Its time to remove job-based glamour restrictions.

[Claire_Pendragon]

Your "deductive" argument is probabilistic and thus obviously not deductive at all, which is something anyone who actually understands the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning would immediately recognize.

You can interpret my refusal to make a serious response as an inability to do so if you wish. I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

I still feel a bit lost in your two's argument.

I feel confused because the Devs have stated there's the DPS role, and within it, the sub section of Melee, Casters, and Physical Ranged. (As the LBs also fit into, and how they build content around.)
So, is the argument that roles dont break down into sub divisions?
Or is the argument that sub divisions are the "real" roles?

Or something else?

(On a side note, you said they are using inductive reasoning, but thats a bit hard to say, given you don't know if they actually started with a conclusion or not. Maybe they are showing you their conclusion 1st, after they already tried to figure it out, and in order to speed things up, they explain it in reverse order, breaking down how they got there after stating the conclusion. Which from the outside can appear as if they had a conclusion prior to all of this, in which they tried to prove.)

EDIT: Honestly after rereading your two's post more, I'm still confused, because it seems you two are aruing that same thing, thinking the other isnt saying it.
I really cant make heads or tails of the argument lol. (Less so Nixxie, since you technically didn't start the 1st response in disagreement.)
I'm thinking the OP misunderstood that you're in agreement with them, and because they are saying you're wrong, you're also assuming they are against your points, despite having the same points/views. Mostly because u played devils advocate.)

EDIT#2 Ok it does seem like Gemina is the one misunderstanding the most, and misrepresenting your argument, but it also seems like you're kind of going along with it, ignoring the misrepresentation, to argue your point further, that neither of you really disagree with.