Except they literally do, and changes literally follow on from it. Like 5 times now.
1 Like
I may have made a few facetious remarks (like my cookie jar quip) but I never tried to flex on other players by boasting about how much more successful than them I am.
Also, again - just dismiss inconvenient data points as âtrollingâ.
1 Like
False equivalent - calling out ad hominem is not equivalent to engaging in it. You do this every time, you engage in personal attack and when someone throws it back at you you claim âAh see you do the same thing!â. The only way anyone could not be a hypocrite in your books is if they simply give you free run to be a douche. Typical, âlet me have what I want or youâre a baddieâ - pretty much the story of the whole topic.
Like poking an animal with a stick and calling it a violent predator when it reacts. Your bluff is called.
I donât know if they do or not. I know the devs working on classic asked the players for feedback on the changes they would like to see in the game. Where did they want us to do that? And I know that other blizzard employees send people to the forums to give feedback to blizzard.
Ugh, it seems Riger was right.
Yeah, Iâm gonna tap out because itâs obvious youâre not here to have a conversation. Youâre here - as stated earlier - to campaign. Itâs disingenuous and just plain tedious.
1 Like
What a nice sending-off message, the other tactic you resort to - drilling down on some completely arbitrary tangent in order to discredit your opponent without addressing the main argument.
Enjoy your retirement, friend.
3 Likes
Iâm 100% here to campaign. Straight up. Iâll happily listen to your guys reasoning and even change my mind if you manage to sway me with good arguments. But Iâm fairly deadset that dual spec is a good idea and Iâve yet to see any arguements that even remotely makes me reconsider.
1 Like
And hey, more power to you if thatâs what you want. There are compelling reasons why it shouldnât be in-game, and MB is a false equivalence argument. But if you personally think the game would be better with it, at the end of the day all our opinions are subjective. It probably wouldnât make or break anything.
3 Likes
Yep campaigning is fine, if done in good faith and with respect for those who donât share your preference - with honesty. You know like not building a case around ad hominem. Or not relying on setting up a straw man position and then misrepresenting or straight up lying about your oppositions claims.
Iâm more opposed to how this has been discussed than what has been discussed. I donât like dual spec but it wouldnât be game breaking.
But lol this particular campaign has been dirty af.
2 Likes
I hate that this is the way itâs become, but (and Iâm being a broken record here) Iâve seen examples like 5+ times now of terrible changes being irreversibly made to this game as a direct result of forum lobbying. Quite clearly cause and effect. Thatâs the meta game of TBC classic now.
At least, for my part, I am lobbying for a change that I genuinely think will be undeniably good for not just myself but basically the vast majority of players. Even the naysayers.
5 Likes
Yeah I guess I respectfully disagree with respect to dual spec specifically. But I donât think weâre coming from too different a place on TBC as a whole.
1 Like
This is a good faith argument without any ad hominems. You replied with a sarcastic mocking response. A good faith response might have been to point out that not everyone who posted against adding dual spec has done that. I would have agreed that not everyone has done it but it is used often by many if not most of those against dual spec. Itâs a common line of argumentation that many, but not all, of those against dual spec use.
You went on to tag team mock me with Horace with your contrived interpretation of my non antagonistic post. Thatâs why I think you are part of a team. You work with others to mock those not on your team. Ziryus and I never do that, tag team troll. We rarely engage with each other and when we do itâs once and done. While we often agree I mostly go my own way and let him do the same. He mostly lets me make my arguments without joining me and piling on.
By the way zipzo and the redheadchild are doing it again. Claiming that adding dual spec which only lets you do something you can already do in the game for 50 gold is the equivalent of adding Dks, something you canât do in BC no matter how much gold you spend.
I wasnât making an argument about the topic. I was criticising you directly.
Iâm not building my case around my criticisms of you though. I have been clear about that.
Iâm not doing what youâre doing. Iâm not saying âsee look this person is like all the other people that disagree with me and is behaving badly therefore theyâre all wrongâ.
What Iâm saying is that you specifically are behaving badly and this has no actual bearing on the topic itself or anyone else.
See the difference? Iâm not using it as a ploy to win an argument. Iâm clearly criticising you for things you are actually doing and holding only you to account for it.
Whether or not Iâm being a hypocrite, thatâs immaterial. Whatâs important is whether or not my claims are correct. Have you been behaving the way I described? Weaselling out of it with âbut Uâ just solidifies the point.
2 Likes
No, you use it to avoid discussion. If someone makes a 3 paragraph argument with one disparaging sentence youâll ignore every one of the arguments in those 3 paragraphs and use your next 5 posts discussing the one disparaging sentence. Itâs a common debate tactic to avoid an argument one doesnât have a convincing response to. I saw it often when on the debate team in college.
I still think I made a very fair point. This has long been a very common anti dual speccers argument. Very often their logic is that because we ask for an easier way to do something we can already do in the game for 50 gold itâs the equivalent of adding something totally new that we could never do for any amount of gold. Youâve never addressed it. You used your mocking response to attack me instead. Then you joined your team mate making several insulting jokes attacking me instead of ever addressing my argument.
Thatâs what Iâm saying. Whether I forgot to add a qualifying adjective is immaterial. What is important is whether the argument is common among those who are against dual spec and whether you think itâs a logical and valid argument. You chose to mock me for the lack of a qualifying adjective instead and then tag teamed trolled me with your team mate. How can I have a good faith discussion with you when you do that?
Dual spec is not a âflipped switchâ either, and would very much require development work.
In case you donât remember, original Classic began based off of the Legion client, where dual spec no longer exists and was completely scrapped in favor of the current system that exists where you can switch to any spec as you please, and I assume up to now everything theyâve done has been building off that base.
To accept this argument means youâre essentially implying that the client we use for TBCC now is somehow a mimic of the original WOTLK client and thus, making dual spec a possibility for implementation.
Youâre using poorly reasoned connections to try and string together a summation of why dual spec would be a âflipped switchâ, but it simply isnât. Theyâd probably have to re-design it in to the game from scratch. Possible? Sure. As you said though, likely? Nope.
Evidence: weâre about to get T6 and they havenât said anything about it or even hinted at plans to consider it.
Also, if dual spec is such a popular feature that Blizzard wouldnât have an issue withâŚwhy didnât they even put it in Season of Mastery? WhereâŚlike, changes are literally the point and the goal.
2 Likes
Well, you seem to be very quick on the draw to call me a liar pretty often.
Maybe donât add in the superfluous disparaging comment as part of your argument then. Maybe then people wonât see it as a trap.
The arguments have been made clearly and concisely already anyway. Use the search.
1 Like
The request for dual spec is in good faith and in line with changes blizzard is willing to make for TBC Classic.
The honus is on you to provide a reason dual spec would be bad for TBC Classic, something you fail to do. And then just fall back on #nochanges which an argument blizzard has explicitly said carries no weight.
Then why hasnât Blizzard made the change yet?
Thatâs not how it works at all. Youâre the one asking for the change. You have to show and convince others why it should be a good change. Thatâs how all changes to an already established system work.
And youâve failed to do that so far.
1 Like
That blizzard hasnât added dual spec yet is not proof they wonât do so at some point 