The Real Problem with Parsers

[seraseth]

As a sometimes healer I'd be less worried about harassment from parsers, and more worried about dps ignoring mechanics and standing in aoe's because they know everyone can see their dps, and the numbers are all that matter. Either out of fear of being too low and being kicked, or so they can brag about their 'leet' numbers.

I have seen in other games 'I don't care if I gave the healer an aneurysm, I survived and the mob is dead so suck it'

Or similar statements.

[Almalexia]

As a sometimes healer I'd be less worried about harassment from parsers, and more worried about dps ignoring mechanics and standing in aoe's because they know everyone can see their dps, and the numbers are all that matter. Either out of fear of being too low and being kicked, or so they can brag about their 'leet' numbers.

I have seen in other games 'I don't care if I gave the healer an aneurysm, I survived and the mob is dead so suck it'

Or similar statements.

I do this anyway. I have Second Wind and Bloodbath, but too many healers are programmed like FFXII Gambits to cure anything under 80%.

If it's not fatal or debilitating, I will take the hit and cure myself. Medica II does the rest.

[Samsta]

I do this anyway. I have Second Wind and Bloodbath, but too many healers are programmed like FFXII Gambits to cure anything under 80%.

If it's not fatal or debilitating, I will take the hit and cure myself. Medica II does the rest.

This is completely off-topic but the reason the healer is probably quick to heal you is because if you do this constantly you give them a feeling that you will eat all the aoe damage there is and they don't want you to die, they don't know you and they don't know you do this on purpose and heal yourself after that. A good example are dps in alex 4 that just run to the orbs not having any care in the world or waiting for heals, then after eating 2 of them in a row they get hit with perpetual ray and die, or better yet they run next to the tank and die to the missiles. It can be stressful sometimes.

[Aiselia]

I have seen in other games 'I don't care if I gave the healer an aneurysm, I survived and the mob is dead so suck it'

And then when they do die, "WTF HEALER YOUR (sic) SUPPOSED TO HEAL, FAIL HEALER IS FAIL".

It's one reason why I don't heal much outside of FC groups now. I'm not going to get blamed because someone stood in the bright orange circle and got exploded.

Which is really another reason why parsers won't necessarily solve problems. If someone's eating all the AOEs they can survive just to keep their DPS up, that's putting extra strain on the healers, and yet people expect healers to DPS too. Can't do that if someone's basking in the orange glow.

[DestinovaTrueblade]

As a sometimes healer I'd be less worried about harassment from parsers, and more worried about dps ignoring mechanics and standing in aoe's because they know everyone can see their dps, and the numbers are all that matter. Either out of fear of being too low and being kicked, or so they can brag about their 'leet' numbers.

I have seen in other games 'I don't care if I gave the healer an aneurysm, I survived and the mob is dead so suck it'

Or similar statements.

Or it might inspire them to stay alive more, you do 0 dps while dead after all.

[Aomine1992]

I loved that you posted this. Unfortunately, most people against parsers will probably skip watching that video and continue to exaggerate the harrassment. People really are paranoid if you think just because you're 50 dps under someone else you're going to be vote kicked. People get vote kicked for not even bothering to try, not because you're slightly behind the other person. The only time I've vote kicked anyone was because they were literally doing equal dps as a fresh 50 in 2.0, while having plenty of i200 gear, or they just simply can't be bothered to (self admitting) stop chatting to their FC or linkshell and do more than auto attacking.

What video did you watch cause this did not support parsers it showed how even with the damage meters no one even bothered to say anything....this video was more about the community ignoring things like this and there being no penalty in the matter not that parsers will save you from this situation...

[La_Bluegirl]

What video did you watch cause this did not support parsers it showed how even with the damage meters no one even bothered to say anything...

Exactly? This is also from the "ever so toxic" WoW. The main argument everyone throws around, that is anti-parser, is how elitist everyone will be once you can see everyone's numbers. It shows that the average pug really doesn't give a crap about your dps, so stop thinking you're gonna get kicked out of every single DF dungeon you step into and allow the people that would like to use a tool (ps3/ps4/anyone who hasn't downloaded it on pc) to finally do so to improve.

