is this sarcasm? because the referenced point was demanding that the concept of burden of proof exists. Not to provide proof as it is your(the person) burden, but to provide that the idea of burden of proof… exists(in fairness to the person, in the context of not being simply a societal norm.)
But still, the whole point is deflecting the conversation to a different topic… logically, because they can’t provide anything for the previous topic. Its a tactic of distraction.
now for context. I dont agree with most Zipzo’s points. I’m not anti dual spec. I love being a jack of all trades druid, and in retail i often will play 3 diff specs in a raid night.
I simply dislike bad arguments. In the past threads I’ve been in, its been against the notion that dual spec will solve/significantly help the tank shortage for pugs.
Here… I’m pointing out that someone is deflecting to a different concept and arguing that, rather than the point at hand. why should that person, whoever they may be, taken seriously. when their tactic is deflection?
If you ask a question about whether or not someone believes in something, you’d think you could prove that thing exists.
Zipzo largely deflects anyway when cornered. He makes declarations that aren’t supported, then called out on that lack of support, redirects to something else entirely. He brought up the “lack of belief” canard himself, trying to absolve himself of having to do anything other than be contrarian.
I don’t think Dual Spec will solve Tank shortages, and I’ve said as much in multiple threads. There’s ample evidence that with additional Tanking classes (DKs), easier to gear Tanking (WotLK Badges, 10m gear, easy Heroics), easier to play Tanking (WotLK writ-large), and Dual Spec… we still saw ample Tank shortages. People just don’t like to Tank. I’ve never maintained otherwise.
I want Dual Spec for the very reason it was implemented in the first place: luxury convenience.
Zipzo has a habit of crawfishing when cornered, typically resorting to gaslighting, ad homs, and demands we alter the discussion towards their preference. He made an entire thread that affirmatively declared asking for Dual Spec to be off-limits based on Blizzard’s old posts for #somechanges and when called out on it, claimed the thread was just mere opinion instead.
The more I and others have picked at the loose threads in his arguments, the more he’s unraveled and become increasingly hostile and personal. That’s why he brings in American politics on a regular basis despite having no reason. He likened someone in another thread to wanting Sharia Law for asking for Dual Spec.
If all it takes to reveal Zipzo as this kind of person is for others to merely ask simple questions, that’s sufficient to undermine his point in being in these threads. The OP gets bumped and people largely ignore the back-and-forth, and those that do not see Zipzo for what he is. Easy.
Every conversation with him just turns into a “gotcha” game. Every question he asks is structured to get you to answer in a very particular way that he wants to turn into something that agrees with what he says.
He never approaches any conversation intending to read anything anyone says or learn anything or even consider the other person. If he disagrees with you, his every intent upon entering a conversation is not to understand but to get you to conform to his opinion.
This is exactly right. He acts like he’s reasonable at first which is dishonest because he’ll refer to you as being rude and trolling just for having a different opinion. Then, hypocritically, he will become rude and attempt to derail the entire discussion simply because the other party won’t agree with him.
He is utterly dishonest. Fair warning to anyone engaging with him, don’t assume he is having a conversation with you. All he is trying to do is manipulate you into agreeing with him because he can’t find a tenable argument that actually supports any of his sentiments.
Please read the this whole post before you start quote-spamming everything.
All you are doing here is attempting to assert undeserved dominance by using a lot of repeated aggressive terminology that paints these discussions as though you’ve been nothing but a tame, reasonable presenter of rational points, and I somehow struggle to get on-board with your unmitigated objectivity, and self-destruct as a result.
I can assure you, I have felt none of the emotions that you are describing here. All you’re doing is being manipulative. You want to “win” without even having the debate at all, because you’re challenged by actually having to debate a topic, rather than getting lost in pedantry and semantics, which it seems like you’re cursed to do forever at this rate.
