These forums are a microcosm of the playerbase and overly represent fringe positions like #nochanges. Average players like the idea of small, incremental improvements to the game, even Classic stuff.
Not even close, and even within these limited posts, it is mostly the same 2-3 people against arguing with dozens more who are for the idea.
A course in statistics may help…
Not really as respeccing is something already exists and dual spec is merely an adjustment to the mechanism to do so, actually not even an adjustment as respeccing at the trainer still works exactly the same.
The slipperly slope fallacy is your argument against dual spec because you can’t come up with an actual in game reason not to do it. It is not an argument anyone is using in favor dual spec.
Wait, so you acknowledge there are “many” and yet you also say…hmm…
A debate would imply those against it have any grounds upon which to stand.
As has been explained numerous times. But he’ll ignore you and resume lying about it anyway.
I do love the ridiculousness of how people are actually using slippery slope as some kind of “objective” reason for not doing something. Even though, historically, “slippery slope” has always been inherently fallacious. 
I don’t want it. I see more people not wanting it than do.
It wasn’t in TBC, it will be in Wrath. Wait till then.
Show me, then. I want to see the numbers you’re seeing.
Neither were a lot of other things they added.
#SomeChanges
Wrath has already come and gone.
I never said that you did. I was making a point. Is there a reason you arbitrarily quote every single line even if it’s not the conclusion/point being made?
It’s the WoW forum equivalent of posting a YouTube comment critiquing an entire piece of content after watching 1 minute of a 20 minute video. Stop that. Comprehend entire pieces of information before formulating a response. I promise, you’ll come off way more intelligible.
So if it doesn’t matter, then you believe Death Knights could be added to TBCC? Clearly Blizzard has a line, or a figurative “change-significance-quotient” that will decide whether they think it’s appropriate to add a thing or not.
You can’t simply just say this doesn’t exist. It clearly does. They never said #any&allchanges. Some = not all.
The reason we don’t want dual spec, is the same reason Blizzard didn’t.
The reason we don’t want dual spec, is the same reason Blizzard didn’t.
The reason we don’t want dual spec, is the same reason Blizzard didn’t.
It’s not a mere adjustment, it’s a near nullification of the determent functionality of it.
An adjustment would not see the the current design in +1 or -1 state. It would simply be at neutral 0, and adding dual spec does not do this. You are essentially easifying the entire function of respeccing.
However, whether dual spec is a significant add or not, is 100% worthy of debate. So I applaud you for at least arguing in a realm that makes sense to argue in.
I wasn’t using a slippery slope fallacy.
I’m using Death Knights as a comparison to make the point that there are features that they can’t or won’t add. I’m making clear that there is definitively a “too far”. If we know there is a “too far”, we know that some things fall in to that category (or a lot of things, actually).
So now we debate as to whether it is indeed too far or not.
Where? In this thread for a start.
There are few material changes in TBC Classic.
Wrath Classic is not out yet, it will be, come back then.
You’re a druid, you have tank/dps dual spec already. I feel like you should reroll as a troll though.
Not always 
Slippery slopes work when there are actual slopes that are slippery… or we’re talking about incremental variations in something relative like tolerance. The slow-boiled frog isn’t merely a fable.
For this game though? Yeah, very fallacious. Blizzard is the only guiding principle here so there really isn’t a slope to slip unless you want to count #nochanges… but then that’s not a slope so much as it is a sheer cliff and we already jumped it long ago haha
I blockquote now because you lie when I summarize a long post by a subject sentence you post.
You literally throw a tantrum and report my posts when I trim your quotes down to just the topic sentence and now I’m being too verbose by fully quoting you? Don’t you regularly get mad at Kuma and others for snipping your quotes short?
Make up your mind.
Blizzard could do whatever it wants. It is Blizzard. They aren’t beholden to anyone or anything other than themselves.
Communicating badly isn’t a virtue.
All changes need not be implemented, but that doesn’t mean any changes are sworn off entirely. You’re waffling. You claim such a limit exists… SHOW US
Blizzard changed their mind, might want to get with the times.
No, you were trying to trap him. But now that’s failed and you’re upset.
First time you asked this, he clearly didn’t fall for the trap. So, are you thinking you’ll just try again my rewording the question and explaining how the trap works?