[Viridiana]

I then immediately qualified that with "Meaning no medical issues restricting them or anything like that?" You either missed that or chose to ignore it intentionally, neither of which does you any favours.

So people with medical issues are automatically incapable of improving. Again, that's just repeating what you said. I don't think it's gonna win you any friends to say that, though. I mean, I tried giving you the benefit ouf the doubt, but you've now doubled down on this idea.

Which will be irrelevant to anybody who gets repeatedly kicked from content for not doing enough DPS because they won't be able to get that gear. And, in fact, the problem will get comparatively worse as the people who DO get the higher end gear will increase their expectations of DPS to match because the higher gear increases everybody's. If someone doesn't accept 500 DPS now, they're not going to accept 550 DPS at i220.

Because it requires Eso gear to get Eso, right? Especially once the new tomestones come out and Eso gets moved to uncapped?

Then scroll back and look at what you said? It seems pretty straightforward to me. You said that joining a group is entering a contract to be able to do enough tanking/healing/DPS to clear it. So then as long as you can clear it, they're holding up their side, right? Even if the dungeon takes another 20 minutes or even another hour, if the content gets cleared, they are holding up their side of the contract?

Maybe it was just your phrasing in your last post, but I couldn't make heads or tails of what you were saying. Rephrased here, though, yes, that's somewhat reasonable.

The problem with your thinking is that you think they owe you that. They don't. If I like to have my door locked because I'm afraid of people walking into my house and robbing me, I don't need to assert a rough estimate of how many people might rob me. Instead, the person trying to convince me to leave my door unlocked has to prove to me that I won't get robbed.

You don't need to assert a crime rate, because crime rates have already been studied and established. Defering to actual established set of data is reasonable. Bringing up hypothetical data that might prove your point and then asserting that your point is proven is not reasonable.

If they put parsers officially into the game, then in order to maintain their CURRENT state, they'd have to continue to take the stance that you're not allowed to bring anybody else's DPS up, which would, of course, defeat what everyone seems to want. And remember, if their stance right now is "We won't outright stop you from using them, but we don't want you bringing it up to anyone", why do you think people going "Oh yeah, we'd totally call people out" would help move them from that stance?

That's not their current stance at all. Their current stance is "you can use parsers, and you can talk about dps, but you can't mention dps numbers."

This goes back to the whole "estimate" thing. Why should they give you an estimate of how many people would call others out on their DPS when you have a thread full of people here wanting desperately to call people out on their DPS?

Because as it stands they're fear mongering. They're asserting that the players should be afraid of harassment without ever establishing that harassment is a product of parsing. And no, those of us saying that we wish we could call people out for their low DPS are not advocating harassment. As it stands, we're reluctant to give anyone advice no matter how badly they need it because this player base has an astonishing number of people who can't take criticism and will try to report you for saying they can't do their job.

Is it only one time? If so, clearly this isn't an important problem.

Seriously? Do you not understand hyperbole?

Didn't say that. Just that if you continue to make the conscious decision to not premake parties, that's your choice, not anybody else's.

Premaking all my parties is giving up on the enterprise of using DF. So that is actually what you're advocating.

If people abuse banks, banks create policies to crack down on abuse. They exercise their options. Your analogy works against you.

The analogy works just fine, because I've never heard of a bank saying "Well, guess we're never giving out a loan ever again!" Which is basically what I would be doing if I followed your advice and never stepped foot in DF again.

Except what I'm actually saying is that you have options and it's nobody's choice but your own to not use those options.

Use the option of not trusting anybody outside my inner circle. Got it. I think you'd make a grand conspiracy theorist, btw.

And some people are extremely averse to being spoken to in-game. What's your point?

That increasing the number of venues by which one can learn to be a better player is a good thing. Your point seems to be "People suck, so stop playing with them."

If you cleared it, you cleared it. Anything faster than that is obviously better, but not required.

I wish I could join all your groups just to drag them out until the boss is about to enrage. >_>

I'd consider it more under mechanics and teamwork since the DPS aren't the only ones that can use the cannons and DK.

Either the DPS are failing at cannons, in which case it's a DPS problem, or tanks and healers are on the cannons, in which case it's a very serious DPS problem. Again, not doing yourself any favors with this argument.

