Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9130874" data-attributes="member: 6801228">OkayDisagree. They have asked for plenty of demographic information. And they have plenty of established facts known about the entire population. It is not all asked for in this precise survey, but they have been surveying the community for a decade, asking these questions, and utilizing the market research of Hasbro and other data points for the community. DnD Beyond uses Google to sign in, that probably gives them access to Google's research on the DnD Beyond community. They have the metrics of their Youtube channel, which gives them quite a lot of demographic information as well. Just because it is not in this single survey does not mean they do not have a large amount of data on the community. Hence the mention of the synthetic population model to COMBINE and REFERENCE their population information from multiple resources. Which is why you don't use just one method. I don't need you to grant me my own statements. I need you to stop making up these strawmen to try and discredit me.Really, you don't think you disagreed with it? What was this statement then? "and make unfounded claims that WotC somehow is infallible." Just a slip of the keyboard for the fifth time? And yes, you CAN use a widely used methodology incorrectly... mind proving that they've actually done that? Instead of using it exactly as it can be used?If you understand what they are doing, then why do you keep insisting they are doing it wrong? Because everything I've found out about the situation points to them using a well-known method, in well-known ways, over the course of a decade, with access to large amounts of data, and utilizing well-known methods for reducing exactly the issues you and Max are fixated on. But they still, somehow, have to be wrong, because you, somehow, have to be right.The questions they are asking are the exact questions they intend to ask. Your interpretation of their goals with those questions are flawed, as I have stated repeatedly. The information you have as a participant is fully sufficient to answer the questions they intend to ask, in the manner they intend to be answered. The issue is not the survey. The issue is you insisting that they are trying to do something they are not trying to do, then declaring the survey broken because if can't do what you are imagining. This isn't "my car broke" and "here is evidence cars don't break" it is "My car broke down, because [X] doesn't do quality control of their vehicles, because if they did it wouldn't have broken down" and "No, they do do quality control, but somethings break anyways, despite that quality control and quality control is not designed to catch every single possible issue."</blockquote>

Verification