To you.
Came across
to you.
Your statement
came across to me as you saying people should quit. That means it's fair, by your logic here, for me to say you told people to quit the game.
See how that works?
I have to make lengthy posts because you make so many charges and accusations, I have to address them all. If you'd make arguments for your proposals and not personal attacks, then I could merely address your arguments directly. As it is, I have to spend my time defending my character from your assaults. Or leaven them unchallenged other than to say "I'm not taking your bait this time".
arrogant and inflammatory
Your posts have come across to me as arrogant and inflammatory. Does that make them so?
You may not see it that way, nor may you intend your comments to come across that way, but every response feels like you are yelling your stance at us.
And every response feels like you are yelling your stance at me.
Funny how when we rely on subjective things like "seems" or "feels", we can make up disparaging things about people that aren't true...
When I exacerbate how you have communicated past statements,
You didn't, though.
you exacerbated how
you felt my past statements, which you disagree with and don't like, came across
to you, even as you admit that in your appraisal I likely did not intend them that way. Text is text. It's not "angry" or "yelling". Those are perceptions you're making because a part of you wants to believe it's true rather than that you're contesting a person being rational and reasonable. Because if it's the latter, you'd have to admit I might have some points and that you should listen to them. If you instead tell yourself it's the former, that gives your mind carte blanch to ignore my arguments and attack me instead.
And yes, when you're attacking my posting style instead of the content of said posts, that is still an ad hominem fallacy. It is still an attempt to avoid the points raised by instead addressing the manner they are being raised in and the person they are being raised by. Note in your post here, you aren't actually addressing any of my points. You're not making counter arguments. You're derailing the thread.
All so you can accuse me of making "very length" and "angry" and "loud" and "visceral" posts.
But we'll get to that...
the goal is not to defame you, but to try and show you how your responses are being received
No, it's not.
Because I have been really patient and shown a lot of forbearance. There are, what, 3-5 of you in this thread attacking me. Some of you are addressing my arguments. Many of you are not. Either way, I'm responding to multiple people. People who are each making long posts. You think your posts aren't lengthy? And I try to address each point and do so thoroughly so I don't get replies of "But what about THIS thing you didn't mention?!" by mentioning and explaining those things.
I've been cordial, despite being insulted, I've tried to avoid telling you guys what you think or putting words in your mouth, despite you all doing so to me multiple times. I'm the calm, quiet, rational one here being yelled at by you folks.
The worst part is:
in hopes that you understand how your comments are coming across. We're talking about what "tantrum" means in this regard.
...because you don't want to entertain my idea or arguments, there is literally no way I can say it you won't attack.
If I'm not thorough, you'll insist I didn't prove my point.
If I am, you'll insist I'm making lengthy posts.
If I don't respond to your personal attacks, you make more.
If I do, you insist I'm angry.
There's literally no winning with you because you want me to be wrong. You want it so badly, any way I present my argument you will find fault with. And you'll attack that presentation - as you have - to avoid the arguments you cannot overcome or don't like my answers to. The very fallacy of attack on the person/message format rather than the arguments presented.
If you didn't do that, I wouldn't need to make lengthy posts, I wouldn't need to respond to accusations, nor would I need to point out the accusations and make posts here and there attempting to avoid going into them because
unlike you, I don't want to psychoanalize my opposition, belittle them, and derail the thread so they can be accused of being the ones derailing the thread.
When you respond, you post these very lengthy posts that are angry and loud and visceral and dedicate paragraphs to defensively lashing back at comments
Okay, how are my posts "angry"?
How are my posts "loud"?
You realize text cannot be loud, right?
How are my posts "visceral"?
Those are a lot of subjective words, some of which literally cannot apply to text.
I'm also not "lashing back". I'm "countering". As one does in a discussion, debate, or argument. When someone insults you unfairly, it's acceptable to say they're wrong and why they're wrong. Whey I said you told people to quit the game, was it "lashing back" for you to say "No, I didn't say that, here's what I meant when I said what you thought was that"?
Of course it's not. Yet you seek to deny me the same privilege and, in fact, use it as another attack against me. "lashing back" is not you saying "offering an objective and levelheaded rebuttal to an accusation levied". When you say someone is "lashing", that means you think they're acting in an irrational and emotional manner, losing control of their emotions and responding immaturely. That's an insult, not an objective appraisal.
In fact, you continue to use subjective, highly charged words to describe my posts. At this point, I can only conclude you're doing so intentionally since you've seen from several posts I interpret them as insults (and they are, objectively, insults, mind you), yet instead of going "Oh, maybe I shouldn't use that kind of language..." you double and triple down on it as you make more and more posts addressing me instead of my arguments and derailing the thread further and further if I reply to you.
And if I don't, you keep replying to me anyway to goad me into it until I do.
In all seriousness, does that not sound like a "tantrum" to you?
It might if it were true.
It's not true, thus it's not a tantrum.
You are calling my reasoned and rational rebuttals tantrums. That's you attacking my character, whether you want to pretend you aren't or not.
(This last one is the most absurd one - I'm willing to let 100% of healers still put out enough damage to clear content simply by button spamming! That's a hell of a lot more than an inch. Meanwhile, what are you willing to yield here? What are you proposing yielding to me and those like me? Literally nothing for WHM other than people who don't like it should abandon their favorite job. When you aren't outright telling them they should go play DPS instead, that is. You do recall you did that earlier in this discussion, do you not? How you could even type that seriously is beyond me. If I was "unwilling to yield an inch", I'd be arguing that ALL Healer rotations would be required to clear ALL forms of content. Which is not at all what I've done. That is what "unwilling to yield an inch" looks like. Willing to have filler buttons contribute most of your DPS is not only willing to yield an inch, it's offering you a compromise that is more than fair and more than tilted to your benefit. That statement of yours is absurd to the point of farce by even a cursory examination of this discussion and our expressed viewpoints, as well as highly hypocritical, given your own unyielding position and statements. If you meant it legitimately, you need to reexamine your entire understanding of this discussion.)
