Why Is Blizzard Always At War With The Playerbase!?

[Tiev]

Usually because "the playerbase" is a constructed public - there's no monolithic player base that wants any one thing or even a set of things like the items you've posted above. Ask a cross-section of players about any of the above line items and you'll get different and often contradictory responses, from essential agreement to people who will say "LFR raiders don't deserve mounts," or "Pathfinder is fine L2P" or "M+ sucks and shouldn't distract from WoW's true end-game: raiding," etc., etc. There's no unified player base for the developers to be at war with, and everyone wants WoW to cater to them and their playstyle because, well, we all sort of live in our own perspectives and generally imagine everyone else does too unless told otherwise (and sometimes not even then).

What is "archaic" or "meaningful" is also equally open to debate, and indeed, is debated pretty much nigh constantly here and elsewhere.

Very much this. It's like saying "This is what America wants!". What version of "America" are they referring to?

[Relapses]

They removed it to fix it and said quite clearly that it will be put back in once it's fixed.

You people make mountains out of anthills.

At the time this post was made there hadn't been any developer feedback on it yet. I will agree that this particular issue was blown out of proportion but that had more to do with wowhead running articles on both the addition and removal of the feature than anything else.

[Hambo94]

Spoken like someone who has never done an iota of research before. Googling =/= research. Sure, Google is a powerful research tool, but its effectiveness is largely a function of the competence of the user.

So, rather than telling you to Google, which will likely lead to Google telling you what you want to hear (because that is how the Google algorithm works), I'll cite an article:

"There is a common belief that corporate directors have a legal duty to maximize corporate profits and “shareholder value” ... this belief is utterly false"

Here is another source that basically explains where this fallacy originated from:

"In the 1970s, a group of renowned free-market economists from the Chicago School of Economics perpetuated the notion that the sole purpose of a public corporation was to make money for its shareholders"

To be clear, this has never been law. It's basically dogma, started by an economist named Milton Friedman.

So there. I am back to reiterate: What you are saying is hogwash.



The Business Judgement rule actually exists to protect businesses from frivolous lawsuits by people who want to claim that a company is not acting in the best interests of the shareholder simply on the basis that they're not maximizing profits.

Just because a publicly listed company is legally obliged to act "in the interests of its shareholders" does not mean that it is required to maximize short term profits. In fact there is a good argument to be made that, more often than not, the interests of the shareholders are best served by a company acting in a manner that is geared towards long-term sustainability.



No, that's BS. And if you want to make such a claim, you need to find a citation pointing to this supposed law. Ironically the rule you pointed to is a rebuttal to your argument.

If indeed Blizzard are (as you seem to be claiming) taking decisions designed to drive short term profits at the expense of customer satisfaction, that is down to bad management, plain and simple. There is absolutely no legal precedent forcing them to do so. That being said, it is possible that someone there, like you, is acting on the misguided belief that such a law does exist.

- - - Updated - - -



Even accepting this principle as true, it doesn't support your initial assertion that there was this "Pretty major flaw that was pointed out by hundreds of thousands of players for you know, months, and was ignored."

The fact is that you're essentially talking about 2 people pointing out something. And we're not even talking about bastions of objective and critical thinking here. These guys primary motivation is to get clicks and views, and the only thing they can be relied upon to do is ignore any facts or arguments that would get in the way of that objective.

As for the horde of mindless followers just nodding their heads in unison: You don't even know how many of those followers are even playing the game or have the analytical capacity to even make a meaningful contribution to the discussion. This is why they rely on people like youtubers to do their thinking for them in the first place.

This is just a classic case of Argument of Authority fallacy on your part.

If you dont believe me, then maybe go look at someone who has actually been told this, by a lawyer. LinusTechTips recently did a video on it where they discussed the family business and what they were told by lawyers about how to set up the group to be as secure as possible should something tragic happen. He literally discussed it in low level detail there and outright states his lawyer tells him that this is the way it is in business law and if they dont abide to it, they can get themselves screwed.

They also discussed the freedom the group would have financially with projects that were risky or not deemed to be in the interest of the shareholders, again referring to producing expansion features etc that are deemed unnecessary risks, unnecessarily expensive to produce etc.

