So people with medical issues are automatically incapable of improving. Again, that's just repeating what you said. I don't think it's gonna win you any friends to say that, though. I mean, I tried giving you the benefit ouf the doubt, but you've now doubled down on this idea.
Because it requires Eso gear to get Eso, right? Especially once the new tomestones come out and Eso gets moved to uncapped?
Maybe it was just your phrasing in your last post, but I couldn't make heads or tails of what you were saying. Rephrased here, though, yes, that's somewhat reasonable.
You don't need to assert a crime rate, because crime rates have already been studied and established. Defering to actual established set of data is reasonable. Bringing up hypothetical data that might prove your point and then asserting that your point is proven is not reasonable.
That's not their current stance at all. Their current stance is "you can use parsers, and you can talk about dps, but you can't mention dps numbers."
Because as it stands they're fear mongering. They're asserting that the players should be afraid of harassment without ever establishing that harassment is a product of parsing. And no, those of us saying that we wish we could call people out for their low DPS are not advocating harassment. As it stands, we're reluctant to give anyone advice no matter how badly they need it because this player base has an astonishing number of people who can't take criticism and will try to report you for saying they can't do their job.
Seriously? Do you not understand hyperbole?
Premaking all my parties is giving up on the enterprise of using DF. So that is actually what you're advocating.
The analogy works just fine, because I've never heard of a bank saying "Well, guess we're never giving out a loan ever again!" Which is basically what I would be doing if I followed your advice and never stepped foot in DF again.
Use the option of not trusting anybody outside my inner circle. Got it. I think you'd make a grand conspiracy theorist, btw.
That increasing the number of venues by which one can learn to be a better player is a good thing. Your point seems to be "People suck, so stop playing with them."
I wish I could join all your groups just to drag them out until the boss is about to enrage. >_>
Either the DPS are failing at cannons, in which case it's a DPS problem, or tanks and healers are on the cannons, in which case it's a very serious DPS problem. Again, not doing yourself any favors with this argument.
None of this argument has been limited to the current state of the game. Maybe in your head it has been, but I'm fairly sure no one else has been limiting their scope to only patch 3.07. If you really insist, though, how about groups failing at the DPS checks in Bismark and Ravana--sometimes in story mode, even. Or having seen the enrage in A1N. Because that's a thing that should be happening, right?
Voice chat isn't needed for success, either. Yet having and discussing voice chat doesn't get you banned, even though you can be harassed over voice chat. Having a chat pane isn't necessary to clear Savage either. Yet we have that even though it's been used for just tons and tons of harassment.
Pardon me for not recording random Titan runs and keeping the video around for a year and a half to use as evidence in an argument. Guess you'll have to take solace in the fact that at least I'm not blindly asserting that my memory is perfect.
So, we can only assign blame to one person if everyone else is playing perfectly, then. That's what you're saying. You do know that it's possible to put primary responsibility on one person while still acknowledging that other people have contributed, right?
But let's say we have a party where everyone but one person truly is playing perfectly, and that one person is dragging the party down to the point that they can't complete the content. Can we call that person out? Current stance is that we can, but we aren't allowed to use numbers. Of course, without numbers just saying "You're bad" is pretty useless.
But you already have evidence that someone might rob your house. Seriously, there's a reason that when my parents' and grandparents' generations talk about the good ole days being better their first example tends to be that you didn't have to lock your door at night.
I notice that you keep trying to make "call someone out on their DPS numbers" synonymous with "harass someone for their DPS." They aren't synonyms, and trying to use them as such is dishonest.
"Hey, I noticed that you're doing a couple hundred DPS less than you could be with that gear. I main that class and could offer advice if you want it."
"Dude, the DPS here sucks and we keep wiping. Just vote abandon so I don't have to take a 30 minute penalty."
Which of those is more constructive? Which one will get you banned under the current policy? Hint: Both questions have the same answer.
Yes, because without being able to tell people just what their DPS is numerically, you aren't going to get very far helping people. Again, "calling people out on their DPS numbers" is not the same as "harassing people over their DPS numbers." Oh, and, as an aside, we aren't allowed to discuss sensitive matters like people's performance in a dungeon through private messages, because SE is worried that allowing tells in dungeons will lead to harassment. Even though having to harass people in /p doesn't seem to dissuade people.
Or, y'know, they're concerned about the disparity between PC capabilities and PS3/PS4 capabilities in a game that strives to have an even playing field between the three. And yes, pretty much everyone arguing in favor of parsers is arguing in favor of being able to discuss the numbers those parsers give us. Discussing those numbers does not automatically constitute harassment, though.
Gathering evidence for a hypothesis is an unrealistic expectation. My mind boggles that you would say that. Have you heard of this thing called the scientific method? I suspect you have, because you're about to argue that I should be using it; but I almost doubt it, because you're telling me that gathering evidence for a hypothesis is unrealistic.
This smear campaign you're running against the idea of using actual numbers is seriously troubling.
A lot of us are saying "This person was absolute crap but I bit my tongue because even mentioning DPS obliquely leads to the possibility of a ban, regardless of whether I needed a parser in this case or not." We're asking to be able to say "Hey, your DPS is objectively less than the WHM's; do you need help with that?" or "I noticed the parser isn't showing you attacking the add at all, and the add is wiping us. Are you not noticing the add, or is my parser messing up?" or "Okay, the parser shows that you only have about 95% accuracy, so you should probably boost your Acc some."
If I were in a position to be even remotely able to prove it, I would. From where I'm standing, I would need the following information:
1) How many active PC users are there?
2) How many of them routinely parse?
3) How many of them say they would parse if parsing were okay?
4) How many tickets does SE get related to parsing?
5) How many tickets does SE get about harassment unrelated to parsing?
6) How many active PS3/PS4 players are there?
7) Assumption: How many people would change their behavior to a harassive one if parsing were okay?
8) Assumption: What percentage of harassment incidents go unreported?
I can't possibly get any of that information (aside from points 7 and 8) without breaking several laws in the process. I need to know how many active PC users there are and how many actively parse so that I can know what percentage of active parsers get reported for harassment related to parsing and what percentage of harassment that makes. Then I need to know how many new parsers would be added when an official parser became available so that I could assess how many people newly able (or willing, in the PC cases) to parse I could expect to harass people. Finally, I would need to make assumptions about behaviour change and about unreported cases. The former to try to more accurately assess the potential increase in workload, and the latter to try to more accurately assess the actual community the game has developed.
Needless to say, I have none of that information and can't get it without petitioning SE for numbers I don't think they'd be willing to share. Meanwhile SE has 1, 4, 5, and 6. They could get, if they wanted, 2 and 3. Either side would have to assume 7 and 8.