And you in turn "mischaracterize" my words by implying I was only referencing the feedback from these forums. There are other forums and discussion mediums than this community and I never even implied that I was only talking about these forums, and neither did you, until now.
On these forums? Maybe, I haven't done a qualitative analysis of the data.
I think you need to expand your horizons beyond these boards if you think that the majority of feedback on it is positive.
1) If you were referencing the feedback from more sources than these forums, does that change the macrological content of what I wrote? Does having referenced sources outside these forums change the actual character of your post and my response? Because, if not, you are creating a semantic argument to hide just how illogical your statements are overall. Again, I said, "the UA articles are part of the quality control process, and more UA articles are probably an indication that they are gearing up towards an official, quality-controlled release filled with game mechanics beyond those found in adventure paths." Your response was, "the UA articles are not balanced, and so have not been quality-controlled." Do you understand that your response is a non-sequitur? I mean, sure, you didn't actually say anything about your observation only being rooted in these forums. Focusing on that, however, is just as irrelevant as if I focused on the fact that an analysis of what percentage of the player base holds what general opinion is a quantitative, not qualitative, analysis. Who cares? It doesn't change the general content of either of our positions.
2) I say, "on these boards," as otherwise, we have no common frame of reference. Neither of us has any idea what the other person has or hasn't seen on the internet at large. We can only be certain that both of us are aware of these boards. Trying to pretend that there is some other mysterious arena in which our opinion is the majority opinion is an illusory discussion tactic. I mean, the opinions on these boards seem to be congruous with the opinion found on every Reddit discussion and fan blog I have seen as well, but if you want to provide evidence of a common negative opinion in regards to the ranger, be my guest. Maybe there is a section of the internet that believes otherwise. I don't know. Again, however, it's kind of irrelevant, as you are still trying to ignore the fact that your original statement
is not connected with what I wrote. Maybe we have seen very different tenors of feedback in regards to the UA ranger. Does that somehow change the fact that the UA articles and their subsequent polls
are part of the quality control process?
That's basically a non-apology apology. The "I'm sorry, but it's your fault that I'm sorry," kind of take-back.
But whatever.
You are right. Let me be more explicit. Unless you change your debate tactics, which so far amount to misquoting me, arguing against a strawman, trying to steer our discussion into a debate that isn't grounded in the post you quoted, and then hiding behind semantics to continue to ignore the way the argument you are trying to foster isn't actually grounded in the post you originally quoted, I'm not actually sorry. The second you stop doing that, I probably will be, and then we can discuss things in good faith.