That being said, it is possible that someone there, like you, is acting on the misguided belief that such a law does exist.

We can continue to debate the existance of these laws, or the potential reality that a lawyer says that you can get in legal problems over it, or that shareholders can fire CEO's for not acting in their interest until the crows come home. You can say im misguided, thats fine, thats polite enough for me. I believe that such rules in the world of business do apply, and you can absolutely land yourself in seriously hot water if you make decisions that dont benefit the shareholders, and then something goes wrong.

I think its also crystal clear that the AAA publishers dont take risks with IP's, they pump out the same products almost every year with minor changes, and try to increasingly monetize those IP's, to keep the stock price rising. And for the sake of not upsetting anyone here, Ill say I believe that these companies will also fire workforces, trim down teams, cut features and hold back creativity of projects in order to save some development costs, and maximise profits, because thats in the interest of the shareholder/company, and not in the interest of the consumer.

This is just a classic case of Argument of Authority fallacy on your part.

With regards to this though, likewise this is just a classic case of not understanding how an internet forum works, nor the intricacies of this specific case. Im afraid that there is no hard data for us to just look at and get a direct and definite answer on what percentage of players agreed/supported these features. I dont know why you would say that on an internet forum when you know that is the case.

It is obvious that all we are left with is anecdotal research and just to be clear, ive said that, literally like 10 times or so in the last few posts ive made. I have never suggested that these numbers are some how exact figures or direct proof of anything, I have suggested that the number of people who are against these features certainly numbers in the hundreds of thousands of people by any reasonable estimates.

So to get back to the topic at hand you are specifically referring to the fact that I used 3 influencers as focal points for those hundreds of thousands of people correct? Well yeah? They have millions of followers and between them all, have hundreds of thousands of live viewers, commenters, replies on twitter etc between them all. If you collate all of the people who 'nodded a head' or in some form showed agreement with views shared, even if it was with a one word response in a live stream, I believe it would number in the hundreds of thousands. Again, you dont have to agree, I believe that is a reasonable estimate given how massive their follower bases are. Ive not suggested I am certain to be correct, could not be wrong, or that these numbers are facts. Ive repeatedly pointed out certain numbers which are irrefutable (how many followers they have), other given facts which you yourself agreed to (that most followers will align themselves with the people they follow) and that by those 2 combined realities, that I think those estimates are reasonable. Again, you're free to disagree. We are on a forum, and theres no hard data made available to us by Blizzard, so what do you suggest we do instead.

I just hate the way people think that anecdotal arguments are somehow inadmissible as vehicles for debate on an internet forum haha.

A) theres no data to go off, we have to be anecdotal.
B) We are on an internet forum - where by definition, the purpose is to debate/discuss.
C) If I presented my argument as hard facts, it would be one thing, but I presented my argument as both hard facts, combined with estimated/reasonable assumptions and even clarified myself that those are obviously anecdotal. And you're still trying to throw the argument of authority fallacy at me. Not sure what to say back to that to be honest.

Anyway look if you disagree or you think im just an idiot thats fine, I've presented what I believe, and you disagree and think the complete opposite. Thats fine by me.

[dwarven]

They've always been like that. They see themselves as the parents and the players are the children who don't know any better. They are super condescending and think their decisions for the game can't be questioned. Except Blizzard doesn't have the same rock star reputation they used to have. Their releases are all 'wait and see' games now. Maybe they'll change their attitude now.

[arkanon]

They've always been like that. They see themselves as the parents and the players are the children who don't know any better. They are super condescending and think their decisions for the game can't be questioned. Except Blizzard doesn't have the same rock star reputation they used to have. Their releases are all 'wait and see' games now. Maybe they'll change their attitude now.

Parents are usually right.

[Relapses]

Parents are usually right.

Honestly, the view that Blizzard should be responsible to respond to all forms of feedback is one of the most hilarious forms of entitlement from the WoW community. Players read hostility from developers because they didn't get a gift basket with a hand written note from Ion Hazzikostas after their suggestion to make Blood Elf boobies 15% larger was summarily ignored.

