Which in turn is flawed for various reasons. Already I have had people telling me that Heavensward or 4.1 BLM had it much worse then it is currently at. While that may be true, it doesn't change the fact that the isuess being discussed are how the job is played TODAY. That also negates a new person who may not be a 'veteran' of the job, but still is a vital source of feedback because a new perspective might be overlooked by someone who is used to a certain way of doing things. That would be like ignoring the feedback of new blood in your workplace because "well that just isn't how things are done" even though said feedback might very well make things better in whatever regards. Third...just because things work again does not mean it is a good design. Just because something is functional does not mean it is a good design, these two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
Finally, the biggest fallacy of this argument is that it would me we should always defer to the person with the most experience, but that in itself is dangerous logic because just because someone has been playing longer does not automatically translate to a better understanding of a game or even game design. For all you the dissenting voice could have years of experience outside of said game either as a "professional" gamer, game designer, reviewer, or any other job that requires critical thought of how a game is put together. Even if they didn't, depending on their background of games played with a diverse enough history they could still have just as valid a critical eye as those who have a more professional take of the matter. So simply going by "Well they have played more then you, so they know more" is actually not a good worldview to take, in any part of one's life. That is why we have critical thinking skills (or we should hopefully).
Except he literally called me out to say that it was because of me and THIS thread that he was even taking an interest in the job, going so far as to cite playtime in the PoTD as in his eyes negating my argument. So again, going by your logic he shouldn't be weighing in. So either his viewpoint is valid despite less experience then me in the job, his argument is based on parroting others in regards to this job, or he is a hypocrite. By specifically stating I don't understand the nuances, he is inferring that even with less experience and less time spent in the class he is able to understand the fundamentals of the job and how it is meant to be played. In which case I could turn around and use the argument made against me in that he hasn't hit 70 and isn't as experienced in the job so he doesn't know what he is talking about. Which in turn is demonstrating all the fallacy I was pointing out above.
Which flies in the face of everything people were telling me in the beginning in that I hadn't gotten to 70 and thus couldn't make an accurate judgment on the job. Funny how that works now that you have someone who is less the 70, and who agrees with your stance, how suddenly level doesn't matter for knowing the 'nuances' of this job.