You are a liar.
You are a liar.
You are a liar.
Oh did they now, because as far as I can tell dual spec wasn’t added in at TBCC launch.
Do you, or do you not accept the premise that there are certain things Blizzard will not add to TBC?
If you can’t simply make it past this question then I don’t even know what your purpose here is.
I do not accept any unproven claim like this.
Show your work.
You’re telling me there is no known feature or concept in the WoW development universe that you believe Blizzard wouldn’t add to TBCC? Nothing is off-limits to them, you reckon? I’m asking for your opinion. Like I said, if you can’t get past this simple hurdle, all I can assume is you’re trying to keep the argument on “your turf”, which is decidedly a nonsensical one, and you know the answer to this question completely ruins the weak foundations of your narrative.
142 people are using this thread. 67 people have given this thread a 
In the thread I linked earlier, over 200 people gave a . In another thread that was linked by that thread, over 500 people gave a .
Name the changes. The list isn’t too long.
How do you know?
In which case, they wouldn’t be called “slippery slopes” so as to avoid association with the fallacy. In layman’s it would be simply action/consequence and you could show a history of how A leads to B leads to C, etc.
That’s really what any argument against this is lacking.
Show me how Dual Spec leads to B, leads to C, leads to D, etc. All I ask.
What does my opinion have to do with you failing to prove your claim?
This simple hurdle is a fundamental portion of your argument, and you appear to only be able to support your own claim by pure incredulity based on MY rejection of it. This is particularly amusing given your rather toxic hostility to anyone you deem to have irrational beliefs, and yet you can’t rationally support something absolutely critical to your entire argument.
Haha. You can’t answer a simple question?
This isn’t a #nochanges argument. This isn’t a gatekeeping argument. It is pure and simply timeless logic that confers to us meaning in the way we play the game today, and holds true to us despite having been their 2007-2008 perspective.
Some changes to TBCC was fine. The drums change did have people who were against it.
The feral energy change did have people against it, in fact, you were one of those people, which I’m fairly certain you have absolutely no defense for, given it contradicts entirely your position here constantly spouting #somechanges. You had an opinion about feral energy, so why is it so supremely difficult for you to offer an opinion about whether or not Blizzard probably has a limit on changes they would conceivably make to TBCC?
It’s pretty much you and probably Kumasama who sit in your high chairs as if you’ve ever made a decent point about this, but in reality everyone can see that anyone with even a modicum of critical thinking applied runs absolute circles around you two bozos.
Ironically, this is exactly what he is doing. But then again, wouldn’t put it past folks to call out their opposition for what they themselves do. It’s what kids are taught to do nowadays and it’s how you ensure anything productive is brought to a swift end.
Notice how, amidst talking about anything, he just drops these little nuggets. He just passively insults people or what they’re saying in the middle of trying to appear reasonable. He hasn’t proven you’re nonsensical and he engages you on the pretense that you’re not, but then–just in the middle there–says it.
Very disingenuous. Very dishonest.
Most loaded questions are geared to do that. By default.
Until you can prove your claim, I have no reason to accept your claim. There isn’t any value in my pondering your bad position further than stating that it is a bad position, and since you can’t show a threshold I have to consider, I don’t have to amend my position in the slightest that dual spec is entirely within Blizzard’s stated #somechanges featured bullet point about TBCC.
/shrug
If you want to be taken seriously, you need more than everyone just accept your axioms. What are you a fundamentalist?
You’re right, it is an antiquated position held by Blizzard that no longer applies. As I said before, you might want to get with the times.
Any changes to TBCC are fine, because Blizzard is the sole owner of what TBCC is and will be.
Whether a change has opposition or not has nothing to do with anything, this is a red herring.
You are confused. My position was always that a change that changed Feral DPS was unlikely to progress backwards in balancing time compared to progressing forwards, but I also maintained that if a bug exists that Blizzard can fix, they are most likely to do so. I also maintained the position that whatever Blizzard chose to do would be what is, and that would be that.
In the case of Feral, a bug existed that when fixed also happened to bring Feral back to a previous state, so win-win for everyone. Notice I didn’t quit over it either
I find it funny you frequently flag my posts as inappropriate while acting like this…