[Celement]

Honestly, the view that Blizzard should be responsible to respond to all forms of feedback is one of the most hilarious forms of entitlement from the WoW community. Players read hostility from developers because they didn't get a gift basket with a hand written note from Ion Hazzikostas after their suggestion to make Blood Elf boobies 15% larger was summarily ignored.

For me the issue is more when they actively recruit for theorycrafters and world first tier players then get upset and offended when told their new system they worked for hours on is shit.

They dig In too and this was just with ap. I can't imagine it's gotten better.

[arkanon]

Honestly, the view that Blizzard should be responsible to respond to all forms of feedback is one of the most hilarious forms of entitlement from the WoW community. Players read hostility from developers because they didn't get a gift basket with a hand written note from Ion Hazzikostas after their suggestion to make Blood Elf boobies 15% larger was summarily ignored.

HAHA, true. There are HEAPS of things i would love in wow, or for blizzard to do/change, but my opinion about game development remains the same - bring back the days where a developer made a game the best they could, to THEIR vision, and the players that like it play it, and those who dont, dont.

There are heaps of games i love the idea of, but they are just not for me - for example, if Hunt:Showdown was a purely PvE game, i would be playing it all the time. Im not huge on PvEvP games, so i dont play it. I could come up with many more examples, but thats the best one in the front of my mind right now.

- - - Updated - - -

For me the issue is more when they actively recruit for theorycrafters and world first tier players then get upset and offended when told their new system they worked for hours on is shit.

They dig In too and this was just with ap. I can't imagine it's gotten better.

THAT i can agree with - so many recent examples when they were told by "qualified" parts of the player base that a new system or feature is going to be a problem, and they say the same thing "this is an early iteration, you just wait until you see XYZ!" and that pattern continues over the entire expansion, until they get it "right" in the final patch of the expansion, then abandon the feature and do the same thing all over again.

[Raelbo]

If you dont believe me, then maybe go look at someone who has actually been told this, by a lawyer. LinusTechTips recently did a video on it where they discussed the family business and what they were told by lawyers about how to set up the group to be as secure as possible should something tragic happen. He literally discussed it in low level detail there and outright states his lawyer tells him that this is the way it is in business law and if they dont abide to it, they can get themselves screwed.

Right. So instead of just citing a reference, you tell me that some youtuber talks about what his lawyer told him (or a friend of his). And you aren't even specific about what was said, just that it supposedly proves your assertion. (FYI, I tried to find this supposed video, just to see what was actually being said, and if I could verify or refute it, but I could find it).

Did you even bother to go look at the links I provided which actually directly address the issue and make it categorically clear that you are wrong? Of course not.

We can continue to debate the existance of these laws

No. It's not a matter of debate. It's a matter of fact. And I have posted evidence that your initial stated assertion is incorrect. You obviously cannot post any kind of evidence to support your claim, because your claim is false, based on something you heard and believed, but never actually verified as true.

There is no law compelling publicly listed companies to maximize short term profit. Period. Why you're still arguing this instead of using it as an opportunity to learn and correct yourself is beyond me. There is no shame in admitting you learned something new.

or the potential reality that a lawyer says that you can get in legal problems over it, or that shareholders can fire CEO's for not acting in their interest until the crows come home.

Firstly, the shareholders can't fire the CEO. The shareholders elect a board of directors, and the board has the power to appoint or remove the CEO. Obviously a board of directors will remove a CEO that they believe isn't acting in the interests of the shareholders. But where your assertion fails is that you're conflating "maximizing short term profits" with "acting in the interests of the shareholders".

The thing is that "acting in the interests of the shareholders" is somewhat, and I would argue, purposefully vague in how you would go about achieving it. And it is up to the CEO to convince the board that the job they are doing qualifies. In most cases, this involves finding a healthy balance between making short-term profits and ensuring a sustainable business into the future.

Importantly, there is absolutely no law that compels any board to remove a CEO for failing to maximize short term profit.

You can say im misguided, thats fine, thats polite enough for me. I believe that such rules in the world of business do apply, and you can absolutely land yourself in seriously hot water if you make decisions that dont benefit the shareholders, and then something goes wrong.