Sorry, how are these relevant to the state of the game now? Please try to keep your arguments centered on a time period that matters.

None of this argument has been limited to the current state of the game. Maybe in your head it has been, but I'm fairly sure no one else has been limiting their scope to only patch 3.07. If you really insist, though, how about groups failing at the DPS checks in Bismark and Ravana--sometimes in story mode, even. Or having seen the enrage in A1N. Because that's a thing that should be happening, right?

If the answer really is yes, that there are raid groups that clear, say, Savage content where everyone's on a PS3, then doesn't that mean that parsers aren't necessary for success? I mean, clearly those raid groups won't have a parser, but if they're clearing it, clearly they've figured out how to deal with that.

Voice chat isn't needed for success, either. Yet having and discussing voice chat doesn't get you banned, even though you can be harassed over voice chat. Having a chat pane isn't necessary to clear Savage either. Yet we have that even though it's been used for just tons and tons of harassment.

Then your story is not very good proof of much, is it?

Pardon me for not recording random Titan runs and keeping the video around for a year and a half to use as evidence in an argument. Guess you'll have to take solace in the fact that at least I'm not blindly asserting that my memory is perfect.

In my line of work, you learn that "This is what I specifically remember" doesn't have any reasonable bearing on the entirety of a situation. For example, if everybody's DPS was lower than it could be, then everyone contributed to it, not just the lowest person. Or you specifically remember that BECAUSE it was an obvious issue that stuck in your mind to look up while you tunnel visioned over other issues.

So, we can only assign blame to one person if everyone else is playing perfectly, then. That's what you're saying. You do know that it's possible to put primary responsibility on one person while still acknowledging that other people have contributed, right?

But let's say we have a party where everyone but one person truly is playing perfectly, and that one person is dragging the party down to the point that they can't complete the content. Can we call that person out? Current stance is that we can, but we aren't allowed to use numbers. Of course, without numbers just saying "You're bad" is pretty useless.

See above about doors being unlocked. I don't need evidence that someone will rob my house to know that leaving my door unlocked is a bad idea.

But you already have evidence that someone might rob your house. Seriously, there's a reason that when my parents' and grandparents' generations talk about the good ole days being better their first example tends to be that you didn't have to lock your door at night.

The difference, again, is the policy. Jerks can run parsers now, but they can't say anything. Adding in an official parser and maintaining the same policy that they can't say anything will not increase verbal harassment because they're still not allowed to say anything, but that defeats your purpose of wanting to be able to call people out on their DPS. Not adding in an official parser but rescinding the current policy about not talking about it will, clearly, increase the number of people calling others out on DPS.

I notice that you keep trying to make "call someone out on their DPS numbers" synonymous with "harass someone for their DPS." They aren't synonyms, and trying to use them as such is dishonest.

"Hey, I noticed that you're doing a couple hundred DPS less than you could be with that gear. I main that class and could offer advice if you want it."
"Dude, the DPS here sucks and we keep wiping. Just vote abandon so I don't have to take a 30 minute penalty."

Which of those is more constructive? Which one will get you banned under the current policy? Hint: Both questions have the same answer.

You, seemingly, and apparently most people here, are not just talking about adding a parser in. They want the ability to call people out on the DPS.

Yes, because without being able to tell people just what their DPS is numerically, you aren't going to get very far helping people. Again, "calling people out on their DPS numbers" is not the same as "harassing people over their DPS numbers." Oh, and, as an aside, we aren't allowed to discuss sensitive matters like people's performance in a dungeon through private messages, because SE is worried that allowing tells in dungeons will lead to harassment. Even though having to harass people in /p doesn't seem to dissuade people.

People who already use a parser but are arguing that they should add a parser are CLEARLY not concerned with adding the parser itself, but wanting the policy about not wanting people to call others out rescinded. So while it isn't the parser that will turn people into jerks, it's the rescinding of the policy that will open the door for them to be jerks.

Or, y'know, they're concerned about the disparity between PC capabilities and PS3/PS4 capabilities in a game that strives to have an even playing field between the three. And yes, pretty much everyone arguing in favor of parsers is arguing in favor of being able to discuss the numbers those parsers give us. Discussing those numbers does not automatically constitute harassment, though.

