World of Warcraft®

That is blatant trolling. You are unwilling to make a conventional arguement about the implementation itself.

That isn't what trolling is.

Final post, as this isn't even particularly amusing anymore:

I'm sorry you can't connect the dots. It's a shame, really, but I don't feel like holding your hand anymore.

Good luck in the future. I can tell you're going to need it. :)

Final post, as this isn't even particularly amusing anymore:

I'm sorry you can't connect the dots. It's a shame, really, but I don't feel like holding your hand anymore.

Good luck in the future. I can tell you're going to need it. :)

That is how you defeat a thread troll!

Let's move this along. What does everyone think of this implementation? Pleas don't be like Elethia and waste my time on debunked arguements. If you find the debunked arguement to be flawed, please point out the loop, thread and post number of the debunked arguement and explain why the arguement was not soundly debunked. I do not want to sit here and repost massive paragraphs counters that cannot be written more eloquently than they were in the originals.

Going back on my word:

No, sweetie, that's how you "defeat" probably the only person willing to put up with your ignorant narcissism for more than a page. If you actually wanted a discussion, I was more than willing to have one. Instead, you stamped your foot and made demands and generally refused to help anyone help your cause.

It's clear that you're not actually interested in debate. You're interested in being right—not even in being correct, but being right. And heaven forbid anyone offer constructive criticism. That's grounds for chest puffing and rooster-strutting.

Please do yourself and the forums a favor and learn how to debate without instantly resorting to puerile insults and fallacies the second someone points out a flaw.

If someone brings up a point you believe you've already debunked, reference where you've debunked it. Don't play dumb and try to force them to reference your original point; their disagreement should be reference enough.

Going back on my word:

No, sweetie, that's how you "defeat" probably the only person willing to put up with your ignorant narcissism for more than a page. If you actually wanted a discussion, I was more than willing to have one. Instead, you stamped your foot and made demands and generally refused to help anyone help your cause.

It's clear that you're not actually interested in debate. You're interested in being right—not even in being correct, but being right. And heaven forbid anyone offer constructive criticism. That's grounds for chest puffing and rooster-strutting.

Please do yourself and the forums a favor and learn how to debate without instantly resorting to puerile insults and fallacies the second someone points out a flaw.

If someone brings up a point you believe you've already debunked, reference where you've debunked it. Don't play dumb and try to force them to reference your original point; their disagreement should be reference enough.

You don't want a proper discussion because you only want to bring up debunked arguements.

Even when I offer to open discussion on the originals, you don't want to make reference loops. I cannot fight your battles for you, All I can do is make the originals available for reading. Sheesh! You should read all of the feedback loops before you post and already know if they've been debunked or not. If they're not properly debunked, you should reference their loop, thread and post number and give me valuable insight on it.. That is far more valuable than reposting the same !@#$ fight over and over and over again!

Blizzard may cater to casuals, but I sure as hell don't.

I directly referenced one argument and responded to it. Your only reply was essentially, "Yep, I debunked it".

The rest you labeled as debunked; the burden of proving them debunked is on you, not me. If you can say that you've debunked them, you clearly know which arguments I've indirectly referenced and should be able to pull them up yourself to expound upon your original comment in order to satisfy my argument.

At this point, this is what's playing out:

Participant: [Argument]
You: Nope, I've debunked that.
Participant: [rewords/expounds upon argument]
You: Nope, I debunked it.
Participant: I disagree.
You: Reference what you disagree with.
Participant: I have by (re)introducing the argument. It directly addresses/relates to what you claim to have debunked.
You: Well, I debunked it.

As I've said before, you can't just claim to have debunked something. It's also indicative of poor formatting, which I've also previously mentioned.

Your "train of thought" reference loops include a lot of pointless statements, chest puffing and disconnected replies. You'd do a lot better to work with a basic Argument/Counter-Argument setup located in a single post.

Example:

A. Argument: This is not, and should not be considered, a top priority.
Counter: [Reasons why it is/should be.]

B. Argument: This is nothing more than a QoL improvement. Why bother with it when it won't actually help the spec?
Counter: [Reasons why it should be implemented.]

C. Argument: This is not the best way to implement the change. (No one has even brought this up except you.)
Counter: [Reasons why it is.]

D. Argument: This shouldn't be implemented. (I think maybe one person said this? You've brought it up a good dozen times, though.)
Counter: [Reasons why it should be.]

Et cetera.

If at least 3 people come in ready to debate the same few points with you, and bring up multiple unique arguments in response to those points, it's generally (not always, but generally) because the point isn't stable/sound.

