WTF WHMs?

[kujowaltz]

You should still consider in stun and such as factors. ....

That is a very valid crowd control point that should be considered....but not when talking about cold hard DPS. Binding targets for AoE or sleeping a running target from a monk is not DPS, but you are right, it does affect it (but that is obvious). Let me refocus you on my initial suggestion/comment on the topic; it was suggested that holy was a better "damage" spell than stone 2. I said in a single target instance, stone 2 is actually more effective - the math is there and so are my parameters. Considering a WHM, acting as a DPS member of the party, on a single target, stone 2 is more effective.

[kujowaltz]

Any DPS theorycraft never takes effects into account. You will never hear any BLM talk about fitting a sleep spell into a burn phase - you will never hear a monk talk about weaving stun or slow into their combo because it may help out the party's overall DPS. Because in order to actually quantify the affects on party DPS, you need to consider party stats, positions, personal rotations, where each DPS member is in their rotation at the time of infliction, etc.) and contrast both cases.

You can easily make the same argument that if you stop caring about status effects and focus on stone2 (which is calculated to be a more effective DPS spell), you will kill the mob sooner and that means the tank will also take less damage and decrease your need to heal.

Effects are situational matters reserved for specific fights/scenarios. Their effect on CC is definite, but difficult to quantify for party DPS (which wasn't considered). Please try to understand the scope of a post before faulting it.

[ariaandkia]

That is a very valid crowd control point that should be considered....but not when talking about cold hard DPS. Binding targets for AoE or sleeping a running target from a monk is not DPS, but you are right, it does affect it (but that is obvious). Let me refocus you on my initial suggestion/comment on the topic; it was suggested that holy was a better "damage" spell than stone 2. I said in a single target instance, stone 2 is actually more effective - the math is there and so are my parameters. Considering a WHM, acting as a DPS member of the party, on a single target, stone 2 is more effective.

Maybe I'm odd, but I don't see Cold hard DPS in that way. I think of it like this. Lancer uses piercing resistance debuff on enemy with 3 bards. The bards now have higher damage. I count that extra damage as the Lancer's damage, not as the bards' damage.

[kujowaltz]

Lancer uses piercing resistance debuff on enemy with 3 bards. The bards now have higher damage.

That is an instance of a noteworthy increase to party DPS but a random stun doesn't nearly have the same affect on party DPS as a debuff.

You open burn phases with debuffs and cooldowns (this is where you set up your party, like you mentioned). Then you burn. And in that instance, if a WHM were to theoretically burn for some reason, they should spam stone 2 instead of holy because over a reasonable period of time, you get more out of it. If you start worrying about helping the tank you suddenly shift to a healer mind frame again. You can't do two things optimally at once. If you want to support the tank and do some decent dps, holy. If the tank and party will be fine, and you can burn, use stone 2 for optimal dps.