Even dual spec proponents catch you on your bs, it’s so obvious to anyone who isn’t coming in to these discussions biased, that all you do is deflect. Constant. Every single post you never address the actual point, all you do is try to tackle the semantics because it’s all you have to go off of without taking a risk. You’re a coward, and that’s really all there is to it.
My demeanor hasn’t changed in the slightest bit on the subject of dual spec. Everything that we’ve presented, me and others, as arguments for why dual spec likely won’t be implemented, I 100% stand by, and you can scream in to wind all day and night about how we’re “wrong” about our justifications, but at the end of the day, we don’t have dual spec, and for as long as we continue not to, the walls will continue close in on you, closer and closer until you’ll be forced to admit there was a reason they never added it, and it will be one of the reasons we argued, at the very least, and the only out you will have would be “Well they just forgot”, which nobody will believe.
What a day that will be.
The funny thing is that you’re just a massive hypocrite. Everything you accuse me of is something anybody with cursory, fundamental appreciation of written English can see that you’re projecting, big time.
I’d even be willing to start over on the basis of only talking about dual spec. To be quite honest, I’m almost certain that personal attacks came from your side first, as I’m quite unlikely, at my age, to ever be the first one to buckle to that desire.
You aren’t capable though and you’d never even agree to it, because it’s inherently essential to your argument methodology to have that superiority-complex-based form of attack on demand.
What’s worse is you can’t even agree on abiding by the burden of proof, which makes all propositions within the framework of a dialogue with you, utterly pointless. You don’t have to prove anything that you claim, and if you make the effort, you simply say that the burden of proof is not needed because you’ll say that the information you provided isn’t up for debate and is objective. However when others present any argument or interpretation, they do have to provide evidence that their claim is a rational interpretation.
It’s completely backwards, and you probably can’t see yourself doing it, but it makes you impossible to reason with.
It was the same thing in the feral energy threads, and don’t try to rewrite history, but you were so certain that Blizzard wouldn’t change it because that’s how it was. You argued as the immense minority party, playing contrarian to the hundreds of other ferals who saw this as something that should be, and needed to be fixed, because you thought you were the rational person in the room with the undesirable facts that nobody wanted to hear, and guess what? You were 100%, flat-out, unmistakably wrong.
You will backtrack and revise your legacy over and over to make it so you actually weren’t wrong, you totally left the field open for Blizzard to make whatever play they wanted to make, right? Sure, sure.
The reason I “devolve” to guerilla tactics with you is because, after all of this frustration with you, I realize there’s just no point to taking you seriously. I gave you a chance, I truly did. I am not an unreasonable person. I play this game regularly like everyone else, I raid with 24 other people who I laugh and joke with, debate on politics without wanting to get at each others’ necks. I have kids, I’m married. Relatively experienced in life, I was in the military, I’ve lived in foreign countries (in and out of the military). I’ve been in several lines of work and seen some dark stuff IRL. I have a pretty reasonable world view at my age.
I am not some rando internet troll who lives for being annoying on the internet. All I am, is debating a topic I feel passionate on, and will continue to for as long as people push for what I want to prevent.
Now you can either assume that what I’ve told you is true, drop the stupid superiority-complex, and have a normal debate without this absurd assertion that nearly everything you say is fact, and literally everything anyone else says is speculative, biased opinion (because that isn’t the case, almost everything you use in your argument is your own speculative opinion), and begin to realize that almost everything that all of us are posting is speculative opinion, or not. If so, then we’ve reached a middle-ground of understanding that will allow discussion on the topic: Should dual spec be introduced to TBCC?
No, it shouldn’t. For reasons we’ve stated:
It removes a form of character investment that is necessary, and an important element of the TBC experience. We know that this was an intended experience for the original due to Blizzard quotes from back then.
It changes the raid meta (if however slightly or majorly) and creates a need for people to utilize it for optimization purposes, which would be emergent gameplay from a feature that never existed in original TBC, making the content more trivial that it needs to be.
