The Real Problem with Parsers

[Aiselia]

Your claims about what Square-Enix thinks, what Square-Enix is expecting and their reasoning/stand on parsers.

To answer your question regarding sources, I don't have any. Fair enough, most of that is based on what I've seen others state their position is, as well as logical deduction based on what they do and don't take action on. I've never really cared enough to look it up if it's true.

I do believe impersonating one's a breach of their ToS.

And since I've never claimed to be one, I'm perfectly safe. Stating what you believe to be one's position, whether it is or isn't, is not the same thing as pretending to be someone else.

[Lyrica_Ashtine]

To answer your question regarding sources, I don't have any. Fair enough, most of that is based on what I've seen others state their position is. I've never really cared enough to look it up if it's true.


And since I've never claimed to be one, I'm perfectly safe. Stating what you believe to be one's position, whether it is or isn't, is not the same thing as pretending to be someone else.

You've been using those claims to sustain your arguments, however. So by this, whatever stance you had on the last 7 pages or more is void. Unless you believe the arguments you have about "Square-Enix this and that" are to be considered true

[Malevicton]

I edited some sources into my last post, btw.

[Aiselia]

It's false unless proven otherwise.

Fine, whatever you want. It still has no bearing on my personal position, so it doesn't really matter to me. Congratulations for being the first person in 45 pages to even think outside the box, though.

I edited some sources into my last post, btw.

Yeah, but you're done.

[Lyrica_Ashtine]

Yeah, but you're done.

He may be done, but he did disprove the whole argument of "harassment potential Square-Enix thinks". So he at least deserves some commendation for looking up a source, even if it's a bit old. So with my previous post: It's false as proven by Malevicton's post.

[Aiselia]

He may be done, but he did disprove the whole argument of "harassment potential Square-Enix thinks". So he at least deserves some commendation for looking up a source, even if it's a bit old. So with my previous post: It's false as proven by Malevicton's post.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Those two sources do not prove a negative, they just don't prove a positive.

And that's all that really needs be said on that subject. I already admitted that I don't have any sources available.

[Whiteroom]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Those two sources do not prove a negative, they just don't prove a positive.

And that's all that really needs be said on that subject. I already admitted that I don't have any sources available.

But given that you made the claim, the onus is on you to prove it. You can't make a claim up and then say others have to disprove it. Even when faced with evidence to the contrary, you are still clutching at it.

You know what, I heard somewhere that parsers make everyone super friendly and they hug after clearing content, and flowers grow where the boss died. At least thats what SE believes, or so I think I may have read somewhere. I can't provide the source, but now it must be considered while discussing parsers, since it can't be disproven.

[Leonus]

There is nothing wrong with using parsers, it's how people use parsers that scare people.

It's similar to the gun issue in the U.S., but not to the extreme.

[Aiselia]

If their stance is irrelevant, why use it in the first place. Or is it only relevant if it supports your argument?

Because they were two different arguments. One argument was from the perceived SE position, and one is from my own. Whatever SE thinks about parsers doesn't change the fact that I agree they're useful. You're spending an awfully long time fighting with someone who wants them in the game too (provided people don't abuse them). In fact, if SE really doesn't hold the fear that jerks will use it to be jerkier, that's better for me.

So, given that almost anything put in the game can be abused, should they stop adding things?

Not surprisingly, this has already been covered ad nauseam.

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?"

Also does the parser actually create jerks? Or are the people already jerks, abusing something in game.

Depends on the person.

If you can write a program that actually changes people into jerks from nice people, that is a powerful program.

Most people call them "internet browsers".

[Lyrica_Ashtine]

Well, here's one thing that's a problem, Aiselia.

You're saying you're pro-parser, but most of your posts involves how it shouldn't be in the game. Don't you believe that's even the slightest contradictionary?