parse for ps4 users !

[Whiteroom]

I suggested opt-in parsing where parsing is available in-game, but each player can choose whether or no to participate by optinG in -- setting in their options. This was shot down by suggestions ranging from people saying they would kick anyone 'hiding' their numbers and that it would lead to more toxicity, to people who demanded to be able to see the numbers for players who did not opt in.

God I hate doing this on a phone. It really is a hassle, especially with the 1000 char limit.

I did not see anyone suggest they would kick based on someone not using a opt in parser. What I did see, were these words, which I can quote if you really want me to:

In the event of a failure due to dps checks not being met, they would kick the one who was hiding their dps.

Now that player has shown themselves not to be completely incompitent with regards to parsers, so I made the obvious conclusion that this was to have the unnessasary add on of:

As long as nothing was glaring wrong with the visible parsed dps.

Now as for yours second paragraph there. It was stated that you were, "ironically" as you like use, making an adjustment to parsers, that would have the effect of giving that abusive portion of the community a target. Your whole thing is abuse, and you make a suggestion that would make the tool more prone to abuse, than less prone, which you should be doing. And then you, oh so grandly, turn aroun and say "I thought they didn't cause abuse!"

Now I keep bringing up that "human nature" statement for various reasons:

1. You say it to me for saying people who do not know they are playing poorly are likely to try to improve if they find out they are. And then turn around and ignore the very obvious point of how people would view a team member who hides their contrabution in failing content.

2. You state that you dont put people down, yet that is your introductory statement.

3. You continually point out only negative behaviour of human nature, and ignore positive. That ironic word again.

Now the suggestion of seperate queues fully negates the negatives of your "solution" and also has the effect of removing any of those a-hole from harrasing people, unless they intentionally join the other queue to troll. Yet you discard it. This also take the people who would hide their numbers to cover a lack of effort out of the hair of people who do want to show their numbers.

[Kosmos992k]

God I hate doing this on a phone. It really is a hassle, especially with the 1000 char limit.

On that we can agree.

I did not see anyone suggest they would kick based on someone not using a opt in parser. **snip**

There were several posts that characterized that response, I'd have to go back and re-read the thread to pull a quote, which I'm not going to do, because I know we'll end up arguing semantics and interpretation of words, and will not agree.

Now as for yours second paragraph there. It was stated that you were, "ironically" as you like use, making an adjustment to parsers, that would have the effect of giving that abusive portion of the community a target.

I geniunely find it ironic thst people's criticism of a suggestion that would IMO reduce abuse, is to state that it would cause more toxicity. At the same time, the responses described reacting to players 'hiding' their numbers in an entirely negative manner. The implication bring that such players have something to hide. Basically the objection is framed as a self fulfilling prophesy of increased abuse. That is what I consider ironic about the responses.

Your whole thing is abuse, and you make a suggestion that would make the tool more prone to abuse, than less prone, which you should be doing. And then you, oh so grandly, turn aroun and say "I thought they didn't cause abuse!"

Actually, I could not believe that people responded so negatively to implementing a full parser in-game, and giving players the option to opt in or out of participating in the parser. There was nothing grand about it, just a little incredulity.

Now I keep bringing up that "human nature" statement for various reasons:

1. You say it to me for saying people who do not know they are playing poorly are likely to try to improve if they find out they are. And then turn around and ignore the very obvious point of how people would view a team member who hides their contrabution in failing content.

I don't remember thenexact exchange, but if I remember correctly I said you need to learn more about human nature came earlier in that discussion when I was trying to point out that people react negatively to unsolicited advise and criticism, and that an official in-game parser would be abused by a minority of players. I thought you were taking an unrealisticaly positive view on how parser users will in general handle the data, and how players would respond.

2. You state that you dont put people down, yet that is your introductory statement.

I'm sorry this caused so much offense to you, that was not the intent, I was simply saying that I thought you need to learn more about human nature - because I felt you were being unrealustly positive. Nothing less, nothing more. I still think you are not seeing, or looking for the potential down side.

3. You continually point out only negative behaviour of human nature, and ignore positive. That ironic word again.

I'm not ignoring positive behavior at all. However, the impact of negative behavior is far greater than positive. People will remember that one time when someone was a jerk to them and used parser data to do it, but they will not remember the other times when someone suggested an improvement and offered the help of parser data. People who want to improve, will. People who don't care or want to improve won't.

Irony is irony, and often is in the eye of the beholder alone.

