Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mamba" data-source="post: 9111109" data-attributes="member: 7034611">relevant to the discussion about WotC. As I said, I am not interested in pursuing a discussion about Coke.That you always jump to the wrong conclusions tells me something about your analytical abilities too…that all they want to know is how much we like something is directly contradicted by them using the results to decide what to keep / improve / abandon. The very fact that we do not like it is what makes it ‘not good enough’.What else do you think determines that (and it needs to be something else according to you…)?that is basically the same thing, what makes the design good is that people like it.Do you think they would say ‘85% of people like the design, but we determined by some metric that it is not well designed, so we will change it’?The metric that determines this is how much it is being liked.I am not making a leap, I am drawing a logical conclusion. That you refuse to draw logical conclusions in order to not have to adjust your position is telling.then explain it, and do not say ‘they just wonder whether we like it’, because that is utter nonsense. They act based on how much we like it, this is not just idle curiosity.You are basically saying ‘the questions are what they really are looking for, ignore Crawford’s ramblings, he is wrong’. You will need to reconcile the two in your explanation, not ignore one of them…Right now I’d say you have shown me right. 1) you have not looked into this / do not understand it and 2) would agree that the questions are not good at getting the answers WotC is looking for, if it weren’t for 1).You basically agreed with me that these questions are not suitable to get the answer to whether something should be improved or thrown out.they are looking for that answer, the question is just not good at getting it right. That is my point.</blockquote>

Verification