Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9376835" data-attributes="member: 8461">It's not a "conspiracy theory" to say that errors happen, especially when WotC openly admits that an error happened. It's more correct to say that there's no need for apologism. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />Yes, and this the former, not the latter.Again, skepticism is the default. You don't need evidence to be skeptical of someone reporting on themselves and not showing how they reached their conclusions; you need a reason not to be skeptical.No, it doesn't sound like that. I don't "expect" anything; that's the point. I'm waiting to be convinced, and an infographic with nothing to show how its numbers were reached, on a topic where WotC has a vested interest in what the results say, isn't convincing.Yeah, that's what skepticism is; I'm not starting out with a conclusion, I'm looking at what's been presented and saying that it's insufficient to reach one.Quite the contrary, if you take things at face value, you're effectively asking to get things wrong. Just ask everyone who didn't see the mention of the lack of players 46+ years and older in the infographic being a typo; if they took that at face value, they'd think that 5E had no older players. Hence, skepticism is better.An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In order to conclude that there are no other errors, I'd need to see the underlying data myself.You literally just stated that we should take WotC's presentation at face value. That's an assumption, i.e. that it's something which merits being valued on its face.Again, I'm not presenting "information" regarding the data; I'm pointing out that we don't have sufficient information in that regard. WotC corrects that by turning over their available data for public consumption. If they don't want to do that, that is (as I said before) their prerogative, but it's mine to then continue to find insufficient reason to believe what they tell me.I'd say it's the right thing.Which is why it's fortunate that I haven't done that, which I presume is why you haven't quoted me doing that. Saying that the possibility of there being other, unnoticed errors is just that: a possibility. I need more data in order to rule it out.Which is why we'd all be better served if WotC would release more information about how they got the conclusions they did. And yet we're still waiting for them to do so.</blockquote>

Verification