All of that aside, you and I clearly have clashing styles and opinions. I did not mean to offend you, and I was not attacking you when I said i thought you needed to learn more about human nature. You have felt offense and attacked, and I am sorry for that. I can't in all honesty say that I would not have posted that with the benefit of hindsight, but had I realized you would feel that way, I might have found a way to make it clearer it was not an attack.

Now the suggestion of seperate queues fully negates the negatives of your "solution" and also has the effect of removing any of those a-hole from harrasing people, unless they intentionally join the other queue to troll. Yet you discard it. This also take the people who would hide their numbers to cover a lack of effort out of the hair of people who do want to show their numbers.

Separate Q's split DF potentially spliting the playerbase and increasing Q times for all. Also, as suggested by several posters, I think that players would eventually gravitate to one or the other Q in an effort to avoid longer Qs, rendering the empty Q redundant. If that happened, either parsing would in effect be mandatory, or parsing would be absent completely in DF. I don't think that would serve either parser advocates, or parser cynics.

[Whiteroom]

On that we can agree.


There were several posts that characterized that response, I'd have to go back and re-read the thread to pull a quote, which I'm not going to do, because I know we'll endup arguing semantics and interpretation of words, and will not agree.


I geniunely find it ironic thst people's criticism of a suggestion that would IMO reduce abuse, is to state that it would cause more toxicity. At the same time, the responses described reacting to players 'hiding' their numbers in an entirely negative manner. The implication bring that such players have something to hide. Basically the objection is framed as a self fulfilling prophesy of increased abuse. That is what I consider ironic about the responses.


Actually, I could not believe that people responded so negatively to implementing a full parser in-game, and giving players the option to opt in or out of participating in the parser. There was nothing grand about it, just a little incredulity.

Sorry it took so long to get back to this.

To me, it was not a negative response. It was people giving realistic critisisms of the idea. Tbh, I found, and still find it unrealistic that anyone cannot see how it actually serves to highlight a player. So I took it as willfully ignoring the obvious so that you could say "Ha! See!", or simply being able to accept critisisms of an idea presented by you.

I'm sorry this caused so much offense to you...

It's no problem, I didn't take any personal offense to it. It was more the attitude I took you as having strolling into the thread with. The whole, "I'm going to walk in halfway through and state things that have been being discussed for pages as if no one else was smart enough to think of them or post them!". I'm sure you probably felt a little of it when that pro parser fool came in a few pages back and did the same thing, but all in caps lock with "mind blown" pictures. It happens from time to time and sometime its just like "screw this one!"
But such is the power of the parser debate. We rub each other wrong in here, and thats ok.

[Kosmos992k]

Sorry it took so long to get back to this.

NP, I was checking the topic after seeing your mention earlier that you were still to reply.

To me, it was not a negative response. It was people giving realistic critisisms of the idea. Tbh, I found, and still find it unrealistic that anyone cannot see how it actually serves to highlight a player. So I took it as willfully ignoring the obvious so that you could say "Ha! See!", or simply being able to accept critisisms of an idea presented by you.

I can see how it would highlight a player, but I think that happens anyway with the existing use of parsers. Right now with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding parser use, no one knows who is/is not parsing until they say so in chat. The problem with is that players who admit to parsing are potentially subject to discipline whether or not they have mis-used parser data at all - which is clearly unfair and wrong. With an official parser there is a chance to make it quite clear what constitutes acceptable use and conduct. Giving players the ability to opt in or out of parsing seems to me to go hand in hand with that clarity, making it easier for players of all types to understand what is going on, and avoid situations that could lead to trouble.

It's no problem, I didn't take any personal offense to it. It was more the attitude I took you as having strolling into the thread with. The whole, "I'm going to walk in halfway through and state things that have been being discussed for pages as if no one else was smart enough to think of them or post them!". I'm sure you probably felt a little of it when that pro parser fool came in a few pages back and did the same thing, but all in caps lock with "mind blown" pictures. It happens from time to time and sometime its just like "screw this one!"
But such is the power of the parser debate. We rub each other wrong in here, and thats ok.

Unfortunately, we often walk into debates halfway through because we find a post that triggers our desire to respond several pages deep in the more recent comments, before we've had a chance to read the remainder of the discussion. It is the power of debate, whether about parsers or other matters. Of course, text only discussions on the internet have suffered these kinds of difficulty since forever. Whether we rub each other wrong in this topic or others, we agree in other areas. Either way, it is, as you say, OK.