Case in point. You didn’t like Fasc’s answer, so you’re restating what you’ve said and are asking the question again, but wording things differently.
Let’s pretend, for a moment, that you successfully trap him into agreeing with you, even though fundamentally he hasn’t actually changed his mind. What then? What have you won?
Nothing. You haven’t gained any new information or learned anything about the question you asked. All you did was affirm what you already believed.
Uh no, Fasc isn’t indicating that he’s comprehending the point that I’m making, so I’m restating it in a different way until it’s apparent that he does understand.
If he got it right the first time, I wouldn’t restate it.
You misunderstand the fallacy.
That we presently have red isn’t in question, it is creating an “ought” from that fact. Nothing about having red presently implies or demands maintaining red. That’s the missing piece.
Being “irked” that it changed is just filling the gap with a subjective whim, which doesn’t cure the fallacy.
People dislike change, news at 11.
I couldn’t care less, as disliking change because you’re simply used to the status quo is hardly a reason at all, which is why anyone making a decision about changing it isn’t overly concerned about such a reason. Disliking a change because (insert sound reasoning here) is altogether different.
Blizzard has the final say, not me, that’s just a fact. Read the whole quote.
He is. You don’t like his answer so you’re asking the question in as many ways as you can until you get the answer that you want.
In other words, you’re looking for affirmation, not information.
No, he’s literally inaccurately reiterating the issue that I’m presenting. If you think he’s accurately presenting it, then you’re just as wrong as he is.
I will let you know when you have managed to be able to use a short explanation to describe the issue being explained, I promise. I will not drone on and on restating the argument. I will just tell you, “Yup, there you go”.
You never articulate what it is that’s wrong, you just say it is wrong, then lecture on. You also seem incapable of distinguishing Blizzard having the final say, and my saying that Blizzard has the final say, and repeatedly think I have some opinion that matters on what does and doesn’t make a compelling reason.
Very odd.
When you you can run it again with gear two tiers higher than is currently available they will.
That’s essentially what was happening in the final phase of Classic.
I did a mags last week in a PVP hybrid spec as a tester - not quite as good as I thought it would be but getting there. A few pieces of expertise in the next tier and it’ll be much more viable to do stuff like Arms/Prot and such. Not necessarily in the progression stuff but certainly for badge farming.
You are misunderstanding my refutation of your citing of the fallacy. You said this, even though in the literal quote above it I said:
I’m a little confused if you just read the first sentence of a paragraph before responding or not.
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”
You don’t know who this person is at all, or their opinions on TBCC design, pretty blind shot in the dark there.
Absolutely, and currently I am in favor of their current direction where dual spec is not in the game. Hopefully they stay on that track.
This is basically all you ever do.
Blizzconline, Holly Longdale says the following:
“We’re fixing what is broken…”
Yes we do. Her name is Holly Longdale. She is the Lead Producer. And everything we know is laid out in the above interview. None of this is hidden. It’s all there to see and hear.
Yep. That’s pretty much my view, the course is good, the original design intent of respeccing is working as intended. Thus I am for status quo unless someone can give convincing reasons why TBCC should change course.
So far the reasons to change and add dual spec are either baseless or based purely on “I want it and it’s popular”.
The “it’s popular” angle is a good start but not enough reason on its own. There needs to be more to a change than just popularity. If we make changes by vote then the game will quickly lose any TBC identity in its gameplay. Also the feature is already on the deployment path with WoTLKC highly likely to be released. So, there’s very little incentive to play that card early.
I like changes - when they fit and when there’s good reason for them.
Come on, friend, I thought we were over the random quote-&-insult phase.
I just explained why I was restating my argument in different ways. If you have a real issue with it, consider the reasoning as to why I said I’m doing it.
See, this is just a veiled accusation. I’ve never partaken in doing anything but using your own words to show you how hypocritical you are.
If you think that’s insulting, maybe don’t be a hypocrite in the future.
Yes, and I explained why you were doing it. Telling me you’re not doing what you are doing isn’t going to make me assume that’s not the reason you’re doing it.
But I thought yous said our interactions were just us telling each other about our feelings?
You want to bring reasoning into this now?
Haha, I’m not sure if you can see the issue with this but…
The quote is “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
…and you used “We’re fixing what is broken…” as a counter argument lol.
*groooan
Why do you keep doing this?
We do not know anything about how she feels about dual spec in TBC. There, I made it nice and specific for you.
The quote is used based on the presumption that something isn’t broken so you don’t fix it.
The counter to that is Blizzard has formally acknowledged that there were things in TBC that were, indeed, broken and they had to fix them.
Proceeding that they explain why they’re going into a #SomeChanges mode.
See, given that this proceeds this:
I know you’re just being disingenuous again. It’s like crying out in pain as you strike someone.
If they put Dual Spec into the game, will or will that not be a change to the game?
It will be a change.
However, they haven’t done that yet. I sincerely hope they continue to not do it.
They’ve certainly had the chance to, and given themselves the logic allowance to do so, but haven’t yet. I think that is the correct choice. I hope they continue to follow this choice.
Can we please stop with the constant “disingenuous! bad faith!” call outs?
Like. It’s just irritating at this point.
I’m not being disingenuous or arguing in bad faith just because what I want is not what you want.
snerk /10char
Exactly.
Brilliant deduction. Welcome to every thread and post asking for it.
I sincerely hope they do implement it.
They also had the chance early on not to change the way Powershifting works. They also had the chance not to change the way BGs work. Etc.
I will stop calling you disingenuous as soon as you stop being disingenuous.
You are when you ask someone to stop being insulting and then proceed to mock them by saying
and
And you can’t say you weren’t because your rhetoric was that I get to determine whether or not something you say is insulting or not.
It’s just not needed, with daily hubs on the horizon.
They said this about the costs back then, and now with gold being way easier, it’s not only reasonable, but plain easy. After daily hubs are added? Downright trivial.
Do you… /sigh
The quote was snipped for brevity.