The Real Problem with Parsers

[Lyrica_Ashtine]

Since you've brought up Square Enix's line of thought again, where are your sources on this?

[Aiselia]

Since you've brought up Square Enix's line of thought again, where are your sources on this?

Sources on what, exactly? That they don't want people to be jerks to each other over it?

That position isn't really specific. There are a lot of vague qualifiers (like "as long as they don't create extra jerks")

"As long as they don't create extra jerks" isn't vague at all.

I accept your apology, though, for incorrectly and rudely asserting that I've avoided stating any position despite the fact that I stated my position in a post that you quoted immediately after. It's okay, people miss things in posts sometimes when they're skimming. It was a long post, after all.

[Lyrica_Ashtine]

Sources on what, exactly? That they don't want people to be jerks to each other over it?

Your claims about what Square-Enix thinks, what Square-Enix is expecting and their reasoning/stand on parsers. As you're saying "Square-Enix this and that" here and there, it's either:
1) You have sources of interviews where a representative made statements on Square-Enix's behalf
or
2) You are making statements on Square-Enix's behalf

Unless you have sources, number two would apply. And unless you're an officially appointed representative of Square-Enix, I do believe impersonating one's a breach of their ToS.

[Aiselia]

Your claims about what Square-Enix thinks, what Square-Enix is expecting and their reasoning/stand on parsers.

To answer your question regarding sources, I don't have any. Fair enough, most of that is based on what I've seen others state their position is, as well as logical deduction based on what they do and don't take action on. I've never really cared enough to look it up if it's true.

I do believe impersonating one's a breach of their ToS.

And since I've never claimed to be one, I'm perfectly safe. Stating what you believe to be one's position, whether it is or isn't, is not the same thing as pretending to be someone else.

[Lyrica_Ashtine]

To answer your question regarding sources, I don't have any. Fair enough, most of that is based on what I've seen others state their position is. I've never really cared enough to look it up if it's true.


And since I've never claimed to be one, I'm perfectly safe. Stating what you believe to be one's position, whether it is or isn't, is not the same thing as pretending to be someone else.

You've been using those claims to sustain your arguments, however. So by this, whatever stance you had on the last 7 pages or more is void. Unless you believe the arguments you have about "Square-Enix this and that" are to be considered true

[Aiselia]

So by this, whatever stance you had on the last 7 pages or more is void.

My stance isn't, since my personal stance still has little to do with what is or isn't SE's stance.

What I've stated I believe SE's stance to be may be. Like I said, I don't have any sources, but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true. Only SE can confirm that. I dunno, I assume that the idea they had that stance had to come from somewhere.

[Lyrica_Ashtine]

My stance isn't, since my personal stance still has little to do with what is or isn't SE's stance.

What I've stated I believe SE's stance to be may be. Like I said, I don't have any sources, but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true. Only SE can confirm that. I dunno, I assume that the idea they had that stance had to come from somewhere.

You're practically doing the same thing as what hippies are claiming about vaccination right now. Unless you can prove it that your words are actually what Square-Enix intentions are, you can't claim the potential for it to be true either. It's false unless proven otherwise.

[Whiteroom]

I assume that the idea they had that stance had to come from somewhere.

Other fearmongers. It was noice that you used it as back up for your stance though. And no, as pointed out by others "Doesn't create extra Jerks" is not a clear stance. Do you mean one extra jerk? Whats an acceptable amount? How do you know the person wasn't a jerk before? Maybe they were always a jerk about performace, now they can just apply a number to it.

Heres a benefit to parsers, Duty roulette expert the other day, SMN in my group noticed MNKs dps is low on first pull Neverreap. MNK is using i110 Novus for light points. Realistically you should have around at least i148, a big dps jump. Asked about it, the MNK responds they are grinding Novus light...

MNK is then informed that not only do you not recieve light in post 50 content, but that you also only need the weapon equiped for the las boss to recive it in the instances that award it. They are fine with the info, thank the SMN, and switch to a i170 weapon.

Now did the parser make the SMN a jerk because he used it to question someones dps? Or maybe the person who was intentionally handicapping the group by a large amout a jerk. It's pretty assinie to bring that low of a weapon, into that content, just for a small light bonus. Even if it did provide light, the amout of extra time the run would take could have bee used to get much more light at the appropriate level.

Also in agreement with an earlier post, that in any content, one person willfully under performing is wasting the total quantity of the other peoples time.