The new Viper changes are great

[W00by]

You are correct that it is proof of completion, but the buck stops there. Anyone with high school level knowledge of statistics would know that data w/o context means nothing. It's insane to try to argue that less than 20% of my actual kills on a mob in an uncontrolled environment accurately reflects reality. Esp since most of the time I'm "tryharding" is in my static.

Also, that PF argument isn't the argument you think it is. You're using your complete data against incomplete data. In the few fights I did numerous times with pugs (alliance raids) in EW I had orange parses during the tier I was actively doing them (content I wasn't even taking 100% seriously either. mind you). Which, again, is data I did not even upload so it isn't complete. However, it does prove I can hit those numbers. This discredits any attempts at using incomplete information against me.

So yeah, your whole argument/attempt to discredit here is flawed right out of the gate tbh.

Either way, you have no proof that you have completed it, or that you are knowledgeable on your job. Evidence that you were bad would be really damning, but an absence of evidence is still not stronger than evidence. You could be the best Viper player in the world, but if no one can see that, then no one knows to trust you either way.

In contrast, the complete data of other players demonstrating their expertise is far stronger than "uhhh, you don't know if I'm good or not 'cus you can't see my logs!" Like, yeah, I don't know if you're good or not, so I'm well within my rights to assume you aren't if your argument is ridiculous and there's no data to support that you know what you're talking about.

If you don't want people judging you on your logs, you should start logging yourself. (Alliance Raid logs are also really poor evidence of player skill since so many people are completing them that the data is skewed, and the floor is soooo much lower than in savage. They're still super poor evidence of skill, but I digress.)

[Eudyptes]

Either way, you have no proof that you have completed it, or that you are knowledgeable on your job. Evidence that you were bad would be really damning, but an absence of evidence is still not stronger than evidence. You could be the best Viper player in the world, but if no one can see that, then no one knows to trust you either way.

In contrast, the complete data of other players demonstrating their expertise is far stronger than "uhhh, you don't know if I'm good or not 'cus you can't see my logs!" Like, yeah, I don't know if you're good or not, so I'm well within my rights to assume you aren't if your argument is ridiculous and there's no data to support that you know what you're talking about.

If you don't want people judging you on your logs, you should start logging yourself. (Alliance Raid logs are also really poor evidence of player skill since so many people are completing them that the data is skewed, and the floor is soooo much lower than in savage. They're still super poor evidence of skill, but I digress.)

Sorry but I'm not breaking ToS to win an internet fight.

[Wolf_Heartnet]

Sorry but I'm not breaking ToS to win an internet fight.

Good on you!
Take my Like!

[W00by]

Sorry but I'm not breaking ToS to win an internet fight.

You can hide behind the Terms of Service all you like, but it doesn't make any of what I've said less true.

Also, for what it's worth, I'd take any non-ToS breaking evidence that you're good too! Perhaps if you can post a video of you playing on YouTube, or link your achievements in game showing you've cleared Ultimate fights (though we still won't know what job you played it on). That evidence is just a lot weaker since no one can prove you didn't buy the clear/what job you did it on/how well you did it, but it's still evidence. But if you don't have any evidence of skill people just won't take you as seriously.

[Eudyptes]

You can hide behind the Terms of Service all you like, but it doesn't make any of what I've said less true.

Also, for what it's worth, I'd take any non-ToS breaking evidence that you're good too! Perhaps if you can post a video of you playing on YouTube, or link your achievements in game showing you've cleared Ultimate fights (though we still won't know what job you played it on). That evidence is just a lot weaker since no one can prove you didn't buy the clear/what job you did it on/how well you did it, but it's still evidence. But if you don't have any evidence of skill people just won't take you as seriously.

Everything you said was proven untrue in my first post. You can't prove something via lack of evidence. Like that's just not how it works.

That said, I do have proof through your own methods. you just can't cherrypick the bad while ignoring the good.

[CKNovel]

You can hide behind the Terms of Service all you like, but it doesn't make any of what I've said less true.

Also, for what it's worth, I'd take any non-ToS breaking evidence that you're good too! Perhaps if you can post a video of you playing on YouTube, or link your achievements in game showing you've cleared Ultimate fights (though we still won't know what job you played it on). That evidence is just a lot weaker since no one can prove you didn't buy the clear/what job you did it on/how well you did it, but it's still evidence. But if you don't have any evidence of skill people just won't take you as seriously.

They're out of the line but they're right.

Imagine if someone in a wheelchair said "Shoe durability isn't important, company saving cost by making bad shoes is good!", we should be free to point out they're not the public.
Or that a blind person says "we should close theaters, they're useless".

That's not shaming their disabilities, simply pointing out that they're not the public.
We need to use metrics we have to understand where the feedback comes from.

[Eudyptes]

They're out of the line but they're right.

Imagine if someone in a wheelchair said "Shoe durability isn't important, company saving cost by making bad shoes is good!", we should be free to point out they're not the public.
Or that a blind person says "we should close theaters, they're useless".

That's not shaming their disabilities, simply pointing out that they're not the public.
We need to use metrics we have to understand where the feedback comes from.

They aren't right though, simply because they have incomplete data. You can't judge a person's ability based on out of context, fragmented information. Full stop. I don't even know how this is even an argument.

Furthermore, yesterday someone like-minded to them tried to use this same argument against me using a grey parse on a job I never played while ignoring my reaper had orange parses. So they aren't even using it "objectively" like they claim.

[CKNovel]

They aren't right though, simply because they have incomplete data. You can't judge a person's ability based on out of context, fragmented information. Full stop. I don't even know how this is even an argument.

Furthermore, yesterday someone like-minded to them tried to use this same argument against me using a grey parse on a job I never played while ignoring my reaper had orange parses. So they aren't even using it "objectively" like they claim.

There's incomplete data and data manipulation, those are two different things.
Even if the data is incomplete, the person is completely free to provide its own data.

That's basic 101 burden of proof. You make a claim, you back it up with a proof. You want to make a counter-claim, you bring your own proof.

[W00by]

They aren't right though, simply because they have incomplete data. You can't judge a person's ability based on out of context, fragmented information. Full stop. I don't even know how this is even an argument.

Furthermore, yesterday someone like-minded to them tried to use this same argument against me using a grey parse on a job I never played while ignoring my reaper had orange parses. So they aren't even using it "objectively" like they claim.

This gives mad "my girlfriend goes to another school. You wouldn't know her though. And you don't go to that school so you can't prove she doesn't exist" energy.

By a purely scientific definition, yes, I cannot PROVE you are bad if your logs aren't public (even though the ones that are don't look great). But I can make an educated guess -- a "hypothesis," if we're being scientific -- about the absence of something (skill in this case) when there's an absence of evidence, and you getting kinda salty about it makes me feel even more assured in that conclusion. Post the vid!!!

There's incomplete data and data manipulation, those are two different things.
Even if the data is incomplete, the person is completely free to provide its own data.

That's basic 101 burden of proof. You make a claim, you back it up with a proof. You want to make a counter-claim, you bring your own proof.

Right? It's so obvious. I could say "I'm definitely a doctor so you should trust my medical opinion. But I won't show you my doctorate. You can definitely trust that it exists though. I went 'try-hard' in Med School."

(i really should stop but they make it easy)