Why are low standards for dps acceptable?

[dark494]

In the OPs screen shot

And I'm gonna stop you right there because never anywhere did I even bring up the OP or the screenshot. I even directly quoted the healer's reply/defense/bs (which you can click on my quote to go view it b/c it's long and nonsensical) that he posted on page 1, which you clearly haven't read. Get off your high horse and learn some reading comprehension.

[TheUltimateSeph]

And I'm gonna stop you right there because never anywhere did I even bring up the OP or the screenshot. I even directly quoted the healer's reply/defense/bs (which you can click on my quote to go view it b/c it's long and nonsensical) that he posted on page 1, which you clearly haven't read. Get off your high horse and learn some reading comprehension.

I was the healer in this group, first like me start out by saying it would have been better if you suggested to the BLM to use Enochian instead of putting them on the spot and asking them repeatedly why they didn't use it. After you said something, she started using it

. The reason the tank said those things was because they were in the same FC. I'll go out on a limb and say they are a couple. Yes, the first boss was taking forever, but there are a lot of new players around now and BLM was her first 60.

This was Fractal, it's not super hard and doesn't require people to know the ends and outs of their jobs. People learn at their own pace. if you want to suggest something they are doing wrong then that's fine. If they change, great! If not, either leave or just stay for the ride.

Everything he said here is valid. I would also like to point out this particular post of his has 91 likes and counting. Seems quiet a few people agree with what he had to say! If me defending another player who has good points on the topic is me riding on a high horse I'll gladly continue to ride it and maybe train it to walk on stilts!

[DPZ2]

There is no excuse for anyone, at anytime, anywhere, to conciously hold back the rest of the group and be nothing but a hinderance.

There was no intimation that the other DPS was either "consciously holding back the rest of the group" or "be[ing] nothing but a hinderance".

Those may be your own views. You are entitled to them.

You aren't entitled to force me to believe them.

What a pitiful world this would be if we treated real living people outside of a game with the attitude you apparently have toward real living people inside of a game.

You apparently read something in the "kind of attitude your blm had" that I could not. Thankfully.

[TheUltimateSeph]

There was no intimation that the other DPS was either "consciously holding back the rest of the group" or "be[ing] nothing but a hinderance".

Those may be your own views. You are entitled to them.

You aren't entitled to force me to believe them.

What a pitiful world this would be if we treated real living people outside of a game with the attitude you apparently have toward real living people inside of a game.

You apparently read something in the "kind of attitude your blm had" that I could not. Thankfully.

The Elitism is real #badword

[Jim_Berry]

Can we all just get along?

[Kaurie]

Can we all just get along?

No, it's mostly important that we segregate into two camps, and bash the other side as much as possible. Elitists and scrubs. It's a good thing that SE has done such a fine job implementing tools and terms of service which encourage us to be respectful.

[KaitlanKela]

Okay, I'll bite.

This particular situation is a horrible case. You've got the OP accusing the BLM of being a bot right at the beginning, which, while really a legitimate concern (90% of the bots in this game are BLMs using the level 50 rotation), makes the whole interchange a little suspect because the accusation is not exactly endearing. The tank is the one responding harshly, and the BLM apparently took the advice fairly well after it was given. All in all, I think OP was a little harsh on the BLM when the real drama queen in the situation was the tank.

However, OP does have a point in that it's really easy for a DPS who's deliberately slacking to go unnoticed in the group. Unlike if a healer is slacking and someone dies, or the tank is slacking and hate is going everywhere, DPS really doesn't have a catastrophic failure indicator. To answer the title's question: why are low standards for DPS acceptable? They're not, they're just harder to notice. Other people doing their jobs are normally to engrossed to notice if a DPS is doing the minimum. Of course, IF you notice it AND you decide to address it in chat (which it may be easier just not to, depending on the situation), just use tact and be a decent human being. On the flip side, people should take constructive criticism with a good attitude. Whichever party fails to do that and breaks the communication down, the resulting drama is on them.

[Odett]

Oh of this I am well aware. Ironically I still out dps most people in my groups when not bothering with BoD. Hell as an experiment one time I went into Void Ark as a Lancer and used nothing but Chaos Thrust on the last boss and I was still staying at about 6-5th place on the enmity list for my party

Comparing yourself to the bottom of the barrel does absolutely nothing, and this is another example of why measuring your DPS by your enmity is largely inaccurate. Enmity-reducing abilities aside, you can be second highest enmity at 700 dps because everyone else is still pulling 500. That still makes you bad.

