How would an optional, official parser be toxic?

[Penthea]

Not wanting parser because it will make appear toxic guys is not a solution to get rid of them, they are a far more large matter. and will always find a way to being toxic.

I'm just going to give up on this thread. No one wants to face the fact that parsers are tools that can fuel multiple things, including toxicity, because they're being wilfully narrow minded and only thinking of how it can benefit themselves. I hope SE don't catch on to the "there will always be jerks" justification that allows people to shrug dismissively at the bad side effects of something, because then the game would be headed down a dark path.

Fortunately for me I won't have to deal with much or any parser toxicity if the game gets an official parser because I raid with people I know and it's rare when we pug, and if we do we hold a great majority in the group. Judging from many of the comments here I should also have the attitude of "but I'd use it properly so let me have it" given I can easily avoid seeing the bad side of it.

But clearly looking at the big picture is discouraged so...yea. I'm done. Have fun with this endless argument which has turned into little other than an echo chamber. I look forward to the many clones of this thread in the future. Probably some by Kaiva again as he seems to enjoy bringing up divisive issues.

[JohnSpawnVFX]

I'm just going to give up on this thread. No one wants to face the fact that parsers are tools that can fuel multiple things, including toxicity, because they're being wilfully narrow minded and only thinking of how it can benefit themselves. I hope SE don't catch on to the "there will always be jerks" justification that allows people to shrug dismissively at the bad side effects of something, because then the game would be headed down a dark path.

Fortunately for me I won't have to deal with much or any parser toxicity if the game gets an official parser because I raid with people I know and it's rare when we pug, and if we do we hold a great majority in the group. Judging from many of the comments here I should also have the attitude of "but I'd use it properly so let me have it" given I can easily avoid seeing the bad side of it.

But clearly looking at the big picture is discouraged so...yea. I'm done. Have fun with this endless argument which has turned into little other than an echo chamber. I look forward to the many clones of this thread in the future. Probably some by Kaiva again as he seems to enjoy bringing up divisive issues.

So by your logic, would you also support eliminating chat from the game? I mean, there's people shrugging dismissively at the bad side effects of it. And you can replace chat with any other feature of the game (PF, Roulettes, Cutscenes in MSQ Roulette, etc)

I can assure that if people took that stance ("but it might cause problems by a fraction of the population") regarding anything, we'd still be back in the Stone Age in regards to development.

[jameseoakes]

But clearly looking at the big picture is discouraged so...yea. I'm done. Have fun with this endless argument which has turned into little other than an echo chamber. I look forward to the many clones of this thread in the future.

These threads always are, both sides justify there own biases and just shout at each other and these threads do seem to be getting more and more hostile though (both sides and I'm not innocent on this one) which I don't think is good.

[SenorPatty]

I'm just going to give up on this thread. No one wants to face the fact that parsers are tools that can fuel multiple things, including toxicity, because they're being wilfully narrow minded and only thinking of how it can benefit themselves. I hope SE don't catch on to the "there will always be jerks" justification that allows people to shrug dismissively at the bad side effects of something, because then the game would be headed down a dark path.

But many have have faced those facts? But we also acknowledged that people will use anything to fuel toxicity. We've also acknlowledge that people view performance information as toxic. We've also acknowledged that people have issues with people who don't want to waste their time figuring out who sneaked and lied their way into their PF party when the demands on it were clear so parser helps with that. We've also acknowledged that despite showcasing that exclusion can also mean other people who don't want to be parsed can simply play with other like minded players, that's apparently toxic as well. We've acknowledged that there can be a numerical increase in parser related toxicity if ps4 users finally get access to one. We've also acknlowledged the numerical increase in toxicity that could happen coming from ps4 users who may cry foul against ps4 parser users.

So in a very ironic twist, you are right. There would be more toxicity but now I'm very convinced that the increased frequency isn't gonna come from the community that just likes to improve and compete with one another with parsers.

[KaivaC]

But clearly looking at the big picture is discouraged so...yea. I'm done. Have fun with this endless argument which has turned into little other than an echo chamber. I look forward to the many clones of this thread in the future. Probably some by Kaiva again as he seems to enjoy bringing up divisive issues.

Well...since I was mentioned and I actually caught it, I feel obligated to now jump in.

I'm not sure how it's an echo chamber when most of the arguments presented by those who hold an anti-parser stance were countered. There are a lot of people who would like to see something like this, and again, if it's a purely personal parser, I fail to see how it leads to an increase in toxicity as long as it remains personal. Like, seriously, nobody but the player running it will ever see it...unless they do something like share it with other players. The argument that I've seen brought up here and there about others saying post screens doesn't make the current ToS go away - if someone is asking for a screen of your personal parser, it's simple enough to just report them. The funny thing is that, I made a strong mention of personal parsers for PS4 users - but the thread itself has gone in the direction of parsing in general becoming official. It's not an automatic echo chamber just because multiple people disagree with you over several pages. It's just more people that may disagree with your reasoning.

