Why are low standards for dps acceptable?

[Iagainsti]

This does actually happen though. There are quite a few bots grinding esos in 60 dungeons hoping no one will notice

Confirmation Bias. I'd love to see the proof of this if you can provide, otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

[Kaurie]

Yes, so many bots will drudge throught the msq to unlock heavensward so they can ice mage their way through Fractal #keepDreamin'

I am not sure why you think that bots would not have access to Fractals. However, no where in this thread did it suggest the BLM in question was using only ice spells, so your ice mage remark doesn't really apply. It merely characterizes your response as hyperbolic.

Nope, a loaded question is a inquiry put forth with an unjustified presumption iirc, perspective is irrelevant, unless we account the perspective of the Inquirer. If we do cater to that logic, the OP can't distinguish between an uneducated player and a preprogrammed avatar, and was snide in his narrow minded view.

You replied saying that a loaded question is not based in perspective, and then state that a loaded question requires an unjustified presumption. Whether something is justified or not is definitely a matter of perspective. Justified definition as supplied by google: "having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason." Whether something is good or legitimate is a matter of perspective. We can continue down the definition train, but I feel that it's rather obvious.

So to continue on with the second half of your point, the OP could not distinguish between the two. The best way to distinguish between an uneducated player and a bot is through communication. Up until that point, presumably, there was 0 communication. So all the OP understood was that the player wasn't using a complex rotation (which could be a trait of either an uneducated player, a poor player or a bot) and had not spoken. Therefore, from my perspective (and from many others in this thread), it was a completely legitimate and justified presumption.

Confirmation Bias. I'd love to see the proof of this if you can provide, otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

I am not sure if you know what confirmation bias is. As defined, again searched by google, "in psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors."

The person you quoted merely said (what they believe to be) a fact and didn't provide any evidence or any information that could be confirmation bias. They simply made a statement which they believe to be true. For example, I could say that 'all dogs are male'. This is just a statement and there was no confirmation bias present. If I were to say, "I saw 5 dogs today and they each had a penis; therefore, all dogs are male." That would be confirmation bias. In the context of bots, if the person you quoted said, "I saw someone using only a 50's BLM rotation and never spoke, so bots do exist." That would be confirmation bias. Ironically, in this you are applying an unjustified presumption upon the person you quoted.

[Iagainsti]

Rhetoric.

My response was Satirical, not in the domain of Hyperbole, get your Literary Devices in proper order.

I view presumption as a rhetorical construct--that is, it is a predisposition of the audience toward a claim that a debater makes. So, if an affirmative case (its significance, inherency, plan, whatever) makes an argument with which the critic agrees--then the affirmative case has the presumption. If an affirmative case makes an argument with which the critic disagrees, then the negative position has presumption. So the OP, with no proof to the fact that a Bot would be running Fractal with him/her, to word the question as such instead of something more passive, makes perspective irrelevant.

While I do agree that your example of Confirmation Bias is correct, I would argue that the original statement I quoted is also Confirmation Bias.

He [Peter Cathcart Wason] also coined the term ``confirmation bias'' to describe the tendency for people to immediately favor information that validates their preconceptions, hypotheses and personal beliefs regardless of whether they are true or not.

Without any proof to establish that a bot would be running Fractal, and the many posts before and afterwards stating the same without and clear proof to the statement would be confirmation bias. The Irony you speak of is lost on me, since I did not form any statement into a loaded question, nor did I presume any judgement on the speaker, I just requested proof with a side of satire.

#ThisGirl

[Seryl199]

My response was Satirical, not in the domain of Hyperbole, get your Literary Devices in proper order.

This thread is just chock full of arguing over semantics, parsing the OP's text, and picking apart each other's interpretations of the events. If you meet an underperformer (any role, not singling DPS out here), you can speak up, kick, carry, or leave. It doesn't matter why they're underperforming, or how you feel about it, those are your only options. State your piece or pick your action and move on, every DF group is as simple as that.

[Iagainsti]

This thread is just chock full of arguing over semantics, parsing the OP's text, and picking apart each other's interpretations of the events. If you meet an underperformer (any role, not singling DPS out here), you can speak up, kick, carry, or leave. It doesn't matter why they're underperforming, or how you feel about it, those are your only options. State your piece or pick your action and move on, every DF group is as simple as that.

