Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9107426" data-attributes="member: 6801228">What do you mean by &quot;uses it this way&quot;? Do you mean polling for public opinion that can be expressed as a percentage? Because.... everyone uses it that way. There is no other way to use it. That's the purpose of its design.No, I am not saying they are infallible. I am saying that your evidence is weak, and considering that if this was a major issue, you wouldn't be the one to figure that out, then it is likely not an issue. Again, your evidence rests almost solely on the idea that it is possible to make written communication that no human could possibly misunderstand. That just is not how people work. In the face of the realization that people can and will misunderstand even the most well-crafted and clear statements... finding a single person who says they misunderstood is not a sign of potential failures, it is a sign of human nature being exactly what we expect. It would be like being told someone is sweating and assuming they are sick. Sure, that COULD be what is going on, but people sweat, it is a natural thing, so it doesn't MEAN that something is wrong with them.Then why would you make the claim that you assume I have made no effort to understand the survey?No, that is not what logically follows. You are assuming that &quot;requires&quot; is binary, and that anything less than 80 therefore must require improvement. But language and data is more complex and nuanced than that.Shouldn't be. There shouldn't be this constant conversation about how WoTC lied and decieved us, because they literally have laid it out for us, multiple times, and yet here we are.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 9107426, member: 6801228"] What do you mean by "uses it this way"? Do you mean polling for public opinion that can be expressed as a percentage? Because.... everyone uses it that way. There is no other way to use it. That's the purpose of its design. No, I am not saying they are infallible. I am saying that your evidence is weak, and considering that if this was a major issue, you wouldn't be the one to figure that out, then it is likely not an issue. Again, your evidence rests almost solely on the idea that it is possible to make written communication that no human could possibly misunderstand. That just is not how people work. In the face of the realization that people can and will misunderstand even the most well-crafted and clear statements... finding a single person who says they misunderstood is not a sign of potential failures, it is a sign of human nature being exactly what we expect. It would be like being told someone is sweating and assuming they are sick. Sure, that COULD be what is going on, but people sweat, it is a natural thing, so it doesn't MEAN that something is wrong with them. Then why would you make the claim that you assume I have made no effort to understand the survey? No, that is not what logically follows. You are assuming that "requires" is binary, and that anything less than 80 therefore must require improvement. But language and data is more complex and nuanced than that. Shouldn't be. There shouldn't be this constant conversation about how WoTC lied and decieved us, because they literally have laid it out for us, multiple times, and yet here we are. [/QUOTE]

Verification