Finally, regardless of whether or not you feel the person is an idiot/troll, it's worth responding to them seriously. Take the high road. Lay out your argument and defend it in a polite, logical and reasonable manner. History has shown that people who aren't capable of doing that tend to have weak arguments and are resorting to rudeness because they simply cannot adequately counter the argument presented.

Also, just as an fyi: I don't troll and, as I've said, I try never to assume that others are trolling. I did seriously consider breaking my streak with the former, and somewhat did with the latter.

Participant: [Argument]
You: Nope, I've debunked that.
Participant: [rewords/expounds upon argument]
You: Nope, I debunked it.
Participant: I disagree.
You: Reference what you disagree with.
Participant: I have by (re)introducing the argument. It directly addresses/relates to what you claim to have debunked.
You: Well, I debunked it.

Can you make a reference loop of that?

This will make or break your arguement.

Its got to be exact or you're full of !@#$!

If at least 3 people come in ready to debate the same few points with you, and bring up multiple unique arguments in response to those points, it's generally (not always, but generally) because the point isn't stable/sound.

Don't you mean if at least 3 people come into my thread and garble "unique" arguements I have debunked in earlier threads and refuse to link to the error in my original summerization, its generally because they were lazy and didn't bother to read anything.

Prove me wrong, and then you'll have an arguement against the implementation.

These are petty arguements. Have all the good arguements been discredited/trashed?

Woaden

http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/rt-k7jgffzhe4x3itgn/details/171/?s=3912&e=4182
+ 1 DPx3
------------
Still 4th on DPS despite being the #3 Shadow log in the world

You're missing the point.

Tomorrow: you win. We get 1 SO / sec ooc. We see less than a 1% increase in our single target damage. You have spent all this energy championing the idea and Shadow is no better for it. Now what? Where do you go next?

Dreamskull

Nice reposted proof, but this is ultimately not enough to discredit me.

Are you testing weather or not I am reading these?

My point still stands. Its still better than nothing at all.

Whether*

You're really not answering his question. Why champion a cause that does next to nothing for Shadow Priests? Why not push for something that is actually a top concern?

By your own standard, you are completely justified and correct.

However, you fail to relize that you are not the god of shadow.

My position is valid and you are merely attempting to hen peck it.

It is not my fault you refuse to read each individual feed back loop.

You just don't like this particular implementation, not my problem.

I'm not sure what to make of your reply.

Let's work from the top:

- I'm asking a very simply question. It's obvious you want this change; you've made that clear many, many times. You've argued, and have been proven wrong, that it is a "top priority". Bearing that in mind, if you're so interested in making Shadow a better spec, why aren't you lobbying for something that does more to improve the spec?

- I've never once stated, nor implied, that I'm "the god of shadow". However, it's exceedingly obvious that starting every fight with 3 SO is a minute damage increase.

- Your position thus far has been attack/mock anyone who disagrees. That's not a particularly valid way of arguing. I responded separately, and directly, to three things: (a) the PvE repercussions, (b) the PvP repercussions, (c) the manner with which you conduct yourself when debating. Each one was very specifically designed as constructive and non-combative. A debate is not won by attacking those who disagree with you; it is won by remaining calm, defending your stance, and ensuring you have met and countered all arguments.

- At no point have I stated, nor indicated, that I did not read the feedback loops. I simply pointed out the obvious: asking/telling everyone to read and remember every detail in your five post introduction to the thread is silly. You're essentially trying to force anyone who wants to actually debate this with you to invest an excessive amount of time in a very small issue.

-

Let me be very clear that this doesn't mean it should not be implemented, but that it seems as though you've spent an awful lot of time fighting for what would be a nearly inconsequential PvE buff instead of focusing your attention on the bigger issues and fighting to resolve those.

If you're going to try to ridicule people for not reading your posts, you should probably make very sure you're not guilty of that offense yourself.

02/13/2013 11:13 PMPosted by Woaden

Please actually address this and answer the question.

Dreamskull

I only want people to make informed decisions, hence the effort put inot providing the relevant material for people to read and see. I find it annoying that no one is reading any of it and only seek to bring up topics that I have beaten into the ground weeks ago.

Seriously, don't post until you've read everything on the topic.

I don't care if you think it isn't worth your time. It is if you don't want to look like a complete fool.

You don't need to read 4 verbose feedback loops to make an informed decision, especially when half of it seems to be you bashing whoever disagrees with your assessment.

