The Real Problem with Parsers

[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.

[Malevicton]

I edited some sources into my last post, btw.

[Aiselia]

It's false unless proven otherwise.

Fine, whatever you want. It still has no bearing on my personal position, so it doesn't really matter to me. Congratulations for being the first person in 45 pages to even think outside the box, though.

I edited some sources into my last post, btw.

Yeah, but you're done.

[Lyrica_Ashtine]

Yeah, but you're done.

He may be done, but he did disprove the whole argument of "harassment potential Square-Enix thinks". So he at least deserves some commendation for looking up a source, even if it's a bit old. So with my previous post: It's false as proven by Malevicton's post.

[Aiselia]

He may be done, but he did disprove the whole argument of "harassment potential Square-Enix thinks". So he at least deserves some commendation for looking up a source, even if it's a bit old. So with my previous post: It's false as proven by Malevicton's post.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Those two sources do not prove a negative, they just don't prove a positive.

And that's all that really needs be said on that subject. I already admitted that I don't have any sources available.

[Leonus]

There is nothing wrong with using parsers, it's how people use parsers that scare people.

It's similar to the gun issue in the U.S., but not to the extreme.

[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.

[Whiteroom]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Those two sources do not prove a negative, they just don't prove a positive.

And that's all that really needs be said on that subject. I already admitted that I don't have any sources available.

But given that you made the claim, the onus is on you to prove it. You can't make a claim up and then say others have to disprove it. Even when faced with evidence to the contrary, you are still clutching at it.

You know what, I heard somewhere that parsers make everyone super friendly and they hug after clearing content, and flowers grow where the boss died. At least thats what SE believes, or so I think I may have read somewhere. I can't provide the source, but now it must be considered while discussing parsers, since it can't be disproven.

[Aiselia]

And no, as pointed out by others "Doesn't create extra Jerks" is not a clear stance.

Actually, it is, if you're not trying to argue semantics. Anyone objectively looking at it should be able to tell that I mean that as long as it doesn't increase harassment, I don't have any problems with it. It's a lot easier to understand my position if you keep it in mind throughout everything I say, rather than just picking one quote and picking apart the words.

Heres a benefit to parsers,

You don't need a parser to tell someone's damage is really low because they're using a Novus weapon rather than a current weapon. I can look at the threat meter and then examine their gear and do the same thing. Heck, I have done that before because I frequently check the threat meters and if I see something like I'm beating a DRG while I'm on a BRD, I check their gear to see if it's because they're just lower geared.

That being said, as a tank, I also tend to check peoples' gear before doing anything just to see what I'm dealing with to know what to expect, especially when it comes to whether or not I should use Defiance or Deliverance. If someone is wearing way better gear than my tank, I'm not going to risk Deliverance as much because they could pull it off easier. And yes, I also do it with healers to know whether I should try big pulls or smaller.

But given that you made the claim, the onus is on you to prove it.

I didn't make the claim. I followed a claim other people made. I already said I don't have official sources.

You can't make a claim up and then say others have to disprove it.

I didn't say they had to disprove it. I said that what he posted doesn't prove it wrong just because it doesn't mention it.

Even when faced with evidence to the contrary, you are still clutching at it.

I'm not clutching at anything. I already said that what their stance is is irrelevant to my own position so I don't really care.

[Tsilyi]

MNK is using i110 Novus for light points.

Not to take a side in this argument as I don't care all that much whether parsers become sanctioned or not... but you can tell the difference between law and partially eso/alex geared players pretty easily even without a parser so I don't see how you would need a parser to notice someone using an i110 weapon in lvl 60 expert content was doing less dps than your average player.