The Pitfalls of D&D Beyond Data

[ClaytonCross]

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?

Class is a descriptor but it is also a Delimiter because if you put "Active Characters Distribution" you could divide them by races, classes, subclasses, levels, feats, melee/casters...etc. Making the title "Class" delimits that we are only and specifically talking about Active Characters in the context of Class, which is the purpose of a delimiter.

 

[ClaytonCross]

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.

You are correct. I am not concise. A personal flaw of mine, of which I am very aware. Between me and FrogReaver the posts seem to have split. I will try to bring them back together. While FrogReaver is not wrong in his reply, I also think a lot of the points where basically the same argument and answer in redundancy. In part because I over explain trying to be understood (more in discussion like this), but also as part of my nature. I hope anyway that the posts will narrow to one since really they seem to be the same argument now.

Not sure what the term is your looking for. I can't think of anything.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Can I make a simple request. Stating something you already know we disagree about as a point blank fact only makes me want to reply in a similar fashion. It's not productive to do that and it will end up devolving our conversation into pointless bickering. A bolded above an example where you did that.

---Missing Quote---

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.

I think that's an enlightening answer, but I don't see what your wanting an answer to about it? My overall opinion of the post? Something more specific from it?

 

[FrogReaver]

Class is a descriptor but it is also a Delimiter because if you put "Active Characters Distribution" you could divide them by races, classes, subclasses, levels, feats, melee/casters...etc. Making the title "Class" delimits that we are only and specifically talking about Active Characters in the context of Class, which is the purpose of a delimiter.

I see. If that's your definition of delimiter then they would always be descriptors. That's not really the definition I've been using.

Consider this. If the title "Subclass" means that we are only and specifically talking about Active Characters in the context of Subclass... Doesn't specific talk about active characters in the context of subclass inherently include talk of active characters with "no sublcass"? I think it does.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Can I make a simple request. Stating something you already know we disagree about as a point blank fact only makes me want to reply in a similar fashion. It's not productive to do that and it will end up devolving our conversation into pointless bickering. A bolded above an example where you did that.

I don't disagree with you that this is our point of contention, I brought it up again to bring it back to that since if we talk about what we agree on, no forward movement can be made. I understand you disagree with it but it is the core of the discussion at this point and if you saying its not fact you need to present something to demonstrate that. Me seeing as fact is not a belittlement of you but the point of topic for you to reply to. This brings us back to why you and I both posted bad examples trying to prove this one way or another. I am not saying I am absolutely right, only that this is where I stand and I would like to draw back to this point. Please don't take it personal and address the "Why or how this is this false?" because your doing the same thing in reverse and I am continuing to try and answer.

I think that's an enlightening answer, but I don't see what your wanting an answer to about it? My overall opinion of the post? Something more specific from it?

Your question:

It's not an assumption. Subclass Distribution is not a delimeter. But I guess we have at least identified the core of our disagreement.

Okay, so for this specific example: How would you title a graph like there subclass graph but that also included a section for "no subclass"?.

The point of the your question as I understand it was to say if "Subclass Distribution (Active Characters)" does not include the negative then how would I include the negative since that is something done at times. If I could not it would prove your point it must be included or their is not a good way to represent that data. I answered with "Class Distribution broken down by subclass when applicable (Active Characters)" which demonstrates their is a way to be inclusive of the negative by raising to a delimiter at a higher level of class so that the broader view encompasses all subclass and classes without then use a descriptor that says show them "broken down by subclass when applicable" being a descriptor that is a not a delimiter. Which means that their is no reason for the negative to be implied in "Subclass Distribution (Active Characters)". My assertion is that Subclass is called because that is the point of the slide. As the point of the slide its limiting depicted information to that point, making Subclass a delimiter as the point of topic.

The reply I am looking for is ether something like 1."Yes I can see how its possible to get a negative so that means the negative is not implied by default" which would be recognition on the focal point of debate that as the subclass is the subject it is inherently a delimiter... or 2."I disagree, because...."

