Data from lucky bancho about participation in field content

[Supersnow845]

I’m not saying this in a mean way renrathos I just honestly have no idea which side you are taking here

[AwesomeJr44]

I’m not saying this in a mean way renrathos I just honestly have no idea which side you are taking here

Renathras has a tendency to use a lot more words than he really has to. I'm not sure if it's to try and confuse people or if he thinks having more words makes him look smarter or something, but it just comes out as word vomit. I usually ask for a TLDR or don't bother. There's a time and place for extended paragraphs and longer posts, but when you're writing a good chunk of the bible just to explain very simple concepts, that's just too much.

[Shurrikhan]

I’m not saying this in a mean way renrathos I just honestly have no idea which side you are taking here

I think(?) it runs along the lines of...

(A) that completion numbers shouldn't be compared to 100% but instead to the nearest relevant peaks of %completion (e.g., for content of roughly similar broadly perceived value and accessibility or at least as is mindful that 70% completion (MSQ) is our literal absolute ceiling for any content), and

(B) that it's too hard to sort out who plays what for extrinsic rewards to try to count or discount participation accordingly (except, perhaps, if said content is almost ubiquitously perceived to offer virtually nothing else), since those who like the content and those who do not will just argue ceaselessly about what portion had to be baited into participation, to what degree, etc.

So, it's not picking a side, but rather just critiquing a particular method of giving warrant for either side -- be that citing %participation numbers noncritically or with zero content on one side, or relying on nebulous/unprovable read-in contextualization on the other. Granted, much of that critique has already basically been made earlier (see DixieBellOCE's comments and those by Sindele that Ren already quoted).