The Real Problem with Parsers

[Aiselia]

If I did 550 instead, do you honestly think I'd get kicked?

Depends who you're grouping with. For example, from the first page of this very thread:

If i queu for a lvl 60 dungeon and someone with similar gear is pulling 500dps while i pull 1.4k, ill kick them

Yes, in that case you would.

Because they've used the justification before for tells in dungeons even though it appears to have zero effect.

Whether or not it appears to have zero effect is irrelevant because you don't have a comparison of what the situation currently would be otherwise. I mean, let's think about this carefully here.

Present situation: Cannot send tells in DF because it might lead to harassment in private. Some people still harass in public.
Assumption: Some people bite their tongue because they don't want to look like a jerk to the entire group because THEY might be kicked instead.
Potential abuse situation: Someone harasses someone else in public, leaving it up to the group to decide who should be kicked, the jerk or the target.

Now let's think about this hypothetical situation in which you can send tells.

Hypothetical situation: Can send tells in DF.
Logical assumption: The people who harass in public are clearly not going to suddenly become nicer. They will either continue to harass in public or just take it to tells.
Assumption: People who bit their tongue to avoid harassing in public now have a private forum to harass.
Obvious statement: You cannot see who's being harassed in tells, which means you have no clue who is being harassed and, most importantly, have no evidence.
Potential abuse situation: Someone wants someone kicked, complains that they're being harassed in tells. Group believes them, kick target gets kicked because the person lied.
Other potential abuse situation: Someone IS getting harassed in tells, complains to group. Group tells them they're a whiner and kicks them.
Other potential abuse situation: Someone is getting harassed in tells, complains to group. Harasser lies and says that the person is lying. Group believes harasser, ignores or kicks the person getting harassed.

I don't think it's particularly arguable which is more easily abused.

Does literally every sentence you make have to be directly in support of your argument

If you're responding to a point with something, then yeah, preferably it'd be nice to have that response have a point.

Because PS3/PS4 players having to rely on others in order to just see their DPS numbers isn't a type of suffering.

An incredibly, incredibly weak form of suffering, I suppose. However, there are PS3/PS4 players perfectly happy without being able to see their DPS numbers, which means it's also not objective suffering. It's self-inflicted suffering.

I'm guessing other servers have better things to do with their blacklists.

It's an option. Of course, if they took reasonable steps to prevent RMT spamming, that'd make the blacklist cleaner, but that's a different subject.

So people aren't worth helping if they don't help themselves? Very altruistic of you.

Like I said, if they're new, I'll try to help. If they're loaded with 50s, it's either willful ignorance or apathy, and it's not worth the time trying to break through that.

But you said it was the hardest content. ... That means you technically put Bismark Ex over, say, A4S.

It's part of the higher tiers of content, evidenced by the stricter DPS necessities and harder mechanics. I didn't say anything about it being harder than A4S. What I did say was maybe people shouldn't try to do the hardest content with random people. That includes Savage, not excludes.

Heck, it's something some people could do at work.

Still runs on the assumption that it's accurate and objective, which, obviously, what is considered harassment by any specific person is not objective.

That's how stagnation happens.

Objective performance of a class is irrelevant to their subjective decision of what are unacceptable projections of elitism.

[Viridiana]

Assumption: Some people bite their tongue because they don't want to look like a jerk to the entire group because THEY might be kicked instead.

So when I make assumptions, they're bad, but when you do it they're cool. Gotcha.

[Aiselia]

So when I make assumptions, they're bad, but when you do it they're cool. Gotcha.

I was waiting for an edit. Is that it?

I didn't say assumptions were bad. I said that they're not objective proof and that your idea of having SE give you numbers based on an assumption wouldn't actually prove anything. And I wasn't using my assumption as objective proof, but as a logical expectation.

I mean, technically what you quoted isn't an assumption at all (except the possible reasoning being that they fear they might be the ones kicked) because I know that there are people who don't say anything in group chat because they don't want to look like a jerk in the whole group.

This game should have a built in private damage meter.

I agree.

[Viridiana]

I was waiting for an edit. Is that it?
...
I mean, technically what you quoted isn't an assumption at all (except the possible reasoning being that they fear they might be the ones kicked) because I know that there are people who don't say anything in group chat because they don't want to look like a jerk in the whole group.

Yeah. This argument is getting boring, and I'm usually pretty willing to spin my wheels in circles for the sake of debate. Also, in case we ever get in a super-fun discussion again, I usually just post "edit incoming" and then paste in my full post. So if you see something shorter than that, there probably isn't more coming.

But anyway, you have anecdotal evidence that people don't want to be perceived as a jerk, but not objective evidence that what they're choosing not to say would actually be harassment.

[Aiselia]

Yeah. This argument is getting boring

But... but... now the pages of this thread will be so short even with the same amount of posts! The scroll bar for the page will actually be allowed to grow larger than a sliver! Who will suppress the scroll bar from growing too large?!?

But anyway, you have anecdotal evidence that people don't want to be perceived as a jerk, but not objective evidence that what they're choosing not to say would actually be harassment.

Yeah, didn't say it was objective harassment, just that they wouldn't want to look like they were to the whole group.

It goes to the whole "scale of effect" thing. SE came to the conclusion that disabling tells but leaving in chat had more benefits to outweigh potential abuse, and they came to the entirely separate conclusion that the benefits of having a built-in party-visible parser doesn't outweigh potential abuse. They're just two different scales is all.

[Viridiana]

Who will suppress the scroll bar from growing too large?!?

How's the old poem go? "To you from failing hands we throw/The torch; be yours to hold it high." Someone else must take up arms against the villainous scroll bar.

Anyway, we both seem to be agreed that parsers would be groovy if they didn't come with a side order of jerks. We just disagree about how many jerks there would be and how many jerks is too many.