I assume your going to say something along #2 which I hope to bring some more insight as to why you feel subclass as the titled subject of the slide does not count as a delimiter to the point of keeping the slid relevant to characters with subclasses as the title suggests. You just said its an Enlighted answer, however I recognize that is likely in regards to breaking down subclasses only on individual class slides with number for a better understanding of data. So I am expecting a response to explain how you contest the implications of this answer being that your point was that a negative was included by default even though it was not stated and would be in contradiction to the title of the slide as the point of discussion... aka the primary Delimiter is subclass. If you are saying the subclass is not a delimiter how do you delimit subclasses alone? and what view are you looking at with all "Active Characters" since that could include races, backgrounds, feats, casters vs melee, or any other data all active character share but which is not represented on that slide....

 

[FrogReaver]

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

Apple Distribution (Fresh Fruit) isn't a proper title for a population that is giving counts or percentages of the number of each of those items in the population. The population must be identified and in this example there is no population that can be identified.

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

Same issue, no population defined in the fruist distribution (fresh fruit) title.

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

Same issue again, you've not defined the population.

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.

I think we need to think of a good example.

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)".

​

I don't think active characters is a delimiter. I don't even think it can be. It's the population. IMO

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't disagree with you that this is our point of contention, I brought it up again to bring it back to that since if we talk about what we agree on, no forward movement can be made. I understand you disagree with it but it is the core of the discussion at this point and if you saying its not fact you need to present something to demonstrate that. Me seeing as fact is not a belittlement of you but the point of topic for you to reply to. This brings us back to why you and I both posted bad examples trying to prove this one way or another. I am not saying I am absolutely right, only that this is where I stand and I would like to draw back to this point. Please don't take it personal and address the "Why or how this is this false?" because your doing the same thing in reverse and I am continuing to try and answer.



Your question:


The point of the your question as I understand it was to say if "Subclass Distribution (Active Characters)" does not include the negative then how would I include the negative since that is something done at times. If I could not it would prove your point it must be included or their is not a good way to represent that data. I answered with "Class Distribution broken down by subclass when applicable (Active Characters)" which demonstrates their is a way to be inclusive of the negative by raising to a delimiter at a higher level of class so that the broader view encompasses all subclass and classes without then use a descriptor that says show them "broken down by subclass when applicable" being a descriptor that is a not a delimiter. Which means that their is no reason for the negative to be implied in "Subclass Distribution (Active Characters)". My assertion is that Subclass is called because that is the point of the slide. As the point of the slide its limiting depicted information to that point, making Subclass a delimiter as the point of topic.

The reply I am looking for is ether something like 1."Yes I can see how its possible to get a negative so that means the negative is not implied by default" which would be recognition on the focal point of debate that as the subclass is the subject it is inherently a delimiter... or 2."I disagree, because...."

I assume your going to say something along #2 which I hope to bring some more insight as to why you feel subclass as the titled subject of the slide does not count as a delimiter to the point of keeping the slid relevant to characters with subclasses as the title suggests. You just said its an Enlighted answer, however I recognize that is likely in regards to breaking down subclasses only on individual class slides with number for a better understanding of data. So I am expecting a response to explain how you contest the implications of this answer being that your point was that a negative was included by default even though it was not stated and would be in contradiction to the title of the slide as the point of discussion... aka the primary Delimiter is subclass. If you are saying the subclass is not a delimiter how do you delimit subclasses alone? and what view are you looking at with all "Active Characters" since that could include races, backgrounds, feats, casters vs melee, or any other data all active character share but which is not represented on that slide....

I see, I thought that was a solid example. It made me realize that where you believe the graph title is limited to subclasses only that you can easily add a clause in there that generalizes the scope while leaving the options essentially the same. Good job. That said I do the opposite. I start out reading the title as generally including all active characters and then would expect a clause added that narrows the scope to just active characters with a subclass. Something like "Subclass Distribution (active characters with a subclass)". Where you see redundancy I see the scope being narrowed. I see redundancy in the way you would generalize the scope.