It's also very telling when multiple people make the same counter and you side-step/mock it.

I'd also like to point out again that you seem to be committing the same crime of which you're accusing others. So far, you've yet to prepare a response that actually engages my comments.

If it is as insignificant as you say, then you should have no problem implementing it into the specialization.

You have been adressed. I've told you. That arguement is dead on arrival.

You mad bro?

Since it appears you're not understanding what I'm saying, let's try this:

Over four feedback loops, I saw about 5 different categories emerge:

A. Claiming to have resolved/replied to an argument.
B. Attacking/insulting the poster(s).
C. Addressing the topic/argument.
D. Engaging in hyperbole.
E. Random and unnecessary snippet.

Of those, these are the numbers:

A. 1 (Either you started posting it in nearly every response in this thread, or you're grossly under-representing how many times you've actually used this as a retort.
B. 13
C. 20
D. 7
E. 3

People re-introduce points because they aren't satisfied with your response(s). The burden of proof is on you, not us. You can't simply wave your hand and declare something decided when it's obvious that there's still discussion to be had.

It's also worth noting that there was a great deal of overlap between categories B and C. As I've already mentioned, taking a combative tone and attempting to mock/insult those engaging in a discussion with you is a very good way to undermine your argument.

To be concise and clear:

1. I have read each one of your feedback loops.
2. I am not satisfied with [some of] your responses.
3. I am attempting to engage in an amicable and mature discussion.
4. I have provided clear, direct responses to your comments.

You have not extended the same courtesies. You demand that others fully read your unnecessarily long feedback loops, but refuse to respond to direct questions or arguments.

To use your own quote against you: "I love how you just glanced over the entire post I made and ignored the substance therewithin as if it was hidden from you."

Dreamskull

There is no substance in those posts you've made because substance implies newness.

If you aren't satisfied with the feedback loops, please reference the loop, thread and post number.

Its getting late, please redress those numbers to me and I will get back to you tomorrow.

Elethia

(a) Why you're lobbying for this, rather than for something that would actually have an effective impact on Shadow play.

I'm going to go ahead and guess, if challenged, that you'll reference Loop 1, Post #95 & 97:

"Nothing better is going to come along. I can guarentee you that. Mark my words."

For someone so fervent in his pursuit of change, that's a rather defeatist attitude. Are you settling, then?

Or is it possible that you're pushing this so avidly because you just want your idea implemented, even if it does [next to] nothing?

02/14/2013 06:42 PMPosted by Dreamskull

Where are those reference loops I asked for?

Still standing.

Where are those reference loops I asked for?

Please give me the loop. thread and post number.

And I'm too lazy to edit in any more names; some posts were skipped/parts were snipped because they weren't relevant. Point is, you've basically just developed a cycle. Hence why I said "at this point, this is what's playing out".

The past two to three pages have pretty much been you swinging between "I debunked it" and "Reference the feedback loop" (That demand works both ways, too. Why don't you reference the feedback loop where you debunked the argument?) sprinkled with random insults and what seems like willful ignorance. (I mean, a few of us have clarified things about eight different ways and you've consistently managed to misread/accuse us of things we haven't actually said; just look how many posts it took for you to actually realize that I had read the feedback loops—I finally had to explicitly state that I had and provide a summary of emerging tone/quality categories.)

Honestly, one has to be some kind of incompetent not to be able to connect an argument back to your original rebuttal. If you're capable of stating that you've debunked it, you should be capable of connecting the dots and considering how the reintroduced argument counters/might counter what you've stated.

In any case, true last post. I shouldn't have even bothered with the last few, because all they're doing is dragging me down to your level. I don't really care if you're trolling or just terrible at debating. You're clearly beyond help, at least what help can be provided here. As I said before, good luck. You'll certainly need it if these are the skills you've developed thus far.

E: Grammar and stuff.

Here is the original summerization of your train of thought.

Participant: [Argument]
You: Nope, I've debunked that.
Participant: [rewords/expounds upon argument]
You: Nope, I debunked it.
Participant: I disagree.
You: Reference what you disagree with.
Participant: I have by (re)introducing the argument. It directly addresses/relates to what you claim to have debunked.
You: Well, I debunked it.

This is the actual train of thought for comparison.