Now you're making a very different proposition from what you started with (and with which I took issue). There are absolutely "rules" (again not necessarily law) with which CEOs need to comply if they are going to maintain their positions.

And sure, if your board consists of people who buy into the Friedman philosophy (not a law!) that companies exist purely to maximize profit for the shareholders, you could very well land up with CEOs being fired because of it. But I stress again, this has nothing to do with laws or any legal requirement of the board to do so.

I think its also crystal clear that the AAA publishers dont take risks with IP's, they pump out the same products almost every year with minor changes, and try to increasingly monetize those IP's, to keep the stock price rising. And for the sake of not upsetting anyone here, Ill say I believe that these companies will also fire workforces, trim down teams, cut features and hold back creativity of projects in order to save some development costs, and maximise profits, because thats in the interest of the shareholder/company, and not in the interest of the consumer.

I can agree that a lot of CEOs will justify making such decisions on the basis of it "being in the interest of the shareholder". That doesn't necessarily mean that it is in the best interest of the shareholders though, or that it is actually required.

With regards to this though, likewise this is just a classic case of not understanding how an internet forum works, nor the intricacies of this specific case. Im afraid that there is no hard data for us to just look at and get a direct and definite answer on what percentage of players agreed/supported these features.

By your own admission there is no hard data. So how on earth can you make a claim that there was this "Pretty major flaw that was pointed out by hundreds of thousands of players for you know, months, and was ignored." You've literally just provided the reason why your claim is invalid.

It is obvious that all we are left with is anecdotal research and just to be clear, ive said that, literally like 10 times or so in the last few posts ive made. I have never suggested that these numbers are some how exact figures or direct proof of anything, I have suggested that the number of people who are against these features certainly numbers in the hundreds of thousands of people by any reasonable estimates.

No. Now you're being dishonest. To be clear: Your claim was that hundreds of thousands of people "pointed out" the problem.

As for your modified assertion of how many people are actually against these features, you're just taking a guess without having any kind of reasonable basis. Without solid reasoning you cannot lay claim to what a reasonable estimate is. And looking at the number of subscribers to Asmongold's channel certainly doesn't give any kind of accurate estimate of how many active WoW players are against the features, or how much of a big deal it actually is to them.

So to get back to the topic at hand you are specifically referring to the fact that I used 3 influencers as focal points for those hundreds of thousands of people correct? Well yeah? They have millions of followers and between them all, have hundreds of thousands of live viewers, commenters, replies on twitter etc between them all. If you collate all of the people who 'nodded a head' or in some form showed agreement with views shared, even if it was with a one word response in a live stream, I believe it would number in the hundreds of thousands. Again, you dont have to agree, I believe that is a reasonable estimate given how massive their follower bases are. Ive not suggested I am certain to be correct, could not be wrong, or that these numbers are facts. Ive repeatedly pointed out certain numbers which are irrefutable (how many followers they have), other given facts which you yourself agreed to (that most followers will align themselves with the people they follow) and that by those 2 combined realities, that I think those estimates are reasonable. Again, you're free to disagree. We are on a forum, and theres no hard data made available to us by Blizzard

At no point did I refute the number you are talking about above. I was quite clear on what my issues were with your assertion. Specifically I questioned the following:
1) How many of these viewers are active WoW subscribers, or have even played SL and have experienced the features under discussion?
2) How many of these viewers are actually thinking about the issues vs just getting caught up in the fervour?
3) How many of these people actually took the issue further than just watching a video?

Remember, your assertion was that there was this massive number of people who raised the issue, only for it to be ignored. Now you've changed your tune somewhat to say that there is a supposedly massive number of people who can "reasonably" be assumed to support the viewpoint expressed by a much smaller number. But even then your guestimate is pretty worthless based on what I have raised above.

so what do you suggest we do instead.

Listen to the criticism leveled against your argument, and use that to reassess your argument and conclusions.

I just hate the way people think that anecdotal arguments are somehow inadmissible as vehicles for debate on an internet forum haha.

A) theres no data to go off, we have to be anecdotal.
B) We are on an internet forum - where by definition, the purpose is to debate/discuss.
C) If I presented my argument as hard facts, it would be one thing, but I presented my argument as both hard facts, combined with estimated/reasonable assumptions and even clarified myself that those are obviously anecdotal.