I don't agree that you being able to do that proves your point just like you don't agree that me being able to do the same thing for my position proves my point. However, if you couldn't have done that then my point would have been proven IMO. So again, good job.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I see. If that's your definition of delimiter then they would always be descriptors. That's not really the definition I've been using.

Consider this. If the title "Subclass" means that we are only and specifically talking about Active Characters in the context of Subclass... Doesn't specific talk about active characters in the context of subclass inherently include talk of active characters with "no sublcass"? I think it does.

I think it doesn't, which is the whole point of my previous post and my last question. (Just responding to this because its a more concise post explaining our difference in views. I am hoping you answer that in full and we can drop to following that having removed redundant replies.)

 

[FrogReaver]

I think this might help.

In probability, all the probabilities must add up to 100%. So no matter how I want to delimit a particular population, if that population contains members that don't fit the normal categories associated with the chosen delimiter then the solution is to add in a category "not X" so that these members of the population have a place to get accounted for in our categorical breakdown (otherwise the probabilities wouldn't add to 100%). In probability the population determines whether the "not X" category needs added. In probability you would use the same kind of title for a graph where you did not have to add in the "not X" category and for a graph where it needed to be added in. In probability you always are required to clearly specify your population.

So from my perspective which leans heavily on mathematical probability understanding.
If their population of active characters only included characters with subclasses then I think we both agree that the proper graph title would be "Subclass Distribution (Active Characters)". In this context a graph of a population of active characters, some without subclasses, would then also be titled the same way because it's still a graph of the same thing no matter whether some members of the population don't have subclasses. The only difference is that the first graph wouldn't have a "no subclass" category because it wouldn't be needed but the later graph would have a "no subclass" category because it would be needed.

Hopefully that helps clarify where I'm coming from.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I see, I thought that was a solid example. It made me realize that where you believe the graph title is limited to subclasses only that you can easily add a clause in there that generalizes the scope while leaving the options essentially the same. Good job. That said I do the opposite. I start out reading the title as generally including all active characters and then would expect a clause added that narrows the scope to just active characters with a subclass. Something like "Subclass Distribution (active characters with a subclass)". Where you see redundancy I see the scope being narrowed. I see redundancy in the way you would generalize the scope.

I don't agree that you being able to do that proves your point just like you don't agree that me being able to do the same thing for my position proves my point. However, if you couldn't have done that then my point would have been proven IMO. So again, good job.

Ok, then progress was made to a common point but we are still adjacent not aligned. As I under stand this.

"Subclass Distribution (Active Characters)" for you means "Subclass Distribution (active characters with or without subclass)" to exclude you "Subclass Distribution (active characters with a subclass only)" - I added "only" for as much standardization and to be as specific as possible in attempt to avoid confusion. I know that's not exactly what you said.

"Subclass Distribution (Active Characters)" for you means "Subclass Distribution (active characters with subclass only)" to include you "Class Distribution broken down by subclass when applicable (Active Characters)"

We can both find both answers... however, my belief that I am correct is based on the point of the slide as written with no implications is "Subclass Distribution". From my prospective, if you don't have a subclass your just talking about a class and implying a greater scale on a slide shown to general audience is counter intuitive. It is my belief that since they have a class slide and they don't list classes without subclass on the subclass slide its it clear to me that D&D Beyond is using my method. I understand your saying they could have use your method, but having a class slide and a subclass slide with classes on it seems redundant. Could they have done it? Absolutely, but it seems incorrect to me by causing the problems your complaining about. They said they are not using your method and kept it to a "it means what it says" without implications train of thought for mass audiences. The assertion of the thread is that it is incorrectly presented, however since we are both able to demonstrate our method works then they could not "win" someone was going to say it was wrong. People looking from your side and people looking from mine. But saying it means exactly what it says no more no less provides them with the ability to reduce confusion as easily as possible. Making this method the better of two correct answers. The better answer being what I am calling correct in this case, even though your method is functional.

I do think better than both would be the mentioned: 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. I think looking at these slides requires not inference or implications and due to the high number of low level characters the Class without the subclass would be clearly visible.