New ToS gives hope for official DPS meters?

[Penthea]

For the specific claim "Parsers make a community more toxic," the burden of proof is on the people making that claim, not on the people who just want ingame parsers.

Have you never presented an idea to someone before? You have never shown someone something, and they ask "but what about X?" and you were expected to give an answer?

This is how introducing anything new works. Both sides present their arguments for what they think should be done and give answers, with proof if possible, to any questions. The burden of proof is absolutely not only on the person being presented with something new. What xD

[Dualgunner]

Have you never presented an idea to someone before? You have never shown someone something, and they ask "but what about X?" and you were expected to give an answer?

This is how introducing anything new works. Both sides present their arguments for what they think should be done and give answers, with proof if possible, to any questions. The burden of proof is absolutely not only on the person being presented with something new. What xD

You naturally have to prove X is an actual concern before it can be addressed.

"I want parsers."
"But what about the toxicity?"

The burden of proof--that being that parsers cause toxicity--still rests on party B, because party B is still making the claim that parsers cause toxicity.

[Penthea]

You naturally have to prove X is an actual concern before it can be addressed.

"I want parsers."
"But what about the toxicity?"

The burden of proof--that being that parsers cause toxicity--still rests on party B.

And similarly you can have:

A: I want parsers. They're very useful tools.

B: Yes they are but what about the toxicity they can cause? This is why we don't have them.

A: <would then begin to explain why this isn't an issue to worry about>

The fact that you think people who are pro-parser don't need to explain themselves makes it look like you don't want to because it would mean having to present more than just "I want this"

[Dualgunner]

And similarly you can have:

A: I want parsers. They're very useful tools.

B: Yes they are but what about the toxicity they can cause? This is why we don't have them.

A: <would then begin to explain why this isn't an issue to worry about>

The fact that you think people who are pro-parser don't need to explain themselves makes it look like you don't want to because it would mean having to present more than just "I want this"

Why would Party A go on to explain why toxicity isn't an issue to worry about? Party B has not proven that parsers are the cause for toxicity. In your example, actually, Party B even inserted a non-sequitor argument in order to insert a claim that they cause toxicity, instead of answering Party A's claim that parsers are very useful tools.

The burden of proof that parsers are useful tools rests with Party A. The burden of proof that they cause toxicity still rests with Party B.

Also it's dirty tactics to assign motives to me.

[Penthea]

Why would Party A go on to explain why toxicity isn't an issue to worry about? Party B has not proven that parsers are the cause for toxicity.

Given their resources I'm pretty sure SE could present an incredible amount of proof of parser toxicity. And on the flip side an incredible amount of proof of parser positivity. SE made a call and that was to not have parsers. You would have to convince them to change their mind. And saying "I want parsers, prove to me they're toxic" will not change their mind, lol.

[Dualgunner]

Given their resources I'm pretty sure SE could present an incredible amount of proof of parser toxicity. And on the flip side an incredible amount of proof of parser positivity. SE made a call and that was to not have parsers. You would have to convince them to change their mind. And saying "I want parsers, prove to me they're toxic" will not change their mind, lol.

Burden of proof is what it is, regardless of how you diminish it, handwave it, and assign motivations to people supporting it. Sure, Square might not change their position on this, but that makes your posts equally as vapid, no?

[Penthea]

Burden of proof is what it is, regardless of how you diminish it, handwave it, and assign motivations to people supporting it. Sure, Square might not change their position on this, but that makes your posts equally as vapid, no?

I'm diminishing the burden of proof? Lol, you're the one saying only one side has to present proof. I'm saying both should.

Something something pot kettle.

[Dualgunner]

I'm diminishing the burden of proof? Lol, you're the one saying only one side has to present proof. I'm saying both should.

Something something pot kettle.

You diminished it to

"I want parsers, prove to me they're toxic"

If you provided actual evidence that parsers caused communities to become toxic, then I could argue that evidence. Until then, I have nothing to argue against because you've only made the claim that they cause toxicity.

[Penthea]

If you provided actual evidence that parsers caused communities to become toxic, then I could argue that evidence. Until then, I have nothing to argue against because you've only made the claim that they cause toxicity.

You want something to be brought into the game, and you think that somehow makes you justified to not explain why it should be brought in and why it wouldn't cause issues, simply because SE don't like your idea for some reasons.

You have to be trolling, lol.