You're so wrong on two counts. I mean, first of all, you expect SE is capable of proving a hypothetical, which is a completely unrealistic expectation.

Gathering evidence for a hypothesis is an unrealistic expectation. My mind boggles that you would say that. Have you heard of this thing called the scientific method? I suspect you have, because you're about to argue that I should be using it; but I almost doubt it, because you're telling me that gathering evidence for a hypothesis is unrealistic.

Secondly, look around you. This thread alone makes it pretty clear that if they rescind the policy that you can't talk about someone's DPS, they're going to get an increase in people being called out,

This smear campaign you're running against the idea of using actual numbers is seriously troubling.

just from the number of people who've shared stories about "Oh, this person was crap but I had to bite my tongue because I couldn't say anything and it was infuriating". Those people are the EXACT people who prove SE's point.

A lot of us are saying "This person was absolute crap but I bit my tongue because even mentioning DPS obliquely leads to the possibility of a ban, regardless of whether I needed a parser in this case or not." We're asking to be able to say "Hey, your DPS is objectively less than the WHM's; do you need help with that?" or "I noticed the parser isn't showing you attacking the add at all, and the add is wiping us. Are you not noticing the add, or is my parser messing up?" or "Okay, the parser shows that you only have about 95% accuracy, so you should probably boost your Acc some."

Since you love real world analogies so much, when people want certain drugs to not be restricted by law because they're not really harmful, the onus is on them to prove that they're not really harmful. They're the ones trying to change a law with their argument, so it's their job to prove their argument. So it's your job to prove that they won't be proven completely right and that rescinding their policy won't result in an increase in people being called out and an increase in harassment reports.

If I were in a position to be even remotely able to prove it, I would. From where I'm standing, I would need the following information:

1) How many active PC users are there?
2) How many of them routinely parse?
3) How many of them say they would parse if parsing were okay?
4) How many tickets does SE get related to parsing?
5) How many tickets does SE get about harassment unrelated to parsing?
6) How many active PS3/PS4 players are there?
7) Assumption: How many people would change their behavior to a harassive one if parsing were okay?
8) Assumption: What percentage of harassment incidents go unreported?

I can't possibly get any of that information (aside from points 7 and 8) without breaking several laws in the process. I need to know how many active PC users there are and how many actively parse so that I can know what percentage of active parsers get reported for harassment related to parsing and what percentage of harassment that makes. Then I need to know how many new parsers would be added when an official parser became available so that I could assess how many people newly able (or willing, in the PC cases) to parse I could expect to harass people. Finally, I would need to make assumptions about behaviour change and about unreported cases. The former to try to more accurately assess the potential increase in workload, and the latter to try to more accurately assess the actual community the game has developed.

Needless to say, I have none of that information and can't get it without petitioning SE for numbers I don't think they'd be willing to share. Meanwhile SE has 1, 4, 5, and 6. They could get, if they wanted, 2 and 3. Either side would have to assume 7 and 8.

[Aiselia]

So people with medical issues are automatically incapable of improving.

Meanwhile, if we reread what I said, I specifically said "Medical issues restricting them". So yes, if a medical issue is restricting them, they cannot magically heal it just so they can git gud enough for you. Maybe try reading every word.

Because it requires Eso gear to get Eso, right?

How are they going to get esos if they keep getting kicked? I notice you ignored the "widening gap" issue too.

Bringing up hypothetical data that might prove your point and then asserting that your point is proven is not reasonable.

It's a fact that in other games, there has been plenty of elitism and abuse centered around DPS charts. That's inarguable. If they are worried that it might spill into here, they don't need to prove it will.

That's not their current stance at all.

This avoids my question. Please answer the question.

They're asserting that the players should be afraid of harassment without ever establishing that harassment is a product of parsing.

Except it's already established in other games that DPS meters are a huge tool for elitists to be elitists. So, for the 99th time, they don't need to prove it would happen here, just that it could. If you want them to change their stance, you need to disprove that. You can't. That's really the end of it.

Do you not understand hyperbole?

