Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 7562252" data-attributes="member: 2525">What really happened is you mistakenly inferred something that was never said, and then knocked that strawman down. All the title said was &quot;Subclass Distribution&quot;. It never said &quot;all&quot; active characters. It is one reasonable interpretation of that heading to read, &quot;of those with subclasses this is how they were distributed&quot;. That's how I read it, it's how some others read it, and it's how the author intended it. But as if that were not odd in itself, you then learned from the author what it meant, and they after you learned that, you continued debating in this thread without saying a word about that clarification and acted as if the question were still up in the air when you already knew what it meant. You already had been told, &quot;I'm not going to have time to deep dive an explanation on this, but you're not thinking of the data sets how they should be considered.&quot; and also, &quot;No, but it is possible to have a higher percentage in a separate data sample that removes characters that have not reached a level appropriate to choose a subclass, which is what has happened here. This data is intended to provide a broad view into relative popularity between all other individual subclasses.&quot;&nbsp; And mind you, that was TWO DAYS AGO you found that out. And all this time in this thread you've acted like you didn't have that information!So yeah, this thread is pretty bizarre at this point.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 7562252, member: 2525"] What really happened is you mistakenly inferred something that was never said, and then knocked that strawman down. All the title said was "Subclass Distribution". It never said "[B]all[/B]" active characters. It is one reasonable interpretation of that heading to read, "of those with subclasses this is how they were distributed". That's how I read it, it's how some others read it, and it's how the author intended it. But as if that were not odd in itself, you then learned from the author what it meant, and they after you learned that, you continued debating in this thread without saying a word about that clarification and acted as if the question were still up in the air when you already knew what it meant. You already had been told, "I'm not going to have time to deep dive an explanation on this, but you're not thinking of the data sets how they should be considered." and also, "No, but it is possible to have a higher percentage in a separate data sample that removes characters that have not reached a level appropriate to choose a subclass, which is what has happened here. This data is intended to provide a broad view into relative popularity between all other individual subclasses." And mind you, that was TWO DAYS AGO you found that out. And all this time in this thread you've acted like you didn't have that information! So yeah, this thread is pretty bizarre at this point. [/QUOTE]

Verification