My issue isn't with the use of anecdotal evidence, so much as the misuse thereof. Of course anecdotal evidence can be useful and valid. But that depends entirely on how it is being used.

And you're still trying to throw the argument of authority fallacy at me. Not sure what to say back to that to be honest.

Perhaps I should have been more specific. You were essentially making an appeal to false authority. Essentially you were arguing that your position is validated by the fact that a few youtubers and their legions of followers share that view.

[LilSaihah]

I think they might be following stats when determining whether features are good or not, rather than feedback.

Tables had high activity rates but bad feedback, for example.

[WowIsDead64]

I think they might be following stats when determining whether features are good or not, rather than feedback.

Tables had high activity rates but bad feedback, for example.

Yeah, problems started at exactly the same moment, when they stated, that number of players =/= success. I guess, successful content = content with highest involvement ratio, no matter if it's enjoyable or not. That's, what is called "playing for results".

[Hambo94]

Perhaps I should have been more specific. You were essentially making an appeal to false authority. Essentially you were arguing that your position is validated by the fact that a few youtubers and their legions of followers share that view.

Im trimming this down massively as its becoming an essay-fest.

As I said, I did get my information via someone who actually did get it from a business lawyer, I told you that, look up Linus' video about the topic and the advice he was given, it explains all of the things we are discussing.

Also, for the Nth time, seriously, I didnt make any appeal, and you're outright making things up by suggesting that I was saying my position was validated in anyway by the numbers I was providing.

I repeatedly stated that it was an opinion that was based on reasonable assumptions, among many other things I did that made it clear to anybody reading that what I was talking about was an opinion and not proof, such as suggesting what percentages of the followers would be reasonable to be in agreement, or what number of followers are shared. Either you missed the original post and hopped in later with false assumptions, or you have ignored that. It is literally crystal clear.

Of course anecdotal evidence can be useful and valid.

Dangerous words around here jeez.

Again I didnt misuse the evidence, because I stated 30 times it was an opinion based on what I considered to be reasonable assumptions not facts.

[Relapses]

Again I didnt misuse the evidence, because I stated 30 times it was an opinion based on what I considered to be reasonable assumptions not facts.

Hey man, you could have saved yourself a lot of stress by just linking this video as the backbone for your argument.

[Raelbo]

As I said, I did get my information via someone who actually did get it from a business lawyer, I told you that, look up Linus' video about the topic and the advice he was given, it explains all of the things we are discussing.

Seriously. At this point you are just being stubbornly ignorant. Not to mention arguing in bad faith. I have literally done all the work here: Finding references, explaining where your bad assumption comes from (confusing business dogma originating from Milton Friedman with law).

What have you done? I doubt you even bothered to read the stuff I linked. I don't think you did more than skim through what I wrote, your sole objective being to try and find something to allow you to pretend you weren't wrong. You can't even be bothered to link the source you're quoting, expecting me to go find it (FYI, I did try and was unsuccessful - no way I'm wasting my time because you're too lazy).

You made a false assertion. Time to own up to that, learn something, and move on instead of this ridiculous attempt at proving you're right.

I repeatedly stated that it was an opinion that was based on reasonable assumptions, among many other things I did that made it clear to anybody reading that what I was talking about was an opinion and not proof, such as suggesting what percentages of the followers would be reasonable to be in agreement, or what number of followers are shared. Either you missed the original post and hopped in later with false assumptions, or you have ignored that. It is literally crystal clear.

Again, you made a silly assertion. And instead of owning up to that you are again doubling down and arguing a whole bunch of stuff that doesn't support your original assertion.

I am sorry, but if you want to make contentious assertions, you need to be able to back them up. And when someone takes the time and effort to show you why you're wrong, the wise thing to do is learn from it, not stick to your guns.

[rrayy]

I did not say that it does not have solo content sprinkled into it. It obviously does. But it is not and has never been a solo content game. It is in no form balanced toward solo play, it is in no way pushed toward solo play. Nothing of the sort. You level (which i guess can be considered solo) and then, with the exception of a few things sprinkled through out here and there (most of which are done for something in the end game group play anyway) you play for group content. Whether you Queue it, pug it, organize it, doesnt matter.. Its group content.