Hyperbole is a terrible thing to use in arguments because over-exaggerating anything weakens your point, not supports.

Premaking all my parties is giving up on the enterprise of using DF. So that is actually what you're advocating.

Fine. And if you feel that DF is so terrible that you waste your time in it, then it's your logical duty to exercise other options available to you.

The analogy works just fine

No it doesn't. A more fitting analogy would be if a bank gave a loan to a random person with no accountability and got stiffed on it, because that's what DF is, and then decided that they shouldn't give out loans to random people and decided instead to only give out loans to people who have identification and accountability.

Use the option of not trusting anybody outside my inner circle.

If you want to guarantee fast clears, then the logical way to do that is by playing with people you know will get you fast clears. Sorry if you labour under the misconception that it's your solemn duty to clean up the duty finder.

Your point seems to be "People suck, so stop playing with them."

Again inaccurate. My point is "If you can't handle random people, stop grouping with random people."

Again, not doing yourself any favors with this argument.

I'd have hoped that when I say DPS, the fact that I'm talking about a player's personal DPS and not their ability to do mechanics would be clear. I guess not. A parser wouldn't have helped anyone clear Steps of Faith if nobody's doing cannons or DKs right.

None of this argument has been limited to the current state of the game.

Anything that's happened before is irrelevant to how useful a parser would be now.

sometimes in story mode, even.

I've cleared Bismarck in story mode with a DPS dead from the very start because they jumped off the side before the pull "just to see if they could". If three DPS could do it, then if a whole group is failing it, then you'll have to practically replace the entire group of DPS anyways, so a parser isn't going to solve much.

even though you can be harassed ... even though it's been used

Nobody won victories for being able to carry a gun by saying "Well, I could just stab someone with my pen, so what are you going to do, ban pens?" Nobody won victories for drug legalization by saying "Well, I could just overdose on Tylenol, what are you going to do, ban Tylenol?" So why do people think that they'll win victories for parsers by saying "Well, I could just harass someone for wearing purple clothes, are you going to ban purple dyes?"

Whether or not other things can/have been used for harassment is irrelevant and doesn't mean parsers should be added.

But you already have evidence that someone might rob your house.

And I already have evidence that someone might abuse parsers - other games.

I notice that you keep trying to make "call someone out on their DPS numbers" synonymous with "harass someone for their DPS."

If I meant "politely bring up somebody's DPS", I would say "politely bring up somebody's DPS".

because without being able to tell people just what their DPS is numerically, you aren't going to get very far helping people.

Really? Because I don't parse my husband's MCH but noticed he was doing significantly less damage than my Bard from the threat meter alone, so I looked up some MCH guides and gave some pointers and on some fights he's now giving my Bard a run for its gil. Didn't require specific numbers at all.

Discussing those numbers does not automatically constitute harassment, though.

Of course it doesn't. But that doesn't matter. What matters is the people for whom it would constitute harassment, and the people who would harass. You seem to not be grasping this, so I'll phrase it specifically as clear as I can: Just because it won't be abused by 100% of people doesn't negate that it may be abused by some people. And SE isn't banning it under the misconception that everybody ever would be an elitist jerk, I'm sure. Give them a little credit.

Gathering evidence for a hypothesis is an unrealistic expectation.

Other games are your evidence. They don't need to have specific numbers because those are impossible to prove without having it happen first. They have more than enough reason to expect that there would be elitism spawning from parser use based on frequency it happens in other games.

We're asking

Some are. Not all. Again, this is an incredibly important distinction that you keep glossing over. If SE is worried about some, not all, then it's irrelevant if not all would do it as long as some would.

If I were in a position to be even remotely able to prove it, I would.

I'm in a really easy position to prove that elitism may result. Other games in which elitism centers around DPS charts.

Meanwhile SE has 1, 4, 5, and 6.

1 is irrelevant. 4 is irrelevant, because the number that there is now would be logically expected to change if people weren't forced to bite their tongues about parsers. 5 is also irrelevant because the amount of harassment reports for other reasons is irrelevant to how many reports they may start getting for parser reasons. 6 is also irrelevant to a degree because whether or not they could use parsers now, they'd still be subject to the same restrictions of talking about them.

