I’m not being hostile. You seem very determined to find an argument with me over something that does not affect you. It was my preference to hide my profile, you don’t know me or care to, it doesn’t matter at all.
I’m done here. Have a good day, and stay cheeki-breeki my friend.
Let me clear this up for future reference. there is a difference between activity and profile.
Profile is achieves, raid progression, pvp, armory etc.
activity is specific record of posts, threads, views, topics etc.
EVERYONE has access to profiles, its nearly impossible to hide them.
NOT everyone has access to activity, i imagine there are ways to get the numbers but not as easily.
Ill give an example of each.
this is activity, but also profile is avalible for viewing.^
this is profile. Notice that you cannot access my activity through it, but you can see all my wow info.
https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/character/queldorei/Starmage
You sound like one of those people who couldn’t understand why so many wanted appear offline.
Thanks. I was super unclear about what people were talking about.
Totally makes sense to be able to hide your activity, and it’s also important to be able to see achievements and whatnot. There’s a difference between ad hominem and calling out an experience-based argument for lack of experience.
People hide their profiles because they’re embarrassed because of them, and here in general discussion, you can quickly destroy someone’s argument half the time by just looking at their page
For instance, people trying to suggest changes to PvP when they don’t even play at a relevant level concerning the topic their trying to speak on
My profile seemed not to be set to hidden when I finally found the preferences, and I can;t see my profile, just my activity
There is some sort of bug re that at the moment.
I wonder if I just can’t see my own? Odd.
You know - I don’t mind the new forums much, but the functional opacity of the interface is frustrating. Just another example of the irritating trends in web and program designs. I remember a time I downloaded a program that turned out to not have an English language interface - still managed to figure out how to use it easily. These days it’s and endless game of “what does this button do” and menus buried in the strangest places.
due to bug, you may not be able to click profile button on your activity, but u can always go worldofwarcraft.com and type in a name.
Nobody has a link to your profile as it’s a bug. Just have to type it out manually to find your armory. Lot’s of people have the same issue.
copy cat. lol
It serves as a perfectly fine illustration of ignoring the content of an argument due to preconceived notions derived from the argumentator’s easily identifiable qualifications. I say “easily identifiable” because a persons REAL qualifications are nearly impossible to determine.
To use your illustration, are only paid basketball player’s entitled to give arguments on basketball? That would be ridiculous. Some pro-ball players can’t SPELL argument. In a more practical vein, are pro-ball players the best people to teach basketball? Maybe they are qualified, but maybe they are not. There are many things required to be a teacher. Having experience is insufficient to be a teacher, or give arguments, or even speak coherently on a topic. I have had a few professor’s that had NO RIGHT to be in front of a classroom, despite them being experts in their field.
On the other side, let’s say there is a person who played for 20 years with zero formal “credentials” to prove it. They were never quite good enough to be a pro, or maybe they were just never lucky enough, or maybe they just had no desire. But let’s say they are exceptionally in tune with their own body and how they perform their actions. Lets say they are also exceptional at verbalizing those internal understandings. That person may be the best teacher in the world.
Let’s take this illustration a bit further. Let’s say this person did teach, but never in a formal setting, just on random lots in NYC. Let’s say 20 years later, three pro-ball players came out of the same place in NYC and people wanted to know why. When these three pro-ball players are interviewed they all respond with, “It was all Mister Smith” (where Mister Smith is the hypothetical person I have heretofore created).
What if the public outcry was similar to these boards, “Well who the hell is Mister Smith? He has no right to talk on this subject. I can’t find his LinkedIn profile!”
Should such statements negate what Mister Smith has to say about basketball?
This hypothetical story may or may not be real. It certainly wasn’t intended to be real. This story was designed to illustrate something believable, to show that credentials are not experience, and thus arguments are not credentials.
An argument in the form of data, words, math, logic, whatever either stands or falls on its own. Sometimes an initial argument requires more data, words, etc. to support it, but what it never needs is credentials of the SPEAKER. The speaker only needs to prove his argument, never himself.
If you cannot discount the merits of an argument, you only show weakness when you resort to attacking the speaker, no matter how fancy or vehement you are when you justify that attack.