It takes away from the selling points of a potential WOTLK-C, unfairly.
It ignores the fact that respeccing will become much easier as the expansion ages, due to daily quest hubs.
It ignores the fact that respeccing is easy now, as many dual-spec arguments have tried to point out “People just respec anyway”, well yeah, so then why does it need to be added?
These are all, of course, my opinion, but it’s an opinion that is guided by relatively affirmed truths that are reasonable if you use actual history as a comparison. The game already happened. We saw TBC, WOTLK, and more come and go and we know what the repercussions of each change ever made was.
If you think that adding dual spec to TBC would not create any of those issues, fair enough, but that’s your speculative opinion as well that I feel is less supported by history.
Translation: You’re making a compelling argument and I can’t refute it.
Translation: I can’t refute your arguement, but I still disagree with you.
Translation: Because I cannot refute your arguments, I’m going to mischaracterize them through ad homina.
Translation: More ad homina.
Translation: Because I cannot argue my position, I’m going to assume there’s many others who support it and support me. I’m going to use collective pronouns now to make it seem like you’re arguing with more than one person.
Translation:
Translation: I have no idea how to refute your arguments so I’m going to tell you that you don’t know how to argue.
Translation: Even though I can’t refute your arguments, I disagree. Since I disagree, you must be a troll and so I will be rude and derail this thread by talking anecdotally about my life experiences. Because that’s what a rational human being would do.
Translation: Now that I’ve been rude to you, called you several names, and excused myself from acting rationally, I’m going to go right back to my original presumption as if nothing were said at all. You’re supposed to respond to me regardless.
Translation: Here’s a bullet list of my baseless and unsupported opinions which I expect you to respond to.
Translations: Regardless as to how you respond to my bullet list, my opinions will not change.
So you want me to stack a bunch of Heroisms in my group? I’m unsure what you want me to accomplish by hitting 99 as Feral (and you also didn’t specify which version of Feral to parse with either…)
Feel free to hop on Atiesh and ask to see the manager… err… Guild Leader. Either of them would be happy to chat.
I agree, but I really have a hard time rank ordering Dual Spec in the same lofty slots as things like Northrend, 10/25 Raids, hardmode Raids, Deathknights, etc. I’d put Achievements as a whole above Dual Spec for sure, with Barbershop somewhere much closer.
Doesn’t matter. Only people with high parses are correct. I read it in a book somewhere. Also I was in the military and saw some !@#$. So I know what I’m talking about.
There is a tinge of irony that the person who puts no stock in such a simple universally accepted concept as “the burden of proof” hails from a guild called [Probable Cause], along with another who refuses to ever honor statements he quotes in their original context from a guild called [No Context].
…sounds like a personal problem.
It’s totally fair for you to have that opinion though, don’t get me wrong, but it’s still just your opinion.
I’m just going to continue to ignore the constant “counter-attacks” and focus on the topic:
Dual Spec.
It is a feature that, given history, the nature of TBCC and what it stands for, is unlikely to be implemented. A function that never existed in original TBC and would open up too many new doors for emergent gameplay make it too much of a variable for a game being run by devs where the players need more consistency.
It also likely isn’t a profitable move, because you risk losing the people who want to limit changes by making a huge change, while you risk pretty much nothing by just not putting it in, because most everyone is here in the first place under the understanding that dual spec was not a TBC feature.
While the prospect of some changes is nice, this prospect is not a limitless promise. Some things won’t make the cut. There’s two scenarios:
They said “some changes” to give them the flexibility through warning, that they would make some modifications, both before and after launch, to address certain issues that could be seen as a toxic result of emergent gameplay by 2021 players, or things that were deemed arbitrary for achieving a faithful TBC experience.
They said some changes because they will add in every single thing everyone says would be cool to have in TBC, to the point it might as well actually be TBC+ despite not being advertised as such.
2 is quite unlikely. 1 is the more measured assumption.
