The Pitfalls of D&D Beyond Data

[ClaytonCross]

@ClaytonCross

I think this question will be helpful.

If the word subclass in "Subclass Distribution (Active Characters)" is a delimiter then what is the word class in "Class Distribution (Active Characters)"? If Class is a delimiter then why include it at all, as by necessity all characters must have a class. I think this indicate that class is actually a descriptor and not a redundant delimiter. This makes sense as well when you consider that the title "Distribution (Active Characters)" would have made a very poor title due to lack of descriptiveness.

So if you end up agreeing with me that "class" is a descriptor instead of a delimiter in the first graph. Then isn't it more reasonable to think that the subclass graph title is following the same structure and thus is a descriptor instead of a delimiter as well?

Class is a descriptor and a delimiter. They are not mutually exclusive.

 

[ClaytonCross]

[MENTION=6880599]ClaytonCross[/MENTION]
I think having color or not having color is very analogous to having a subclass or not having a subclass.

I have said multiple times I don't agree that colorless truly exists. Your substituting one visual aspect for another then calling them the same thing. If you can see it, it has some color since color is light in your eyes reflected by the object. If an object could not be seen with the eye then it could be colorless. Then if you had 100 marbles they would be invisible and not separated from each other. Their would be no chance of a red marble or blue marble because you are unable to see light from them. Marbles are not colorless and your using two different properties a mixing words to define them as something they are not. So If you disagree with that... fine... but as we both said, the point is its not an example we can discuss and move forward on. So their is no point in talking about it any more since we are both just repeating the same things. I have said colorless is not a thing multiple times and you keep trying to say I am talking about clear not reading the full context and editing my posts to just the part you want to argue.

 

[ClaytonCross]

@ClaytonCross

I said this:



You claim to have said the following covers the above:



I don't understand why it is that you talk about "clear" so much in your answer to the example I gave where I explicitly removed "clear"? I don't get how a post that talks so much about clear can be an answer to a posted example that doesn't mention clear. I think it would be nice to have an answer that doesn't use the world clear for my example that doesn't use the word clear.

Because I disagree that colorless exists and you defined colorless as the something as clear. I explained multiple times that clear is not equal to colorless. You have clear marbles but colorless marbles do not exist. So I will not except colorless as a valid example because I can see marbles which means they reflect light to my eye and have color. That is not an absolute "has or has not" its a misleading definition. That being the case the example just does work.

 

[ClaytonCross]

[MENTION=6880599]ClaytonCross[/MENTION]



I'm going to finish replying to your post above and I will mention clear a few more times. I then will never mention it again. If you want the last word on that matter you are welcome to have it but I'm not going to continue to talk about something that both of us agree doesn't really matter for the discussion.

I use "clear marble" as a term for a transparent colorless marble. I would never use clear to talk about a transparent yellow marble because to me "clear marble" is a term that refers to a specific kind of marble (transparent and colorless). I understand that clear can also be synonymous transparent and that you are simply pointing out that not all transparent marbles are colorless. However, that doesn't mean I'm wrong for using the phrase "clear marble" as a term that's more specific than the meanings of it's words would otherwise indicate. That said, this doesn't make you wrong either, it just means I'm using "clear marble" as a term and you are not.

I realized you were using the phrase "clear marble" differently than I was as soon as you complained about clear not being a color. That's why I immediately changed my example to colorless instead of clear so that we could avoid an argument about the meaning of clear. However, calling me wrong about my use of the phrase "clear marble" does prompt me to explain that I am using "clear marble" as a term. That's why everytime you accused me of being wrong about it that I answered rather simply with things like "colorless marbles are referred to as clear". And that's why everytime you said I was wrong on this I would again say something similar..

I hope you can accept that and not start on a tangent argument about whether "clear marble" can be used as a term that means something more specific than the words that make up the term.

Also to anyone that cares: Colorless marbles are referred to as Clear.

Can't have it both ways. If YOU define clear and colorless as the same thing then act like me treating you as saying the same things is wrong. You defined that. They only reason for you to change the words while having stated the meaning is the same is because your trying to use word play to prove a point. I disagree that colorless marbles do not exist since you can see them meaning they are reflecting colored light and clear is an independent visual aspect then color since a clear blue marble does exist. I am saying ether way it doesn't matter because both are wrong even though you wrongly defined them as the same thing.

 

[ClaytonCross]

@ClaytonCross A distribution must account for every member of the population in that distribution. That's why a probability distribution always includes all possible events, because every member of the population of possible events needs to be accounted for. So the question is what is the population of a graph titled "Subclass Distribution (Active Characters)? Which brings us back to trying to use examples that aren't class or subclass related to help inform us on who is correct. So far though we've talked a lot about clear vs colorless and very little about any examples. Hopefully we can change that.

Your example. I said multiple times we should move away from it.

The Distribution of subclasses requires a subclass.

A Class that does not have a subclass is just a class and would be covered under "Class Distribution"

I have answered multiple times that if you want class and subclass you could got the class level to cover classes then define that you will divide it by subclass.

YOU ASKED:

A subclass distribution by definition includes the null values if there are any. Thus "subclass distribution" cannot be a delimiter for non-null subclasses.

Maybe I should ask this question: How would you title a graph like there subclass graph but that also included a section for "no subclass"?

I ANSWERED:

I did as requested below, but I go on to explain why I don't think that is the correct direction.

"Class Distribution broken down by subclass when applicable (Active Characters)"

So a Level 2 fighter is just a "Fighter" but a level 3 fighter would be called by subclass like "Eldritch Knight".