All of that information is irrelevant because they don't represent the hypothetical altered situation. If people know they can get reported for bringing up parser numbers, then clearly there's going to be less people bringing them up, and it logically follows that that would lead to less reports.

[Viridiana]

I wonder how long we can make these posts. >_>

Meanwhile, if we reread what I said, I specifically said "Medical issues restricting them". So yes, if a medical issue is restricting them, they cannot magically heal it just so they can git gud enough for you. Maybe try reading every word.

You're still saying saying that medical people are incapable of getting better. You asked me if everyone could improve. I said yes. You then asserted that medical people can't improve. Which is patently false.

How are they going to get esos if they keep getting kicked? I notice you ignored the "widening gap" issue too.

How about they exercise their options and use PF? I mean, if they don't want to deal with random people kicking them, they should remove the random people from their experience. >_>

As for the widening gap, the gap basically resets each time there's a new currency that comes out.

It's a fact that in other games, there has been plenty of elitism and abuse centered around DPS charts. That's inarguable. If they are worried that it might spill into here, they don't need to prove it will.

It's a fact that in other games there has been elitism and abuse centered around completion of raids. That's inarguable. If they're worried about elitism and abuse, they should avoid adding raids.

Because 1.0 worked out so well. >_>

This avoids my question. Please answer the question.

It answers the question. You asserted that their current stance is that they don't want you talking about DPS at all. That's demonstrably not their current stance, as you can easily talk about DPS as long as you don't talk about numbers. Their stance is that they don't want you mentioning numbers. Allowing parsers by default means that you're allowing people to mention numbers. Bam, problem solved.

Except it's already established in other games that DPS meters are a huge tool for elitists to be elitists. So, for the 99th time, they don't need to prove it would happen here, just that it could. If you want them to change their stance, you need to disprove that. You can't. That's really the end of it.

Except it's already established in this game that titles awarded for raiding are a tool for elitists to be elitists. If they don't want people being elitists, they should remove titles from the game.

Hyperbole is a terrible thing to use in arguments because over-exaggerating anything weakens your point, not supports.

If it's unclear that I'm using hyperbole, sure. The context makes it blatantly clear that I'm employing hyperbole. Your ignoring it reflects either willful ignorance or a lack of reading comprehension.

Fine. And if you feel that DF is so terrible that you waste your time in it, then it's your logical duty to exercise other options available to you.

Oooorrrrrrr...I can try to help increase the quality of the DF and make the overall experience better.

No it doesn't. A more fitting analogy would be if a bank gave a loan to a random person with no accountability and got stiffed on it, because that's what DF is, and then decided that they shouldn't give out loans to random people and decided instead to only give out loans to people who have identification and accountability.

No, because DF usually works pretty well. It only occassionally fails miserably. And of course, you're assuming that PF provides something analogous to accountability. Aside from one occassion, I can't think of any times that I've partied with the same person twice. I literally can't name any of the people I've partied in PF with outside my LS/FC. And if you mean to restrict it all the way down to only partying with the in group, the bank basically isn't loaning any money...

If you want to guarantee fast clears, then the logical way to do that is by playing with people you know will get you fast clears. Sorry if you labour under the misconception that it's your solemn duty to clean up the duty finder.

You don't think it's your duty to uphold and improve your environment?

Again inaccurate. My point is "If you can't handle random people, stop grouping with random people."

Sorry, "Random people suck, stop playing with random people." More accurate now?

I'd have hoped that when I say DPS, the fact that I'm talking about a player's personal DPS and not their ability to do mechanics would be clear. I guess not. A parser wouldn't have helped anyone clear Steps of Faith if nobody's doing cannons or DKs right.

I can't actually recall if ACT picks up SoF cannons. Regardless, mechanics are a part of DPS. Being unable to do mechanics leads to being unable to do DPS. Of course, before even making it to SoF, you have the DPS checks in Chrysalis.

Anything that's happened before is irrelevant to how useful a parser would be now.

Bull****. There's a clear trend of SE requiring a certain amount of DPS to clear content (not even talking about endgame content) only for the player base to prove their incompetence again and again, followed by prolonged whining until SE nerfs the content. The most recent time was less than 4 months ago. That's basically one major patch cycle.

