Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7565556" data-attributes="member: 6880599">So I am willing to allow your &quot;I'm experienced&quot; attempt of &quot;authority on the subject&quot; if you can recognize that while that might flavor your view, its entirely possible that is not the right approach when providing information to the general populace and not students/teachers of probability and statistics. Your saying your way is the &quot;studied correct way&quot; while I am arguing that for the general public they are providing information based on not requiring interpreting subtext. Do you disagree that the average person would look at a chart titled &quot;Ball Color Distribution&quot; see the colored ball counts and be fine, then see the &quot;not a colored balls&quot; and think what the hell? Why put that there? Isn't that what makes it a &quot;gatcha&quot;?&nbsp; Your prospective is from that of someone claiming to be presenting to trained professionals. D&amp;D Beyond is not presenting to trained professional but instead the untrained masses. As I said before, expecting intuitive leaps is a lot harder to defend against the untrained masses than &quot;It means what it says&quot;. Particularly in a community that widely understands RAW vs RAI. The RAW carries more weight. This isn't a &quot;your wrong&quot; statement, its a &quot;even if your right their is very good reason why you with a background in this are the largest and strongest opposition to this&quot;. Basically its your stated expertise that makes you not a valid demographic target for explaining to the masses. It then makes since why the method described is wrong to you and yet D&amp;D Beyond went with the direction that the most people would understand at face value from a &quot;business customer service perspective&quot; instead of a &quot;probability and statistics expert perspective&quot;. So I can see now why you say its wrong, progress has been made. I do however disagree that D&amp;D Beyond should be forced to those standards when its reasonable based on their target community aka customer base, to go with a &quot;RAW&quot; approach which they are more likely to understand and widely excepted. More so because it has been proving that to in fact be the case. I mean their have been ALOT more people posting against your view than for it and it took us a while for you to explain it to a point where I can follow your reasoning and even then, I understand but I don't agree.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ClaytonCross, post: 7565556, member: 6880599"] So I am willing to allow your "I'm experienced" attempt of "authority on the subject" if you can recognize that while that might flavor your view, its entirely possible that is not the right approach when providing information to the general populace and not students/teachers of probability and statistics. Your saying your way is the "studied correct way" while I am arguing that for the general public they are providing information based on not requiring interpreting subtext. Do you disagree that the average person would look at a chart titled "Ball Color Distribution" see the colored ball counts and be fine, then see the "not a colored balls" and think what the hell? Why put that there? Isn't that what makes it a "gatcha"? Your prospective is from that of someone claiming to be presenting to trained professionals. D&D Beyond is not presenting to trained professional but instead the untrained masses. As I said before, expecting intuitive leaps is a lot harder to defend against the untrained masses than "It means what it says". [B]Particularly in a community that widely understands RAW vs RAI. The RAW carries more weight[/B]. This isn't a "your wrong" statement, its a "even if your right their is very good reason why you with a background in this are the largest and strongest opposition to this". Basically its your stated expertise that makes you not a valid demographic target for [B]explaining to the masses[/B]. It then makes since why the method described is wrong to you and yet D&D Beyond went with the direction that the most people would understand at face value from a "business customer service perspective" instead of a "probability and statistics expert perspective". So I can see now why you say its wrong, progress has been made. I do however disagree that D&D Beyond should be forced to those standards when its reasonable based on their target community aka customer base, to go with a "RAW" approach which they are more likely to understand and widely excepted. More so because it has been proving that to in fact be the case. I mean their have been ALOT more people posting against your view than for it and it took us a while for you to explain it to a point where I can follow your reasoning and even then, I understand but I don't agree. [/QUOTE]

Verification