[jameseoakes]

Well...since I was mentioned and I actually caught it, I feel obligated to now jump in.

I'm not sure how it's an echo chamber when most of the arguments presented by those who hold an anti-parser stance were countered. The funny thing is that, I made a strong mention of personal parsers for PS4 users - but the thread itself has gone in the direction of parsing in general becoming official. It's not an automatic echo chamber just because multiple people disagree with you over several pages. It's just more people that may disagree with your reasoning.

I'm not sure I'd say either sides points got countered. Personal Parses seemed to get a decent enough reception at the start of the thread, it was people who wanted to see other people numbers who where most against them.

[Jijifli]

I'm just going to give up on this thread. No one wants to face the fact that parsers are tools that can fuel multiple things, including toxicity, because they're being wilfully narrow minded and only thinking of how it can benefit themselves.

This exact push away at something just because someone can be toxic with it is why Feat chat isn't a thing.

People said mean things in feast chat, so Square literally turned off your ability to type words and only let you say premade messages set to a macro.

Please, do not make that repeat. Everything can be used to be "toxic" to someone. I can emote in a way to harass a player in multiple ways. I can use the chat to tell you death threats. I can name my retainer something just to spite you.

Do you want emotes removed? Chat? Retainers? THAT'S how it sounds when people say, "Oh someone can be mean with this feature so we shouldn't let anybody use it." Why don't we ban the people that use it to harass people?

Oh wait. They'll lose a sub.

[Bourne_Endeavor]

But clearly looking at the big picture is discouraged so...yea. I'm done. Have fun with this endless argument which has turned into little other than an echo chamber. I look forward to the many clones of this thread in the future. Probably some by Kaiva again as he seems to enjoy bringing up divisive issues.

How about knocking off the hubris? Because you claim it "the big picture" doesn't make it so. Your entire stance has essentially been to shield people from any potential harassment even if it means tossing aside beneficial tools because heaven forbid someone's feelings get hurt. The bigger picture is recognizing these same people can report harassment, thus mitigating the negative aspect of parses should it arise. Which is another factor. You have nothing except anecdotal evidence yet insist parses will cause a significant increase in toxicity. And you've continuously ignored examples where this logic is applied to other scenarios and makes little to no sense, i.e, banning chat or tells would be silly despite people being able to abuse it.

The only echo chamber is the one you're trying to create.

[Miste]

I'm just going to give up on this thread. No one wants to face the fact that parsers are tools that can fuel multiple things, including toxicity, because they're being wilfully narrow minded and only thinking of how it can benefit themselves.

You don't want to face the facts that tools have the capability to also bring more good than bad as well. You are just running off the assumption that the majority will be bad and not good, but you have zero proof or facts to say that it will. It is an unknown to both sides.

I mean you are claiming others won't face the facts, but remember our earlier exchange? You didn't acknowledge what I pointed out to you as being a flaw in what you were claiming. You just tried to shift the responsibility onto me instead of owning up to it yourself. It doesn't seem like you want to face facts either?

So who is being narrow minded here when it is obvious you don't want to acknowledge anything that challenges your opinions or doesn't align with your opinions.

You don't want to have a discussion about the possibilities and are only glued to your one personal opinion that parsers will not help and that they will end up with such an increase in toxicity that the game will go down "a dark path" as you put it.

You won't accept the fact that your experiences in WoW don't prove it will happen in FFXIV exactly how you experienced it there or acknowledge that others have had different experiences than you altogether on WoW.

People have acknowledged the possible issues with parsers, but many of us also realize it is an unknown area for this game since it has never had an official parser so it has the potential and/or possibility to end up being beneficial to the community.

But clearly looking at the big picture is discouraged so...yea. I'm done. Have fun with this endless argument which has turned into little other than an echo chamber.

You aren't looking at the big picture. You are glued to parsers only ending one way: badly, when you have no proof or facts to back that premise up.

Seems to me you are the one who wants an echo chamber? You are disparaging the discussion (Just because it isn't going your way??) and giving up on it because...why? There aren't enough people agreeing with your opinion? Because people are challenging your arguments? Because people disagree with you?

So please, if you are going to start calling people narrow minded for not agreeing with all of your opinions on something and saying people just want an echo chamber you might want to have some inner reflection on how you are presenting yourself as well.