DPS display could easily be solved with a system already in game.

[Welsper59]

The fact is again, these fights do not require DPS optimization to complete when you overgear them. As such, majority parties will not be setting their party requirements as such. Hence the reason you don't see an i130 requirement Titan HM, nor an i130 Shiva and any primal/dungeon requirement. Once you've reduced your argument to speculation, it's really not even a conversation anymore.

"Forums are forums". But it is a parse of the game itself. Tangible proof that you are using the program.

Unfortunately, our arguments are both based on at least some speculations. I speak from factual history though on player conduct repeating itself if given the opportunity, but it is still at least some speculation to claim it would happen here. Likewise, it is for you as well to claim it wouldn't. It is easier to mask unreasonable requirements when you state them in ways that don't clearly imply them. If you did, it'd be like the example I said of people expecting everyone to know how to clear CT raids in the first day. Most of us would agree, those idiots expect more than they should. Saying "must do X DPS" is a lot more forgiving of ridicule by your peers than it is to state the ilvl, which is also why that will take the place of ilvl requirements we currently have in most situations with players.

It is not enough proof to take action on, is the point. Like I said, I could claim I bot/hack/buy gil/etc in the game here. Nothing will happen to me in-game because there's a lot less personal responsibility involved when dealing with your actions here and your actions in-game. They could however, use that as justification to my being caught in-game if misused as a means to counter any negligence I want to show as defense. They're not going to go out of their way to catch you on this though, as the severity of it being expressed in-game is different from being expressed on a forum. This is how procedures and consequences work on differing formats.

[Massterchef]

Unfortunately, our arguments are both based on at least some speculations.

Your examples are anomalies. My examples contain what is majority accepted. Which would suggest your argument is pretty weak. The reason we don't see unrealistic expectations like i130 required dungeons,primals or what have you is because the majority have an understanding of the required DPS to complete an instance.

It is not enough proof to take action on, is the point. Like I said, I could claim I bot/hack/buy gil/etc in the game here.

Go ahead and claim it, include the site and/or bot you buy from/use and lemme know how that goes for you.

[Welsper59]

Go ahead and claim it, include the site and/or bot you buy from/use and lemme know how that goes for you.

The site mentioned is what will get you banned from the forums. Likewise, pointing out the exact site for parsing will probably do the same, if not just delete the thread. So what? We all know admitting to use of bots and such will get you banned if admitted to in the game (along with sufficient evidence or reason to do this). No outside proof needed on that one. You, however, keep implying that admitting to parsing in the game won't, this includes admitting to a GM about it (and finding out for proof whether or not they will ban you for it). So... balls in your court. Gonna do it?