I wholly concur, but I stll have to agree that the OP was being Facetious without merit and that he should've just left or finished the run without said comment seeing how it got him kicked anyway.

[Andrea]

I wholly concur, but I stll have to agree that the OP was being Facetious without merit and that he should've just left or finished the run without said comment seeing how it got him kicked anyway.

Meh, the BLM was being lazy, the Op had every right to ask why she was being lazy. Not agreeing with the way he asked but still feel he has a right to ask why she was being lazy.

[Iagainsti]

Meh, the BLM was being lazy, the Op had every right to ask why she was being lazy. Not agreeing with the way he asked but still feel he has a right to ask why she was being lazy.

Or misinformed and didn't understand the abilities, which is possible. Either way the right to ask was trumped by the line of questioning, apparent in the screenshot.

[Kaurie]

My response was Satirical, not in the domain of Hyperbole, get your Literary Devices in proper order.

I view presumption as a rhetorical construct--that is, it is a predisposition of the audience toward a claim that a debater makes. So, if an affirmative case (its significance, inherency, plan, whatever) makes an argument with which the critic agrees--then the affirmative case has the presumption. If an affirmative case makes an argument with which the critic disagrees, then the negative position has presumption. So the OP, with no proof to the fact that a Bot would be running Fractal with him/her, to word the question as such instead of something more passive, makes perspective irrelevant.

While I do agree that your example of Confirmation Bias is correct, I would argue that the original statement I quoted is also Confirmation Bias.

He [Peter Cathcart Wason] also coined the term ``confirmation bias'' to describe the tendency for people to immediately favor information that validates their preconceptions, hypotheses and personal beliefs regardless of whether they are true or not.

Without any proof to establish that a bot would be running Fractal, and the many posts before and afterwards stating the same without and clear proof to the statement would be confirmation bias. The Irony you speak of is lost on me, since I did not form any statement into a loaded question, nor did I presume any judgement on the speaker, I just requested proof with a side of satire.

#ThisGirl

Somehow I missed your response here. Personally, I'd rather we both use more simple language, given the nature of this thread and medium.

Few things in response,

1. I am a guy Though, i do play a female character, so just clarifying.

2. I am sorry for starting out with "This Guy" it was a rather disrespectful opener. I've edited it out of my original post.

3. I don't entirely get your argument of why perspective is irrelevant. I feel that it is relevant, because different perspectives change how we receive information. This can most easily be seen when looking at different cultures around the world and how they view different things. For example, if you were to tip a waiter in Japan/China, it would be viewed as offensive; whereas, if you don't tip a water in the USA it is viewed as offensive. Your personal history and experiences frame your perspective on the world, which in turn affects how things are received. This is why whether a question or not is loaded is fully based on perspective.

4. I still fully disagree with your thoughts on confirmation bias. The poster may have exhibited confirmation bias to come to their conclusion (to which we do not know), but the conclusion itself is not confirmation bias.

5. The reason why I argued against these posts, particularly the confirmation bias, is you simply mentioned a concept as an argument against, without actually providing anything else. Simply disregarding someones post and saying "Nope, confirmation bias." is a tad disrespectful, and I stood up for the poster as such.

6. I concede that it may have been a poor use of Irony; however, you also had a poor use of irony

The irony, seeing how your attempt to derail me was far from courteous back on page 55, complete with Italics!.

Where that would be more hypocritical than irony. However, I disagree, as I wasn't being discourteous as so much engaging in a discussion with you - with perhaps the exception of my initial words "This Guy". That said, I feel we can blame the poor use of the word Irony on Alanis Morissette.

Can someone please give me a source for that "90%". Please. Particularly something not pulled out of thin air?

I believe the impreciseness of the value 90 was used specifically to convey that it's not an actual value. When suggesting that 90% of bots are BLM, one is just suggesting that the most commonly seen bots are BLMs. I do not think an actual value is reported or readily available.

If you search for any complaint posts regarding bots, you'll often see a reference to BLM or even screenshots of them.

[Iagainsti]

Parley.

I enjoy the Alanis Morisette reference, especially since I'm Canadian. While I do say perspective relates to your example about cultural differences, it does not correlate with the issue at hand. More or less, If someone from Asia didn't accept my gratuity, and I were to say, "What? you don't need the money? If you were a server in North America you would" more represents what happened in the OP than your example.

Long story short, I have to say you and I must agree to disagree, and I now consider you one of my good frienemies ;D