Our level 50 rotations are still viable means of good dps.

lol

It's what each person considers "good" I guess.

Your new level 50-60 skills aren't "optional". You're not considered "good" by doing the very least that is required of you. The person that quoted you earlier (dark494) is completely correct.

[DPZ2]

You've got the OP accusing the BLM of being a bot right at the beginning, which, while really a legitimate concern (90% of the bots in this game are BLMs using the level 50 rotation)

Can someone please give me a source for that "90%". Please. Particularly something not pulled out of thin air?

Links welcome.

If, as I expect, it is a spurious statistic [example: 90% of people who quote statistics are pulling it out of thin air], then the argument about a legitimate concern is not cool.

Besides, it is a well know fact that 100% of bots do NOT reply to questions about whether they are a bot ...

But then a number of players don't respond to anything in Party Chat either.

[Kaurie]

My response was Satirical, not in the domain of Hyperbole, get your Literary Devices in proper order.

I view presumption as a rhetorical construct--that is, it is a predisposition of the audience toward a claim that a debater makes. So, if an affirmative case (its significance, inherency, plan, whatever) makes an argument with which the critic agrees--then the affirmative case has the presumption. If an affirmative case makes an argument with which the critic disagrees, then the negative position has presumption. So the OP, with no proof to the fact that a Bot would be running Fractal with him/her, to word the question as such instead of something more passive, makes perspective irrelevant.

While I do agree that your example of Confirmation Bias is correct, I would argue that the original statement I quoted is also Confirmation Bias.

He [Peter Cathcart Wason] also coined the term ``confirmation bias'' to describe the tendency for people to immediately favor information that validates their preconceptions, hypotheses and personal beliefs regardless of whether they are true or not.

Without any proof to establish that a bot would be running Fractal, and the many posts before and afterwards stating the same without and clear proof to the statement would be confirmation bias. The Irony you speak of is lost on me, since I did not form any statement into a loaded question, nor did I presume any judgement on the speaker, I just requested proof with a side of satire.

#ThisGirl

Somehow I missed your response here. Personally, I'd rather we both use more simple language, given the nature of this thread and medium.

Few things in response,

1. I am a guy Though, i do play a female character, so just clarifying.

2. I am sorry for starting out with "This Guy" it was a rather disrespectful opener. I've edited it out of my original post.

3. I don't entirely get your argument of why perspective is irrelevant. I feel that it is relevant, because different perspectives change how we receive information. This can most easily be seen when looking at different cultures around the world and how they view different things. For example, if you were to tip a waiter in Japan/China, it would be viewed as offensive; whereas, if you don't tip a water in the USA it is viewed as offensive. Your personal history and experiences frame your perspective on the world, which in turn affects how things are received. This is why whether a question or not is loaded is fully based on perspective.

4. I still fully disagree with your thoughts on confirmation bias. The poster may have exhibited confirmation bias to come to their conclusion (to which we do not know), but the conclusion itself is not confirmation bias.

5. The reason why I argued against these posts, particularly the confirmation bias, is you simply mentioned a concept as an argument against, without actually providing anything else. Simply disregarding someones post and saying "Nope, confirmation bias." is a tad disrespectful, and I stood up for the poster as such.

6. I concede that it may have been a poor use of Irony; however, you also had a poor use of irony

The irony, seeing how your attempt to derail me was far from courteous back on page 55, complete with Italics!.

Where that would be more hypocritical than irony. However, I disagree, as I wasn't being discourteous as so much engaging in a discussion with you - with perhaps the exception of my initial words "This Guy". That said, I feel we can blame the poor use of the word Irony on Alanis Morissette.

Can someone please give me a source for that "90%". Please. Particularly something not pulled out of thin air?

I believe the impreciseness of the value 90 was used specifically to convey that it's not an actual value. When suggesting that 90% of bots are BLM, one is just suggesting that the most commonly seen bots are BLMs. I do not think an actual value is reported or readily available.

If you search for any complaint posts regarding bots, you'll often see a reference to BLM or even screenshots of them.