Fixed the post for you.
yes the opinion about it ruining the game is an opinion but the problem comes from the thing you stated as a fact which was that if someone gets their way more will follow.
They may or may not you have no idea how many changes will be put in or when they will stop.
a concern is not that it will happen. it is if ther is a small chance. its a bad ide.
so agian you madde up a lie. just to make you side look better.
agian .its a concern. just like you would have a concern crossing over the road with 100 of cars. you could be safe. but you could also get hurt. valid concern to have
if you stated it as a possibility and a concern yes.
However you said that if a change was put in more would follow as a fact not a concern.
Iâm going to repeat myself one more time. I never made that assertion. I refrained from making any assertions because I do not have the information to know either way if it will affect development in other areas.
Iâm not speculating that it will or it wonât therefore I have nothing to back up. You made a claim, so you must support it. You can say that I claim to the contrary all you want and it doesnât make it true.
I do not know if it will affect development in other areas. Nor do I have any reason to think that it would. It is an issue I have no clue about nor do you. Therefore I donât make any claims about the issue either way. Anybody that does so, however, must provide support.
Iâll explain one more way. If you flip a coin and claim that heads will come up, I can say that you have no support to base that conclusion on anything. You then saying that I must prove how it will land on tails makes no sense. When I point out you do not have support for your claim it does not mean that I am saying I can support the contrary.
Also if you claim that it is more likely to land on heads you must also provide evidence as to why that is the case. Probabilities also require support for them to be rational.
There is zero chance. Not of 100 things getting added, but the idea that these things are connected.
You can add Personal Loot and not add anything else.
If you want to say you dont want 100 changes to D2, then we can agree! But it is not an argument against adding 1 change. Nobody is saying we should get 100 changes.
But you know what; I will adjust my argument for Personal Loot.
Timed Allocation Loot should be added, with all the previously described stuff, yada yada, only as long as 100 other changes are not added afterward! 
Your âconcernâ tbh is more akin to âmaybe the planet will explode if I cross the roadâ.
if i did that. my bad. iam not that good in english writing. and not good at formul in writing.
fair enough, I can understand that.
It is safer on the other. Other side has less unknown variables than the other, i however am not gonna spend 50 replies of my time to convince you about that. And about Continuing discussion with the premise we dont know what it would do leads nowhere, which you will realize if you read the rest of that partial text you quoted from me.
E: however feel free to continue discussion on either side its your personal choice.
if you put all the peoples sugestions, yer ther is rob 100s of changes they want.
i know no one only ask for p-loot. som for melee splash. som for better drop rate. som for charm inventory and so on. what i ssay is. why should they only ad one thing? if enough people like the others to? and blizzard dont have a good track reecord, when it coms to making changes to a old game.
i read it you just didnât make an argument in favor of assuming one side of the unknown being stronger than the other, you just claimed it was. either way i am done trying to get through to you, you are too stuck in what you believe no matter what anyone says. Have a good day.
The irony.
Pro Tip: Opinions are not facts.
that tip is 100% true not sure what is ironic about the comment if you have something to sight that makes it ironic i would love that.
Iâm conveying that youâre not an armament of facts; you too have your opinion - that doesnât make those opinions âfactsâ.
Factoids, mayhap.
Iâll explain one more way. If you flip a coin and claim that heads will come up, I can say that you have no support to base that conclusion on anything. You then saying that I must prove how it will land on tails makes no sense.
How it really went: Someone claimed that coin would be heads, you say that is his speculation(you are yourself saying hes basing it on speculation, you gave him the premise. How do you prove speculation???). Then i come in and say it is also your speculation that it would not be heads. Your entire expectation of needing proof it not being heads is also speculation of it not being heads. Only way for him to prove his speculation is by tossing the coin and see what happens. Until it happens its both head and tails by one theory. Its like you forgot/discarded our whole conversation just minutes ago.
Why shouldnât they? If 1 thing is enough.
Again, this is the concern trolling showing up.
You dont want changes, but pretend to be offended that Blizzard wont implement all the changes?
All those other changes that other people might want, are completely irrelevant for the topic of Personal Loot.
no that is true my opinions arenât facts but i try not to pass my opinions off as facts, i might fail some times and if i do i am sorry about that.
I strive very hard not to declare things fact unless there is hard proof behind it but i do slip up i am only human after all.
Lack of speculation is not speculation. And also as I have illustrated in the post you are responding to, disputing you have evidential standing on your claim does not mean I am supporting a claim the contrary will happen or that your claim wonât happen.
You donât need to apologise for anything. Just be conscious.