Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mamba" data-source="post: 9102476" data-attributes="member: 7034611">this is irrelevant, if you are not comfortable with a possible error rate as high as 1 in 5, then the fact that you found one in a sample of 10 means you should take a closer look, rather than ignore itI fully understand that, you seem to not get that finding an issue is what matters here, not the small sizeI am fully aware, please provide the sample of 1000 that shows this, until then this is at most wishful thinkingnone, I do not believe I ever said they are doing this intentionallythen 1) I would be very surprised and 2) it would alleviate my concern. Now show me the 50%, I believe 5% is pretty high in reality.it was your claim, so yes you dothen why even bring the past success and 2014 playtest up, if you want to use this cop out?This is obviously what I was asking for in the first place. But can lead is not enough, is the reason for the success is what we are looking for. Otherwise you have shown absolutely nothing. The most ass-backwards playtest can lead to a successful product too... so can no playtestno, you absolutely cannot do that. Well, I guess you can, but it is wrong to do sothen why have the 70% threshold…</blockquote>