The Real Problem with Parsers

[Aiselia]

I wonder how long we can make these posts.

Depends if there's a hard cap even on edited posts.

You then asserted that medical people can't improve.

I said that people with medical issues restricting them can't get over their medical issues. It's not my problem if you ignore the "restrictions" part. But I guess according to you, if someone can't walk because they're medically paralyzed, they're just not trying hard enough.

How about they exercise their options and use PF?

They could. They have that option. Just like you.

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

So when the next currency comes out, my alternate classes that I'm not gearing any higher than upgraded Law will be on an equal footing as somebody who's been Savage raiding this whole time immediately and who will presumably continue to raid?

If they're worried about elitism and abuse, they should avoid adding raids.

I'm just going to start ignoring every time you say, "Well, X can be a source of abuse so they shouldn't be doing it either." It's still not a valid argument for your case, so I'll stop wasting time on it.

You asserted that their current stance is that they don't want you talking about DPS at all.

Are you really stooping to semantic arguments? Was it not clear enough that I meant specific numbers? Do I need to literally spell out absolutely everything I say for you?

If it's unclear that I'm using hyperbole, sure.

No, hyperbole isn't an effective arguing tool in any case. Would you take me seriously if I said that parsers would turn everyone into drooling elitist lunatics because it's clear I'm using hyperbole?

I can try to help increase the quality of the DF

And again, the people that may try to help aren't the ones they're worried about. It's the ones that won't try to help and will just make someone feel bad.

And of course, you're assuming that PF provides something analogous to accountability.

It does if you're the one creating the party.

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

Nope, not really. Not when others don't think it's my duty to give them assistance.

"Random people suck, stop playing with random people."

Nope. "If random people sucking is so much of a problem, stop playing with random people."

Bull****.

Not at all. The state the game was in then will be unaffected by whether or not you have a parser now.

Ravana story swords.

Are not hard to deal with. I solo kill most of the blue butterflies. One bad DPS won't stop me from doing that.

Extreme modes which are routinely pugged.

Maybe people shouldn't try to do the hardest content with random people.

The problem is that you're taking a fairly innocuous term and twisting it to be something negative

I've never heard the phrase "calling someone out" as not being negative. Regardless, if you understood that I meant they'd be doing it negatively, it clearly doesn't matter what phrase I was using because you understood that I meant doing it negatively. Now you can move past semantics.

To add to this, I checked some dictionaries, unsurprisingly normal dictionaries didn't have the phrase in any way that applied to this, but urban dictionary doesn't seem to paint a very innocuous picture. Most them quite literally have to do with challenging somebody for some sort of fight or insulting them. In fact, the top accepted definition says "to put someone on blast", which then goes on to "to shame them badily (sic) in front of a group of three or more people". Which is oddly specific and I'm not sure why two isn't a blast.

Explain how that applies to random DF people again?

You said you weren't going to get far without numbers. You don't need numbers when you can tell that someone's doing lower DPS. Someone who isn't going to listen to you period isn't going to care whether you have numbers or not.

which is clearly not the standard they're holding other features to.

Or maybe they're considering scale and that the scale of people harassing over titles is less than those that would harass over DPS. But no, considering the reasonable extent of potential harassment for new features couldn't have possibly crossed their mind, hm?

I'm saying that I don't believe that there will be enough abuse to outweigh the advantages of having them.

Okay. And that's you. They disagree. It's your job to prove them wrong, not shout that they're wrong.

I have claimed that the clamouring of SE about elitism is fear mongering based on insufficient data

Which you can't prove.

elitism is already present in the game

Which further proves SE's point.

I clearly explained the relevence of each of those.

No, you explained why you think they're relevant. They're not.

2/4 gives you the percent of people who harass with parsers as it stands.

Which would almost assuredly change if they changed their policy.

3/1 gives you the approximate rate of players who would parse if they were allowed to.

Which doesn't prove anything about how many of those would be elitists.

4 adjusted for 8 gives you the approximate number of parser-harassments currently happening with the current policy.

Which would almost assuredly change if they changed their policy.

4 adjusted for both 7 and 8 would give you the number of harassments happening under the proposed policy.

Since 7 and 8 are hypotheticals in themselves, would you accept if they said that 75% of people would change into jerks? These hypotheticals can't be used to adjust because they're complete unknowns. Nobody will admit that they'll turn into a jerk if the policy changes, and obviously nobody can know 8 except a hivemind of the players that don't report them. Maybe 1,000 harassments go unreported daily. Maybe 100 do. Maybe 0 do. Maybe 10,000 do. You're expecting them to prove a hypothetical by weighting an estimate with another hypothetical.

Besides which, how do you know they haven't considered that and decided that their hypothetical figure for #7 is just simply higher than the one you think? Again, you're not privy to their reasoning, so you can't say they're wrong. And they don't owe you their reasoning, because they make the decisions and not you.

I'm in no position to verify or refute it.

Exactly. So saying their reasoning is bunk is really just you wanting it to be, not actually based on any facts.

What do you think 7 and 8 were for?

Subjective hypotheticals. If they suggest that 75% of people may turn into elitist jerks, would you accept that? Or would you still say that they're unreasonable? If they said 50%, how about then? Won't you really just say they're unreasonable, period, until they agree with you?