Reference Loop #1 (Dreamskull)
Feedback Loop #1 (Elethia)
Thread 3

Dreamskull #79
Woaden #89
Dreamskull #90
Elethia #91

You've skipped #92 and #93 (inexcusable)

Dreamskull #94
Elethia #95
Woaden#96: You've left some out. (excusable)
Dreamskull #97
Elethia #98

You've skipped #99 and #101 (inexcusable)

Elethia #102
Dreamskull#103
Elethia #106
Dreamskull #108: You've torn out a massive chunck. (inexcusable)
Dreamskull#109

Not only do these not match each other, you've cut out large chuncks of the actual train of thought. Either you are incompetant or maligned. Take your pick because the challenge has been failed by a large margin.

But seriously, you were supposed to fail so I could teach you how to do a proper reference loop. I think you've helped create Feedback Loop 5. I'll be sure to credit you for the hard effort you put into your work.

A reference loop doesn't require that much effort, we only need the loop, thread and post numbers.

Then you can make your arguements against the loop. That's a good example.

I am sure you'll take your turn now that you know how to do it. That's exactly what I want you to do.

Its efficient because it covers many posts at once and gives us valuable insight.

A feedback loop is basically a massive, but simplified quotation.

A reference loop is a critique of a feedback loop.

The only problem with buerocracy is it takes a lot of time to do right.

Like and sticky!

[quote="79224300053"
He's talking about you being the troll. He did link your post.
[/quote]

Actually I linked his post because I was talking TO him about YOU being the troll. Just to clarify.

02/15/2013 10:49 PMPosted by Dreamskull

Blizzard may cater to casuals, but I sure as hell don't.

While I realize you may have done other content on a different character, you are posting here as your priest, so that's the one that gets judged when you make ignorant comments like the one quoted.

Your priest is a casual. You haven't completed LFR on your priest. You aren't on any arena teams and have a BG rating of a whopping 192. Explain to me how you aren't a casual on your priest? Do you have a main priest that you've seen end-game (read: high ranked pvp or end-game heroic raiding) on?

I don't mean to be rude or mean to you, but I couldn't help myself after the "casuals" comment.

While I realize you may have done other content on a different character, you are posting here as your priest, so that's the one that gets judged when you make ignorant comments like the one quoted.

Your priest is a casual. You haven't completed LFR on your priest. You aren't on any arena teams and have a BG rating of a whopping 192. Explain to me how you aren't a casual on your priest? Do you have a main priest that you've seen end-game (read: high ranked pvp or end-game heroic raiding) on?

I don't mean to be rude or mean to you, but I couldn't help myself after the "casuals" comment.

He's talking about you being the troll. He did link your post.

Actually I linked his post because I was talking TO him about YOU being the troll. Just to clarify.

While I realize you may have done other content on a different character, you are posting here as your priest, so that's the one that gets judged when you make ignorant comments like the one quoted.

Your priest is a casual. You haven't completed LFR on your priest. You aren't on any arena teams and have a BG rating of a whopping 192. Explain to me how you aren't a casual on your priest? Do you have a main priest that you've seen end-game (read: high ranked pvp or end-game heroic raiding) on?

I don't mean to be rude or mean to you, but I couldn't help myself after the "casuals" comment.

I guess you got me Miss Troll. I have been defeated.

The enitre implementation fails right here and now.

I will screenshot this and frame it on my wall forever.
------------------------------Sarcasm Line------------------------------
You argue about as well as you make "valid" quotations.

This is getting petty. I just transfered to a different server.

Excuse me for wanting to distance myself from Moon Guard.

I don't mean to be rude or mean to you, but I couldn't help myself.

I think an out of combat shadow orb recharge is both fair and reasonable.

I support this thread.

02/20/2013 01:59 AMPosted by Veiled

Do you have a main priest that you've seen end-game (read: high ranked pvp or end-game heroic raiding) on?

Current:
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/character/Emerald%20Dream/Dreamskull/advanced
Previous:
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/search?f=post&a=Dreamskull%40Moon%20Guard&sort=time&dir=d
Paladin:
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/character/emerald-dream/Hatash/advanced
Duid:
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/character/emerald-dream/Makaloota/advanced
Hunter:
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/character/emerald-dream/Murderbanks/advanced


So that would be a "no"

Definitely a Casual if I've ever seen one.

I am sorry I don't have the strength to level up 7 characters.

Seriously, What does pointing out my vacation alts prove?

I am a guild leader who just transfered out of Moon Guard.

You all have your own implementations I've held my tongue on. They are far worse.

They aren;t as in depth or as meaningful to the specialization as this implementation.

You don't see me trying to discredit them. Would you like to see me rip them apart?

What exactly does pointing out my profession alts prove?

That you're not hiding any toon with actually non-casual cred.