New ToS gives hope for official DPS meters?

[Penthea]

That's when we get into burden of proof. I want a parser; the answer is no, because they make communities toxic.

The burden of proof then lies on the answerer in this situation to prove that parsers make communities more toxic.

No the burden of proof is on both sides. A person would also have to present proof as to why the opposition's concerns are nothing to worry about.

[Dualgunner]

No the burden of proof is on both sides. A person would also have to present proof as to why the opposition's concerns are nothing to worry about.

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.

[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.

[Satarn]

The reason why I am not super familiar with FFlogs is frankly I don't feel qualified to look through it in the depth that my team sometimes requires.
(...) But I don't think me being unaware that you could look at positioning in FFLogs automatically makes every argument I have made against introducing parsers irrelevant.

I never said it makes all your arguments irrelevant. I merely used the example to illustrate how, just as you couldn't even be bothered to fully read my post before responding, many people can't be bothered to learn what data parsing really provides, before they completely condemn it and people involved.

You also admit to not being very familiar with features of fflogs and yet you thought it fitting to make a statement, about what information it does and does not provide, which you worded as if it was a fact.

Honestly I don't even have a beef with you or your opinion. Just with misinformation which is so often spread in such threads.

[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.