Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 9132255" data-attributes="member: 23751">So it's your position that they are taking into account the vast majority of gamers that they aren't getting information from, and then using that non-information to modify the large selection bias that they are getting from the passionate players? <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤦‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f926-2642.png" title="Man facepalming    :man_facepalming:" data-shortname=":man_facepalming:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />How exactly are they accounting for the selection bias with the non-information that they have?Just add it to the rest of the mistakes. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />So either they approve stuff that hits 80% and ignore the outliers or they don't and they lied to us when they said that they approve stuff that hits 80%.  Which is it?  It can't be both.They literally can't be doing anything but ignoring them if they have a set percentage that will mean success.  It doesn't matter what the outliers think if the non-outliers hit 70%.So your counter to the confirmation bias that they have said on video that they engage in is that they suck at confirmation bias? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f914.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":unsure:" title="Unsure    :unsure:"  data-smilie="24"data-shortname=":unsure:" />They argued that dozens of executives whose job it is to know how to read contracts and the highly paid lawyers that drafted those contracts ALL missed that the new OGL would allow them to just steal people's work.  Mind you it was instantly apparent to those of us lay people who let out a big outcry.Either they are that dumb or they lie to us.  Either way what they say can't be trusted.You've proven no causation. Nor have they.The playtest is quite literally the campaign to the next edition.  And it has taken 13 months to get to playtest 7.  That's more time than candidates spend campaigning.Have you paid attention to the various forums?  People talk about the surveys and going over things.  The debate happens for a long time and opinions do change.Get any exact approval rating, which is not by the way the average of those who approve vs. disapprove.  They are different things, which based on your arguments I don't think you understand.  Let me show you the following.700 people vote very satisfied.  100 vote satisfied.  100 vote unsatisfied.  100 vote very unsatisfied.That 80% of people approve, but it's not an 80% approval rating because...100 people vote very satisfied, 700 vote satisfied. 100 vote unsatisfied.  100 vote very unsatisfied. means that even though 80% of people are satisfied, they are far less satisfied than the first set above.Within each category is a range of percentages.  Within each person is a variable amount of personal satisfaction to achieve each category.  These things mean that it's impossible for WotC to come up with an 80% approval rating , even if they can say that 80% of people approve at some level.To further confound things, if they aren't weighting very satisfied and satisfied with different percentages, there's literally no point in offering both of those results.  Same with dissatisfied and very dissatisfied.   If all they are looking for is 80% of people approve at some level, then a simple binary "Are you satisfied or dissatisfied?" is sufficient.That would be an example of a poorly worded question.I don't remember those polls, but they ignored us plenty be releasing a bunch of stuff we never playtested.</blockquote>

Verification