Wrong. I can play the game without stepping foot in any group content. You are being disingenuous. It is a sandbox game. It is not geared toward one specific type of content.

- - - Updated - - -

Damn, you really are quite passive aggressive arent you. Jesus.

Clearly me mentioning Asmongold has upset you, maybe you hate him for some reason and its triggered you I dont know, but you really really dont like me talking about these content creators haha.

I am not misrepresenting, I am presenting my opinion. By the way, this is easily researchable just with a google, and you will see that there is an extremely strong correlation between subscribers/followers, and agreement in views. Thats just a fact, like seriously,y ou can call it misrepresenting, you can call it anecdotal, its just a fact though. It takes one simple google to find a million articles/papers, even Youtube themselves talked about it in one of their panels recently I believe. If you dont want to believe that, thats a you problem, not a problem with the point im putting forth, so stop trying to paint my personal character as someone who is disingenuous. Ive explained my viewpoint, ive taken a healthy step back and clarified not all people agree that follow them, but claimed that a certain percentage inevitably do agree, and you're still claiming im just being disingenuous. I dont think you know the meaning of that word to be honest because theres no way you're trying to make this a personal problem with me right now.

Some people watch the videos to see what he has to say, that does not mean they agree with him indeed. But he has over 3 million followers, and gets hundreds of thousands of unique viewers per week who take their time, to share his time. Its obvious that a fair few of his followers will agree with him. I fail to see how you think that an influencer/public figures supports/followers isnt tied directly to agreeing to views on various topics. Nowhere have I stated that all of those people will agree with him, but when you have 3 million followers, I believe (and im clarifying this for the Nth time because you are repeatedly ignoring what im saying and trying to paint me in a different view) that a high enough percentage of those followers will agree with him on most topics, to create a sufficiently large enough pool of players that will number in the hundreds of thousands. Thats my opinion, if you dont agree. Whatever.

And you are lying again because a tiny % is not hundreds of thousands. Alright I think you're either frustrated or just plain upset at me for some weird reason. You are repeatedly calling me a liar, disingenuous, spinning numbers and now saying I am talking with bad faith. Stop replying to me thanks, Im not going to say what I think of the way you've spoken because im polite and mature enough to not rise to the way you talk to people.

Ill finish up with what I said originally. Those 3 content creators alone have a minimum of 3m followers/subscribers (taking into account shared/mutual followings) and I believe that at least 4% of those followers agree with the people they follow, which puts us over 100,000 unique individuals, who will agree with the sentiment shared by those influencers. So I stand by my original statement that hundreds of thousands of WoW players were against the way covenants were set up and would have voiced their opinions on various platforms at some point.

If you believe that less than 4% of those followers agree/will have shared their opinions somewhere, good for you. We are done here haha, its actually hilarious the way you replied looking back at it, we are done here!

No, you are presenting a content creators opinion.

ANd again followers DOES NOT MEAN THEY AGREE! That doesn't even get into the fact that you assume they all watched the video and you assume they have an opinion one way or the other. And how convenient that you pick a percentage that magically gives you the numbers you need to be correct. Yes, you are being disingenuous and everything else I said. YOu ahve spun everything to fit your assertion. That is the very definition of bad faith.

[Miffinat0r]

Wrong. I can play the game without stepping foot in any group content. You are being disingenuous. It is a sandbox game. It is not geared toward one specific type of content.

- - - Updated - - -.

WoW is not a sandbox MMO. It's a themepark. There's nothing players create in WoW. It's all laid out and the world has defined boundaries.

Problem is that the tickets to ride the rides at a certain point cut off. No queued content after Heroic/LFR, no matchmaking for PvP for any type of ranked (Solo Q I think is coming now, right?).

With these issues this is very anti-causal and very anti-modern day gamer. WoW has become what is sought to not be. It has become the hardcore MMORPG, where when the game launched all the way through Wraith, WoW had a casual mindset. Then things got hard because a vocal community who was in the ear of the devs, because they came from that community, changed everything and with it subs dropped, and players left.