I've cleared Bismarck in story mode with a DPS dead from the very start because they jumped off the side before the pull "just to see if they could". If three DPS could do it, then if a whole group is failing it, then you'll have to practically replace the entire group of DPS anyways, so a parser isn't going to solve much.

Good job picking one subpoint out of numerous examples. A1N enrage. Ravana story swords. Extreme modes which are routinely pugged. Hows about you respond to those.

Whether or not other things can/have been used for harassment is irrelevant and doesn't mean parsers should be added.

It's actually extremely relevent, as it establishes whether harassment by itself is a determining factor for whether a feature is implemented. Features used to harass people are constantly being brought into the game, so clearly the justification is bunk.

And I already have evidence that someone might abuse parsers - other games.

And I alerady have evidence that someone might abuse titles--this game.

If I meant "politely bring up somebody's DPS", I would say "politely bring up somebody's DPS".

The problem is that you're taking a fairly innocuous term and twisting it to be something negative, thereby trying to shape the perceptions of those watching.

Really? Because I don't parse my husband's MCH but noticed he was doing significantly less damage than my Bard from the threat meter alone, so I looked up some MCH guides and gave some pointers and on some fights he's now giving my Bard a run for its gil. Didn't require specific numbers at all.

Great! You can get someone who already trusts you to take your word for something! Explain how that applies to random DF people again?

Just because it won't be abused by 100% of people doesn't negate that it may be abused by some people. And SE isn't banning it under the misconception that everybody ever would be an elitist jerk, I'm sure. Give them a little credit.

I'm giving them credit that they aren't saying everyone would do it. But they're saying that anyone doing it is grounds to not allow it, which is clearly not the standard they're holding other features to. That's the crux of the problem. Is a subgroup of users causing a problem reason enough to scrap the whole program? If it is, we shouldn't have a lot of the features we do have. You keep ignoring or misunderstanding this.

Other games are your evidence. They don't need to have specific numbers because those are impossible to prove without having it happen first. They have more than enough reason to expect that there would be elitism spawning from parser use based on frequency it happens in other games.

Goody.

I'm in a really easy position to prove that elitism may result. Other games in which elitism centers around DPS charts.

Man, you keep really missing the point. I'm saying that I don't believe that there will be enough abuse to outweigh the advantages of having them. At no point have I ever claimed that there will be no elitism. I have claimed that the clamouring of SE about elitism is fear mongering based on insufficient data and that elitism is already present in the game from features SE continues to endorse. If preventing elitism is truly their goal, they're failing spectacularly and don't seem to care--except for parsers. This tells me that they're using elitism as a demonstrably weak justification that should be done away with. They should either endorse parsers to be consistent or produce a better justification.

1 is irrelevant. 4 is irrelevant, because the number that there is now would be logically expected to change if people weren't forced to bite their tongues about parsers. 5 is also irrelevant because the amount of harassment reports for other reasons is irrelevant to how many reports they may start getting for parser reasons. 6 is also irrelevant to a degree because whether or not they could use parsers now, they'd still be subject to the same restrictions of talking about them.

I clearly explained the relevence of each of those. 2/4 gives you the percent of people who harass with parsers as it stands. 3/1 gives you the approximate rate of players who would parse if they were allowed to. (3/1)*(1+6) gives you the approximate number of total players who would parse if allowed (assuming PS3/PS4 players would parse at about the same rate as PC players). 4 adjusted for 8 gives you the approximate number of parser-harassments currently happening with the current policy. 4 adjusted for both 7 and 8 would give you the number of harassments happening under the proposed policy. How much larger is the second value? Because they're saying it's big enough to justify not having an extremely valuable tool, and I'm in no position to verify or refute it.

(Okay, so 5 was probably useless for this)

All of that information is irrelevant because they don't represent the hypothetical altered situation. If people know they can get reported for bringing up parser numbers, then clearly there's going to be less people bringing them up, and it logically follows that that would lead to less reports.

What do you think 7 and 8 were for? I mean, 7 directly addresses changes caused by a change in policy. Did you not even read it?