D&D (2024) Class spell lists and pact magic are back!

[mamba]

It's not an election for office, or something. They don't want a simple majority, they want a strong majority.

that was not the point, the point is that the stronger a majority you want, the easier for a minority to prevent it

Because they aren't setting up a vote between two candidates.

they don’t need to, we all know who the other candidate is

They've been very upfront about the various thresholds for when they keep a proposal or set something aside.

Doesn’t matter, do you think that someone voting 3 on templates because they want improvements (4 is a pass after all) wanted them thrown out instead)?

You don't know this.

in the sense that I do not know whether anyone voted 3, yes, other than that… it stretches credulity to think someone wanting animals would vote 3 to begin with, or that someone wanting better templates would have preferred animals / not voted higher if they knew 3 meant no templates

Says you, based on your detailed knowledge of the poll results, methodology, and collated comments, and your expertise in interpreting such things?

says me with basic logic, it does not take more. See my example, just above too, tell me that this is not what is happening.

An appeal to authority is not an argument. Make a case instead.

If only there was an option to write exactly such comments into the survey? Oh wait - there was and I did.

you and what percentage? Most didn’t, and those decide the outcome (or at least should, it sounds like WotC is diluting the sample based on comments on top of everything else…)

Okay, well then it seems the survey is working as intended, since there's a solution that you like.

that no one uses, so no, it does not work

 

[MockingBird]

you and what percentage? Most didn’t, and those decide the outcome (or at least should, it sounds like WotC is diluting the sample based on comments on top of everything else…)

How do you know most people didn't comment?

 

[Clint_L]

that was not the point, the point is that the stronger a majority you want, the easier for a minority to prevent it


they don’t need to, we all know who the other candidate is


Doesn’t matter, do you think that someone voting 3 on templates because they want improvements (4 is a pass after all) wanted them thrown out instead)?


in the sense that I do not know whether anyone voted 3, yes, other than that… it stretches credulity to think someone wanting animals would vote 3 to begin with, or that someone wanting better templates would have preferred animals / not voted higher if they knew 3 meant no templates


says me with basic logic, it does not take more. See my example, just above too, tell me that this is not what is happening.

An appeal to authority is not an argument. Make a case instead.

Most of your arguments above are non sequiturs, so whatever. However, you have a habit of condescendingly accusing others of logical fallacies, when you clearly do not understand logical fallacies very well. I happen to teach logical fallacies in my Theory of Knowledge class.

1. Pointing out that an expert on a particular field is more credible than a non-expert is not a fallacious argument from authority. You, in this case, are the non-expert. This is compounded by the fact that you are a non-expert in possession of exactly zero salient facts, presenting an illogical argument grounded in speculation.

2. A fallacious argument from authority is when you cite the authority's credentials alone as justification for a claim, particularly if those credentials are not even relevant to the case at hand. Whereas in this case I also illustrated, with an example from personal experience, of how the experts are following very standard protocols in this field. i.e. I also made the case.

If you are going to accuse others of logical fallacies, you should understand how they work, or it really undermines the argument that you are trying, badly, to make. Actually, just stop accusing others of logical fallacies, stop speculating about what other people are thinking, and focus on what you know and can support with actual evidence, not speculation.

you and what percentage? Most didn’t, and those decide the outcome (or at least should, it sounds like WotC is diluting the sample based on comments on top of everything else…)

This is just speculation. Again.

[comments feature] that no one uses, so no, it does not work

And now you're denying reality, since I've already told you that I used the comments feature and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person. Though I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just being hyperbolic.

 

[mamba]

How do you know most people didn't comment?

it’s an educated guess. I’d be surprised if even 10% did, let me know what percentage you think did

 

[mamba]

Most of your arguments above are non sequiturs, so whatever.

they aren’t, you just do not agree

I happen to teach logical fallacies in my Theory of Knowledge class

then you should be able to avoid them

1. Pointing out that an expert on a particular field is more credible than a non-expert is not a fallacious argument from authority.

you have no idea who they are or what they would say

2. A fallacious argument from authority is when you cite the authority's credentials alone as justification for a claim

you did not even manage that

And now you're denying reality, since I've already told you that I used the comments feature

I was talking about voting exclusively 1 or 5 and commenting on everything, as that was the method I said is working, and you said since there was one I was happy with, the poll was just great the way it is (which obviously is not a correct conclusion anyway…)

If you want to argue this, explain to me how what I said about the person voting 3 is wrong and the vote is accurately picked up and considered in the poll instead, and why they would have voted 3 knowing it would lead to templates being thrown out.
Pretty sure you cannot, and that is why you instead point to authority as to why it has to make sense, even if we do not see it. I am willing to be proven wrong, it just takes more than a ‘they know what they are doing’

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It's not an election for office, or something. They don't want a simple majority, they want a strong majority.

It is more like (constructive) motion of no confidence. There are countries where 2/3 of the voices are needed to revoke the old president/chancelor/governor (and replace them with a new one).

Edit: or take the Brexit. It was a dubious idea to have a simple majority vote to make UK leave the EU. Many mostly content people just did not got to the ballot, because they never thought that the Brexiteers have a realistic chance.
I think life changing alterations need a little more than a 51% majority.

(At least that was what it looked like from Germany).

Edit2: i hope this was not unallowed politics...

 

[Remathilis]

It is not a vote between the old and the new. It is just a vote if you could live with the new option. You don't know how many of the 60% also like the old option.

The problem is that with time dwindling, it's becoming a vote between old and new. If (for example) template wild shape was rejected not on concept but on execution, then every person who voted "ok, but could be better" had their votes tally with "terrible, do not want".

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The problem is that with time dwindling, it's becoming a vote between old and new. If (for example) template wild shape was rejected not on concept but on execution, then every person who voted "ok, but could be better" had their votes tally with "terrible, do not want".

No. It is still not. We don't know what percentage is in the intersection: "I am ok with bot approaches" is.

Then you have a selection bias in people who fill out the survey. Usually people not happy are more willing to answer a survey (as long as there is a general trust in the survey).

Lets just say: saying a minority has prevented the majority vote from being considered is showing a lack of understanding of statistical analysis.

 

[mamba]

No. It is still not. We don't know what percentage is in the intersection: "I am ok with bot approaches" is.

whoever voted ‘I want better templates’ is not on that intersection, yet they would vote the same rating, as 4 and 5 are both ‘approved’

Then you have a selection bias in people who fill out the survey. Usually people not happy are more willing to answer a survey (as long as there is a general trust in the survey).

not happy with what, the proposal or what we have today? I can argue this either way, for you it only works in one direction, so I’d just throw it out since we have nothing to go on

Lets just say: saying a minority has prevented the majority vote from being considered is showing a lack of understanding of statistical analysis.

then explain it, this is just another form of ‘they know what they are doing’

 

[MockingBird]

it’s an educated guess. I’d be surprised if even 10% did, let me know what percentage you think did

I'd guess more in the 40% to 50% range.