Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9101244" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Which is, again, the same as saying that by voting "Yes" on an issue that fails, I really voted No. Because you are equating the RESULT of the vote with what I individually voted for. That isn't how this works. No, my vote was not in favor of throwing it out. You ASSUME that it was, because you ASSUME you know how these things are working. But you do not know that. Then why do you keep claiming that I voted for something I did not vote for, as proven because the thing I didn't vote for happened?Without access to WoTC's internal data and the back-end workings of the survey results? No, I can't. But I don't NEED to prove that I understand them. You need to prove that, because you are making an extraordinary claim here. I am claiming that the company which has been using a proccess for 10 years, reported to us on that process, and has seemingly accurately navigated these surveys for a decade... understands those surveys. Your claim is that because things you don't like have happened, and you feel the survey options aren't accurate enough, that the survey is fundamentally flawed. You are making the claim, so you need the evidence. Just like if you claimed that Cleopatra suffered from Autism, it isn't on me the person saying "there is no evidence of that, and there is good reasoning to assume that lack of evidence is proof you are incorrect" to then definitively prove whether or not she had autism. Because, again, if they were aware of this flaw, it would be corrected because it would be devastating to their understanding of the game. And how could they possibly be unaware after a decade of using it to accurately navigate these waters? And maybe they tested those different options and they created EVEN WORSE problems. After all, every piece of language is fundamentally flawed and unable to perfectly convey all intent and clarity. That's WHY text-based communication suffers so much compared to in-person communication. And even in-person communication creates "noise" that obfuscates understanding. Demonstrating "someone might have misunderstood" is the equivalent of demonstrating energy exists. It doesn't actually PROVE anything about the situation. The same process that led to subclasses in the 80's as well. Just because something does not always lead to success does not mean you abandon it as fundamentally flawed. Also, to my knowledge, nothing in One DnD has been rated in the 20's. The only things rated in the 20's were from Next, and that playtest had a few mitigating circumstances, like none of those things actually being playtested before print. I am around 90% certain none of us saw the Berserker with exhaustion before the PHB.</blockquote>

Verification