However, I don't see the point of looking at this way. Like you said, multi-class characters would be counted twice unless you designate only characters with one class. That said having one for classes then breaking individual classes by subclass on different slides would be more precise. You could then say, Fighters are the most popular class and Champions are the most popular subclass in fighters. If you want to make that more comparable between classes you put a number under the percent. Then you could look at the number of Champions on the Fighter Class chart and compare that to the number of Rogue Thieves if you wanted to make that comparison. Also, you could under the Percent Total # / Non-Multiclass # / Multi-class Number for each listing under fighter and the individual sub classes. That then lets you say, "well yes the standard fighter is on a lot more characters than the champion but is clearly a 2 level dip since they are mostly multi-classes" because the data will be present.

In the End I don't think trying to label one slide with all the classes and subclass is a good idea. Looking at your question, it seems to me you could put more useful information on 1 "Class Distribution(Active Characters) " and 12 "X class Distribution by subclass when applicable (Active Characters) " with Total # / Non-Multiclass # / Multi-class Number # under the name and percent.

Where is your reply to this? One of the few points of conversation that are not tangent and at the heart of our disagreement. You seem to have neglected to answer this sticking to tangent arguments.

 

[Hussar]

Umm, do you really think SEVEN consecutive posts to the same poster is needed? Never minding the five directed replies. Not perhaps just a tad excessive?

Brevity is the soul of wit or something like that.

-----

Edit to add. Sorry, totally off topic, but, this thread reminded me. What do you call it when you break apart someone's post, almost line by line, to post answers? There's a term for that and it's totally escaping me right now.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Any distribution must account for all members of the population that is being accounted for. What you are trying to ask is: can oranges should be included in a graph titled "Apple Distribution (Population X)" and my answer is yes provided that oranges are in population X. So in the above sentence I'm treating apple as simply a descriptor and not a delimeter. As long as the population being described is mostly apples then that descriptor makes sense. If the population was more 50-50 apple to orange then calling it an apple distribution would be strange as the descriptor apple would be a very poor descriptor for that very mixed population. However, when describing a mostly apple population it's perfectly acceptable to use apple as the descriptor even when non-apples are also part of the population.

Ultimately though, I think all your example has done is brought us back around to whether Subclass is a descriptor or a delimeter.

I agree with your last sentence I bolded. However, I disagree that oranges are included. Apples is not only the delimiter its the primary delimiter which is why its brought up first an as statement of the division.

"Apple Distribution (Fresh Fruit)" aka "Subclass Distribution (Active Characters)"
Red Delicious
Granny Smith
Golden Delicious

The Population X could include Oranges if that was the primary header not a secondary delimiter.

"Fruit Distribution (Fresh Fruit)" aka "Class Distribution (Active Characters)"
Apples
Oranges

Or you could break them down into classes and subclass

"Fruit Distribution by variety names (Fresh Fruit)"
aka "Class Distribution broken down by subclass when applicable (Active Characters)"

Red Delicious Apples
Granny Smith Apples
Golden Delicious Apples
Navel Orange
Mandarin Orange
Blood Orange

The only problem here is that since their is no orange or apple with out a variety its like clerics... so not the best example. We would need to find an example that is one thing but becomes a variety of other things. To which I don't really have a good example off the top of my head.

So if you want the primary

delimiter to be Active Characters you would change​

"Subclass Distribution (Active Characters)"
to

"Active Characters (Subclass Distribution)"​

But either way you are delimiting by both, so you only going to show Active characters with Subclass your just prioritizing the characters or the subclass. Since the point of the slide is to show subclasses it makes since to make it "Subclass Distribution (Active Characters)".

​

 

[FrogReaver]

Umm, do you really think SEVEN consecutive posts to the same poster is needed? Never minding the five directed replies. Not perhaps just a tad excessive?

Brevity is the soul of wit or something like that.

-----

Edit to add. Sorry, totally off topic, but, this thread reminded me. What do you call it when you break apart someone's post, almost line by line, to post answers? There's a term for that and it's totally escaping me right now.

Oftentimes when you make a single lengthy post some of the important details and points get lose in the lengthy reply to it. Breaking it apart into separate quotes does seem to help keep the main ideas simple and isolated enough to prompt others to respond to them instead of overlooking.

 

[FrogReaver]

Class is a descriptor and a delimiter. They are not mutually exclusive.

I never said they were mutually exclusive. However just because 2 things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive doesn't mean that it's true that they are always tied together. Do you at least agree that "class" is needed as a descriptor in the class graph but that it isn't needed as a delimeter there since all active characters necessarily have a class?

 

[FrogReaver]

I have said multiple times I don't agree that colorless truly exists. Your substituting one visual aspect for another then calling them the same thing. If you can see it, it has some color since color is light in your eyes reflected by the object. If an object could not be seen with the eye then it could be colorless. Then if you had 100 marbles they would be invisible and not separated from each other. Their would be no chance of a red marble or blue marble because you are unable to see light from them. Marbles are not colorless and your using two different properties a mixing words to define them as something they are not. So If you disagree with that... fine... but as we both said, the point is its not an example we can discuss and move forward on. So their is no point in talking about it any more since we are both just repeating the same things. I have said colorless is not a thing multiple times and you keep trying to say I am talking about clear not reading the full context and editing my posts to just the part you want to argue.

If you would have said it as simply as "I don't believe colorless exists" with no added mention about the clear tangent in the same posts and I would have understood your position perfectly and we would have avoided countless back and forth posts about that tangent. So IMO, that one is on you man.

That said, your position about colorless not existing does concern me. It's such an unreasonable position IMO that I question the value of continuing discussions with someone that would take such a position. I will try though as I also know that otherwise intelligent people can have some very strange beliefs.

So, let's find a different example.