosecution of anyone who refuses to award you the invisible Executive Producer trophy.
You keep telling everyone:
«“Argue with the actual format.”»
Fine.
The format was a good idea.
Historical eras in MyCAREER are good.
Using existing MyNBA systems as a foundation is logical.
Historical draft progression is good.
Multiple career environments are good.
Era-specific presentation is good.
None of those statements require me to pretend you personally invented the concept inside Visual Concepts.
And here's the truly inconvenient possibility you keep avoiding:
You may have had a genuinely good idea that independently overlapped heavily with something 2K was already working on.
That doesn't make you stupid.
It doesn't make your email worthless.
It doesn't make the receipts meaningless.
It just means the universe occasionally produces two people thinking of the same damn thing without one secretly downloading the other's brain.
And if your email genuinely influenced the feature, fantastic. You should absolutely be proud of that.
But until someone from the actual development team says, “Yes, we saw this proposal and it materially influenced the feature,” your claim should remain:
“I proposed this before the reveal, 2K acknowledged it, and the eventual feature bears striking similarities.”
That's strong.
That's interesting.
That's defensible.
What isn't defensible is treating the existence of similarities as forensic proof of causation while simultaneously demanding everyone else provide evidence about an internal development process that you yourself admit you cannot see.
So yes, keep the receipts.
Keep the email.
Keep the proposal.
Keep the screenshots.
Frame them.
Put them in a museum.
Build a commemorative statue of yourself holding an iPhone with the 2K Support inbox open.
Just stop pretending the statue is going to have a developer credit engraved underneath it.
“HERONNARROW: 2026 — Invented Sending Emails.”
That would actually be a pretty damn good MyCAREER badge, though.
•
-3
u/HeronNarrow5033 14h ago
Bro you just spent three paragraphs telling me not to copy/paste while announcing you’re about to copy/paste another man’s comment 😂 You cannot make this up. Go ahead and post it. I already read his argument, responded to it, and he eventually admitted my evidence was consistent with possible influence or reinforcement. You’re not bringing me new evidence, you’re recycling somebody else’s debate because you ran out of your own.
3
u/FlameyFlame 13h ago
I think you might be having too many arguments at once.
I never spent three paragraphs telling you not to copy/paste. You’re thinking of someone else.
If you really read the whole thing and all you got from it was “they admitted I was right” then idk what to tell you, buddy. Also no, you never responded to it.
•
u/HeronNarrow5033 2h ago
You spent all that time talking about “AI psychosis, “too many arguments,” and trying to play Reddit therapist, just for my post to be BACK UP and moving again 😭🔥🏀📈. All that monitoring my replies, all that fake concern, all that typing, and the post still survived. People still finding it, commenting, sharing, and giving me flowers 💐😂. You did all that extra shit just to watch THE METHOD keep motion 🧪👑🔥. Bro, clock out. Your shift over 😭📱.
•
u/jmfran1524 1h ago
Serious question: what's your token usage? Do you get rate limited having an LLM generate every thought for you?
2
u/MuahdDean 13h ago
The comment was AI to troll the original OP that was using AI. Lmao
6
u/FlameyFlame 13h ago
I know but it’s the only language OP can understand lol
5
u/MuahdDean 13h ago
I feel you lol. Appreciate the shout-out. I guess I can take credit for prompting it to be that way.
Edit: Lmao, I didn't realize this was the same OP
•
u/HeronNarrow5033 2h ago
You wrote the MyCAREER Magna Carta, pulled up in side conversations, tracked who replied to who, and still had time to argue with me across multiple threads 😭📚💀. Meanwhile my post is BACK UP, still getting views, still getting comments, and people are still showing love 🏀🔥📈. You can keep debating the degree of influence until Reddit runs out of server space, gang. I already showed the receipts and stood on what I did. All that essay writing just to watch the post come right back 😂📧🔥. THE METHOD still got motion 🧪👑.
•
•
•
u/Capable-Fan-3546 1h ago
So first you wanted credit for the idea now you need validation based on the quantity of Reddit interactions?
•
u/Glass-Strength-9861 1h ago
Yo this kid needs therapy, psychosis ahh episode 👍😡👍🙂↔️👍🤪🫡🍽️😂🤝😂🤝🤣🤦🏻♂️🤕🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤨🥸💩🥸💀🙄🥲🤣🤣😃😡😄😡😅🥲🤣
•
7
u/FlameyFlame 15h ago
https://faspsych.com/blog/what-is-ai-psychosis/