Well, I’m not trying to argue anything anymore. You’re just replying with random things that do not even prove your point. Only reason I even care at this point is because you questioned my opinion in response to your question fairly harshly, without any form of argument, just belittling.
If you can’t argue your point and/or respect the response of the person you’re asking, then don’t ask someone a question. Simple as that. You didn’t even attempt at proving your point against mine, after you questioned me, just belittling. Maybe you should take your own advice and stop caring, because you’re the one who asked me, after I tried to hear your side. Why even bother posting in a debate thread if you’re not even going to argue your point? I had been trying to get your side this whole time to better understand your point of view, but you keep evading any form of response, instead mocking my attempts to better understand.
Goodbye.
And sometimes experience (or lack thereof) is an excellent way to address an argument. A professional basketball player is almost definitely more qualified to speak to issues regarding mistreatment of players by management or the league than someone who’s never been in a basketball stadium.
Likewise, if someone is complaining that the quality of raids has declined over the years, whether or not they’ve entered Uldir is very relevant. If someone claims that M+ is too easy, but hasn’t done higher than a +5, perhaps they just don’t know what they’re talking about.
What if we’re in a thread on the class forums, and someone is asking for advice on how to approach a certain fight? I’d like to know if the people giving advice have seen the fight in question.
To expand a bit, I completely recognize that there should always be a data-based answer to a question. The problem is that sometimes the information itself is hard to understand. As a thought experiment for all of you non-warlocks out there: imagine someone posts on the warlock forum: “I’m starting mythic progression on Vectis tomorrow, what Destruction Azerite traits should I be using?” How would you answer that? Feel free to look at sims, or logs.
A person’s experience is always relevant. It is COMPLETELY relevant. But the true scope of a person’s experience is impossible to determine. Whatever their experience may be, it will shape the form of their argument. If a person has not done a certain thing on which they are speaking, more than likely their argument will fall short. More directly, their argument will fall short BECAUSE they lack the experience to talk about it in a coherent way.
But what if the argument doesn’t fall short? What if it has good examples to support the claim? Does that mean the person should not be speaking on the topic? But the argument was sound… That is not logical.
Specifically on the commonality of this illogical approach; what if you (the general you) disagree with a sound argument, but you can’t give good counterexamples to support an opposing opinion? The all too common method being debated here is to resort to an attack on their RIGHT to speak, because you can’t counter what they say directly.
That is the very definition of an ad hominem attack. It is a form of debate that always loses in any formal setting, but often wins in the public sphere because as I have stated, a person can be smart, but people are sheeple.
The bottom line is, all that matters is whether or not a person can support their argument, not how or why they can. Experience is very relevant because it helps shape an argument, but it does not itself directly support it. Even more, your determination of their experience is not a logical method for determining merit a priori.
Two of my 4 characters have profiles that can’t be viewed from the forums, and none of them have it hidden. I just don’t have the button for profile after clicking my portrait. It used to be only one that was visible, but another has appeared. Still not visible on this one. AND, on mobile, it says “This user’s public profile is hidden.” Just checked my preferences page again, and “Hide my profile” is NOT checked. Is there another place to hide it?
Gimmi a sec, I have to google the word disingenuous…
People are challenging the argument. You have yet to prove instance in which calling into question the ethos of the arguer is the only determinant in challenging the soundness and validity of the arguers argument.
Then the argument is sound.
But what if it’s not? How is the structure of the argument formatted? Is it easy like formal logic? Or is it more difficult like informal logic? This leads into the time invested in countering the argument. Why should I waste time with a person that has not presented strong ethos? My time is valuable the premises presented and implied may take time, more time then it is worth.
The all too common thing is that no one said they don’t have the right to speak, but the persuasiveness of their argument is both determine on their logos AND ethos.
Inductive reasoning…
I’ve nothing that needs hiding, but nonetheless I also checked that “hide” box. Why? It’s nobody’s business but my own. Simple as that.
I don’t think it changes much. You can still find somebody’s Armory with a link if you care enough, and if somebody does have it hidden they are probably hiding something that would hurt their argument.