Now WoW is still probably in the top 3 for sure of most played NA MMORPGs, but it's never going back just because people don't have the desire to form friendships with people who are just pixels to them.

Ever notice "Playing with the boys" now means playing with people you know in real life? Back when I was much more hardcore about MMOs in 2004-2007 to me that meant my guild, of whom I never met. Now it's meant for real life connections inside of video games. Times they are a changin'.

[Hambo94]

Hey man, you could have saved yourself a lot of stress by just linking this video as the backbone for your argument.

Sorry who are you? I guess you think you're being funny or something? Kind of strange but ok.

Im sorry that you arent capable of interpreting opinions, I guess you're one of the exact forum goers that im talking about. Theres a lot of them out there haha.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong. I can play the game without stepping foot in any group content. You are being disingenuous. It is a sandbox game. It is not geared toward one specific type of content.

- - - Updated - - -

No, you are presenting a content creators opinion.

ANd again followers DOES NOT MEAN THEY AGREE! That doesn't even get into the fact that you assume they all watched the video and you assume they have an opinion one way or the other. And how convenient that you pick a percentage that magically gives you the numbers you need to be correct. Yes, you are being disingenuous and everything else I said. YOu ahve spun everything to fit your assertion. That is the very definition of bad faith.

You said you were going to stop replying to me so why are you still replying lmfao?

I never said they agreed hahahahahaha, I said literally like 30 times that this was all opinional, assumptions and guesswork but you clearly just are literally not able to comprehend what those mean, I honestly dont know how else to put this! You are just harping on with the same pointless arguments like a stuck record! I never said they all agree! I said that, over and over!!!!

LMFAO its actually hilarious how you're doing this.

Yeah obviously I picked a percentage that magically gave me the number I need, thats LITERALLY what I said I did hahahahaha, what on earth are you talking about. I literally stated that 4% of 3 million > 100k people, you're acting like im playing some magic trick here and pretending like Ive done something ive not, I quite literally figured out what it was, then said "there, 4%, I think its definitely greater than 4% in that case"

You can call me a spin doctor well you're just a broken record player, keep calling me bad faith, I think you're just bad at reading lol.

Oh look, you just called another user disingenuous, I think thats your favourite word or something. So basically in your view, everyone on this forum who you dont agree with is disingenuous, and you're just perfect. Gotcha.

Anyway yeah you're still replying as I said after you expressly stated you weren't going to, so stick to your words why dont you buddy.

[Relapses]

Sorry who are you? I guess you think you're being funny or something? Kind of strange but ok.

Im sorry that you arent capable of interpreting opinions, I guess you're one of the exact forum goers that im talking about. Theres a lot of them out there haha.

Look man, I don't need to type out a ten thousand word diatribe to call it like I see it. Instead of just admitting you made up an argument from thin air you're doubling down and trying to convince people that your poorly sourced opinions are worth engaging with. Maybe don't rely so much on parroting the opinions of a balding Englishman who hocks ball-shavers for a living and people will take you a bit more seriously?

[Hambo94]

Seriously. At this point you are just being stubbornly ignorant. Not to mention arguing in bad faith. I have literally done all the work here: Finding references, explaining where your bad assumption comes from (confusing business dogma originating from Milton Friedman with law).

What have you done? I doubt you even bothered to read the stuff I linked. I don't think you did more than skim through what I wrote, your sole objective being to try and find something to allow you to pretend you weren't wrong. You can't even be bothered to link the source you're quoting, expecting me to go find it (FYI, I did try and was unsuccessful - no way I'm wasting my time because you're too lazy).

You made a false assertion. Time to own up to that, learn something, and move on instead of this ridiculous attempt at proving you're right.




Again, you made a silly assertion. And instead of owning up to that you are again doubling down and arguing a whole bunch of stuff that doesn't support your original assertion.

I am sorry, but if you want to make contentious assertions, you need to be able to back them up. And when someone takes the time and effort to show you why you're wrong, the wise thing to do is learn from it, not stick to your guns.

Buzz word alert, its like a cult in here, the cult of bad faith.