There are several problems here. Allow me to explain:
1) You aren't willing to let healers put out enough damage to clear content. Collectively - and I believe individually in your case - you folks have argued these people not be able to clear Savages (or to some of you, Extremes) with the 1 button spam.
2) That's not a lot more than an inch. Even the most "accommodating" of you have argued that 1 button spammers should barely be able to clear content if they're even allowed to.
3) What am I willing to yield is three entire Jobs. Note you say "nothing for WHM", which is a lie of omission. "nothing for WHM" means "everything for SCH, AST, and SGE", which is a lot.
4) "should abandon their favorite job" is hardly a counter when your position is "should abandon their favorite role, and possibly the game".
5) Note that I haven't outright told anyone they should go play DPS instead. This is also not a parity, as I haven't done so. Indeed, it would be me telling them they should play SCH, dAST, nAST, or SGE instead. Which is VERY accommodating position.
6) No, I didn't do that earlier in this discussion. Find and quote me doing so. I've very explicitly refrained from doing so. Indeed, offering you 3 healing Jobs, one of which would have two healing specs, is very much the opposite of insisting you play DPS instead.
7) No, that wouldn't be you "unwilling to yield an inch", since your base position was that this would only matter in Savage and Extremes. But, by all means, propose if you will that the rotations be required in MSQ content. I'm sure Yoshi P will listen.
8) "willing to let you barely clear content and call you bad for doing so" is not yielding an inch, no. To yield an inch requires you to come off of your initial proposal or move your proposal towards the counter proposal. Neither of these are happening in this case.
9) It's certainly not "more than fair and more than tilted to your benfit" since it leaves me with nothing that I want. My proposal leaves you with 3 Jobs that you want. Your proposal leaves me with 0 Jobs that I want and a playstyle that can only get through content if carried.
10) Given my position has been very yielding, you can't say that it's hypocritical on my part.
...in other words, reversing that statement doesn't work, and includes you outright lying on several points to even do so.
Does that truly seem rational and reasonable to you?
If you didn't lie about several of the points, it would have. It doesn't work because your argument is more extreme than mine is. Here's what you should have said:
"This last one is the most absurd one - I'm willing to let 100% of healers still put out enough damage to barely clear content if they have a group carrying them simply by button spamming! That's a not much more than an inch. Meanwhile, what are you willing to yield here? What are you proposing yielding to me and those like me? Literally all of three entire Healing Jobs and the general role of healing taking nothing but WHM for yourself, and both yourself and those like you abandoning their favorite jobs of SCH, AST, and SGE so that me and people like me can enjoy them instead. Graciously, you aren't outright telling them they should go play DPS instead, and are encouraging and accommodating them to play three fun and enjoyable Healer Jobs, changed to their liking. You have been very kind and have not ever insisted they play DPS instead at any point in this discussion. How you could even type that seriously is thus completely understandable. If I was "unwilling to yield an inch", I'd be arguing that ALL Healers to be given complex rotations. Which is what I've done. (Oh, wait...that DOES mean I'm unwilling to yield an inch, doesn't it?) That is what "unwilling to yield an inch" looks like. Willing to have non-complex Jobs in the role is not only willing to yield an inch, it's something I refuse to offer you. By not even giving you one Job you can enjoy, I'm not offering you a compromise that is more than fair and more than tilted to your benefit. That statement of yours is completely understandable to the point of reasonable by even a cursory examination of this discussion and our expressed viewpoints, as well as highly consistent, given your own yielding position and statements. If you meant it legitimately, you have thoroughly examined your entire understanding of this discussion."
That would be the correct reflection of that statement from your side, and yes, that would seem truly rational and reasonable and I wouldn't be livid at all.
.
Even with you lying in your presentation, I'm not "livid". I'm frustrated and disappointed you chose to lie, and I'm rationally countering the lies and how you've incorrectly interpreted a "mirror" of that statement, and doing so point by point with a neutral tone.
In other words, I'm the exact opposite of livid.
A point I had made before is the majority of players who are content with the healers as they are today will be continue with healers if they were given engaging consistent gameplay.
While I agree many people would just put up with it, that doesn't mean they'd be happy. Moreover, this isn't an argument in favor of your proposition: The counter is equally true. The majority of players content with healers today would continue to be content if we got more of the same. Since this argument supports both propositions, it cannot be used as a point in favor of yours.
We know this because the majority of players were content with healers in the past, like with SB and HW.
...when one healer (WHM) was simple compared to the others (SCH/AST), which is literally what I am proposing and you are opposing. Keep in mind that players had an "out" if they didn't want the complex Healer Job then. You are proposing to strip them of that out. If people didn't like how complex SCH or AST were, they played WHM. This is literally the very thing I'm arguing for.
You just provided an argument in favor of my position and opposed to your own.
As I have said before, most people will tolerate nearly anything until the point of legitimately making something unplayable.
Agreed to a point. But only to a point. SCH in ShB was not unplayable, yet many people quit healing after the ShB change.
Allowing each healer to have a more dynamic gameplay loop regardless of whether they're going through MSQ instances, dungeons, treasure maps, savage raids, criterion dungeons, or whatever can only benefit the game.
No, it can also harm the game. There's no argument presented to date that it will be a net benefit to the game, and none that it won't harm some players. The insistence it won't do so is neither evidence nor an argument. Someone could just as easily say "it can only harm the game" and have just as much weight as you saying it can only benefit it.
Originally Posted by Renathras
Reply With Quote
