Tank dps harrasment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarteck

I'm not sure you know what "burden of proof" is.

If you are making a claim, you are the one that has to support it.

---

You were the one who made the claim in the first place that no one would fire or refuse to hire someone because of an embarrassing or disgusting picture. Saying you disagreed with the mentality regarding FFlogs because it would not happen in another instance.

So yes, the burden of proof actually does lie with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oscura

You were the one who made the claim in the first place that no one would fire or refuse to hire someone because of an embarrassing or disgusting picture. Saying you disagreed with the mentality regarding FFlogs because it would not happen in another instance.

So yes, the burden of proof actually does lie with you.

---

Oh really now?

So I have to post the company policies of every company in existence and let you comb through them all, versus you having to show me one?

No, that's NOT how "burden of proof" works.

EDIT: Unless you're telling me taht I can just go and show you any company that does not have this fictional policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarteck

See post above. You guys are great at proving my point for me--you're willing to base everything off this fictional situation based on those few images.

---

Ill prove it, when I do I want you to prove your own statement. And if you can't, you just going to look very sorry in front of everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarteck

snip

---

Analogies aside, FFlogs is not out-of-context when used properly. If a hardcore static wants specific members, they have every right to screen however they fancy. The same applies to PF, who are premade groups. If they want to impose a "bikini or kick" rule, they can. You don't have to like it but they aren't going to care one way or another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarteck

Oh really now?

So I have to post the company policies of every company in existence and let you comb through them all, versus you having to show me one?

No, that's NOT how "burden of proof" works.

EDIT: Unless you're telling me taht I can just go and show you any company that does not have this fictional policy.

---

People are arguing that it happens, and you are saying that it doesn't. You were the one who brought it up, it had not been brought up prior. You're the one who made a claim you couldn't prove without having to go through the "policy of every company in existence," not us. You brought it upon yourself. No one has any reason to believe your viewpoint unless you back it up with facts, and since you made such a general, blanket statement about how it would never happen, it is functionally impossible for you to do so.

Like someone said, stop digging yourself into a deeper hole than you are already in. I'm also sick of being constantly alerted to this thread being updated because of such a meaningless argument. We get it, you don't like FFlogs. There is literally no endgame and nothing to accomplish by continuing down this path aside from puzzling or disappointing onlookers. When you found you couldn't find common ground with people who told you that it's the right of others to look at your logs, or whatever, you should've realized you will never change their minds, and you cannot "prove them wrong," as it is purely opinion.

Even if someone could post an example of where someone is fired for your example, it does not change the fact that you do not like people seeing information you are not readily giving out, and that is your right. There is no need to "prove" anything, and you don't need to "concede" either. This entire argument is opinionated, there is no right or wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourne_Endeavor

Analogies aside, FFlogs is not out-of-context when used properly. If a hardcore static wants specific members, they have every right to screen however they fancy. The same applies to PF, who are premade groups. If they want to impose a "bikini or kick" rule, they can. You don't have to like it but they aren't going to care one way or another.

---

Fair enough, you're right on all of that. I have no argument at all with that. I'm talking about those that do just look up, say "oh you're grey, buhbye," and that's the end-all-be-all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarteck

Oh really now?

So I have to post the company policies of every company in existence and let you comb through them all, versus you having to show me one?

No, that's NOT how "burden of proof" works.

EDIT: Unless you're telling me taht I can just go and show you any company that does not have this fictional policy.

---

Actually, in epistemology the burden of proof lies with the claimant, regardless of whether its the positive or negative claim. You raised the analogy that companies do not check social media profiles and make decisions based on the information. You have the burden of proof in this regard

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-friend.html Just an example. I can dig even more if you want.. You honestly think a boss wants someone to be hired at his or her company, when one of their emplooyers keep being a drunk head during weekend and look like shit on mondays? Really? There is tons of things you can get fired from and you have yet to prove compies woulnd't so we are all waiting on you :) Please show us proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oscura

We don't have to prove anything! It's up to you to disprove us, though we've provided no evidence to disprove.

---

Kay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oscura

I hate getting notifications!

---

Unsubscribe to thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oscura

Even if someone could post an example of where someone is fired for your example, it does not change the fact that you do not like people seeing information you are not readily giving out, and that is your right. There is no need to "prove" anything, and you don't need to "concede" either. This entire argument is opinionated, there is no right or wrong.

---

Pretty much agreed, actually. I'm just irked right now over people not knowing what "burden of proof" entails.

Reminds me of my first dungeon as a DRK. I was still getting used to the skills.
I never lost hate, never died, and I thought we were moving at a good pace.

But after the 2nd boss, two of the players, who I assumed join together, randomly said "Sorry" and left at the same time. The healer, who stayed, was like "What!? Why did they leave??"
I'm assuming it was because I was in my tank stance the entire time.
I never knew I should switch in an out. After that I asked around to find out why they would leave, and found out I should have not been using my tank stance. /shrug

Still, two new DPS joined right away, we finished without incident, and I got 2 player comms.