The Real Problem with Parsers

[Aiselia]

And no, as pointed out by others "Doesn't create extra Jerks" is not a clear stance.

Actually, it is, if you're not trying to argue semantics. Anyone objectively looking at it should be able to tell that I mean that as long as it doesn't increase harassment, I don't have any problems with it. It's a lot easier to understand my position if you keep it in mind throughout everything I say, rather than just picking one quote and picking apart the words.

Heres a benefit to parsers,

You don't need a parser to tell someone's damage is really low because they're using a Novus weapon rather than a current weapon. I can look at the threat meter and then examine their gear and do the same thing. Heck, I have done that before because I frequently check the threat meters and if I see something like I'm beating a DRG while I'm on a BRD, I check their gear to see if it's because they're just lower geared.

That being said, as a tank, I also tend to check peoples' gear before doing anything just to see what I'm dealing with to know what to expect, especially when it comes to whether or not I should use Defiance or Deliverance. If someone is wearing way better gear than my tank, I'm not going to risk Deliverance as much because they could pull it off easier. And yes, I also do it with healers to know whether I should try big pulls or smaller.

But given that you made the claim, the onus is on you to prove it.

I didn't make the claim. I followed a claim other people made. I already said I don't have official sources.

You can't make a claim up and then say others have to disprove it.

I didn't say they had to disprove it. I said that what he posted doesn't prove it wrong just because it doesn't mention it.

Even when faced with evidence to the contrary, you are still clutching at it.

I'm not clutching at anything. I already said that what their stance is is irrelevant to my own position so I don't really care.

[Whiteroom]

Actually, it is, if you're not trying to argue semantics.

I didn't make the claim. I followed a claim other people made. I already said I don't have official sources.

I didn't say they had to disprove it. I said that what he posted doesn't prove it wrong just because it doesn't mention it.

I'm not clutching at anything. I already said that what their stance is is irrelevant to my own position so I don't really care.

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

So, about the whole jerks thing, there is almost nothing that can be implimented in game that cant be used by jerks in an abusive fashion. Emotes, vote kick/dismiss, not being able to kick during loot rolls/battle, etc. And guess what, all that can be abused in the opposite way if not implimented, same with parsers.

So, given that almost anything put in the game can be abused, should they stop adding things? Also does the parser actually create jerks? Or are the people already jerks, abusing something in game. If you can write a program that actually changes people into jerks from nice people, that is a powerful program.