Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mamba" data-source="post: 9101257" data-attributes="member: 7034611">no, I am saying your vote was understood as ‘no’ by WotC.You do not have to try to explain to me that the survey result is not the same as your vote, I am aware of that… I was already aware the last two times tooI would say I am very confident in it, yes. Now show me why you think it did not get counted as a ‘no’, I gave you my reasoning and so far you have shown nothing to contradict it. Just saying ‘I disagree’ won’t change my mind.well, I have shown the logic, as far as I am concerned it is absolutely sound.Is your only counter ‘you do not know what WotC does’? Then we can end it right here. Neither do you, and out of the two possibilities I consider mine far more likely. If you cannot even address my concerns by doing more than say ‘you cannot be certain’, then that will not change.Also, if you make a claim, which you do, you too NEED to show proof, just like you are demanding it from me. Saying you do not need to does not change that. At most you can say you have confidence in them, or are not convinced by my arguments. But if you say that there is no issue and WotC understands the votes correctly, you have a burden of proof just like me. It is not just ‘extraordinary’ claims that require evidence, all claims do.I made my case, repeatedly, now refute it, saying ‘WotC smart’ is not even close to thatif a process that should always lead to >70 leads to both 80 and 20, it very much is flawed.Also, I am not saying they should abandon the playtest altogether, I am saying they should ask better questions. Not sure how that turned into ‘abandon as fundamentally flawed’…even if it were it would not matter, the playtest is not over. It only needs to prevent the final result from being below 70, not everything along the way. That is not how any of this works</blockquote>

Verification