No, I read your entire post start to finish, but as I stated (and you clearly havent read or just decided to ignore) ive not replied to the entire thing because its becoming an essay-fest

Im trimming this down massively as its becoming an essay-fest.

Ding ding ding! Oh look I quoted what I just said I said, amazing.

If you want me to find the video I will, it was on a talk-panel thing he did with another member of staff so ill look through my history and try to find it. So wait, what is it, am I arguing in bad faith, or do I just have a bad assumption. You seem to just be trying to pin absolutely everything on me.

Anyway despite you being rude as hell like half the people ive spoken to in this forum today, ill find you that link since you asked ever so politely, and ill message back with it when I do.

You made a false assertion. Time to own up to that, learn something, and move on instead of this ridiculous attempt at proving you're right.

Well again, listen you can be as aggressive and rude about this debate as you like, I can admit that I may be wrong and in this case you linked me some interesting information from clearly reputable sources, but that dosent change the fact that it is different in other countries, and that my belief came from a video where Linus talks about his dealings with lawyers/financial advisors in relation to his company, where he states the opposite. So perhaps Linus or those advisors are wrong, or perhaps its different in Canada. I dont know.

Anyway this is a clip, I cant find the full video, I dont know what its called - https://youtu.be/Faa-b2uq0gA?t=512 At some point in the segment (unsure if its in this clip or not) he does discuss the lawyers/financial advisors he consulted.

Anyway, you're yo-yoing from calling me outright lazy, stubborn, ignorant, and arguing with bad faith - all incredibly rudely lol

To saying false assertions, bad information - which you know, is a reasonable way to talk to people, but hey its easy over a keyboard right haha.

Either way thanks very much ill stick by my guns on the original point you're referring to about the 100k + figure, I absolutely stand by that, I know what I said, I was very clear it was opinion based/based on assumptions and I still think that 100k+ individuals is extremely reasonable. If you dont agree fine, you've made it clear, you can keep harping on about not being able to back them up but all I can repeatedly say is ,yeah, I said it was a guestimation lol, what do you want me to say"

Anyway I hope you find the video interesting, ill be reading through this full paper by Lynn Stout later tonight.

- - - Updated - - -

Look man, I don't need to type of a ten thousand word diatribe to call it like I see it. Instead of just admitting you made up an argument from thin air you're doubling down and trying to convince people that your poorly sourced opinions are worth engaging with. Maybe don't rely so much on parroting the opinions of a balding Englishman who hocks ball-shavers for a living and people will take you a bit more seriously?

I dont care if people like you take me seriously, not sure why I would take someone seriously that only steps in to mock others because they have nothing constructive/pleasant to talk about? Not sure who the balding Englishman is though, assuming you are talking about preach (because I assume you're educated enough to realise Bellular isnt English lmfao, at least, I really hope so haha) but I didnt parrot their opinions, maybe press the page back key and read what I said nice and slowly.

I said that when 3 individuals alone have at least 3 million followers, at least 100k+ of those are inevitably going to agree with him, and IMO will have shared that sentiment in some form or another publicly. Anyway I dont care if you take that seriously or not, its not my problem you arent reading the posts.

Poorly sourced opinion, where is the laughing out loud emoji sorry. Its literally my own opinion, not sure how you're saying that sourcing my own opinion from my own brain is somehow 'poor sourcing' but you'll make anything up to support your argument and mock another user right haha.

Anyway like I said, not sure why you step in just to make cocky remarks, and not earlier to try to actually debate, but we all have different personalities dont we.

[Relapses]

Buzz word alert, its like a cult in here, the cult of bad faith.

No, I read your entire post start to finish, but as I stated (and you clearly havent read or just decided to ignore) ive not replied to the entire thing because its becoming an essay-fest



Ding ding ding! Oh look I quoted what I just said I said, amazing.

If you want me to find the video I will, it was on a talk-panel thing he did with another member of staff so ill look through my history and try to find it. So wait, what is it, am I arguing in bad faith, or do I just have a bad assumption. You seem to just be trying to pin absolutely everything on me.

Anyway despite you being rude as hell like half the people ive spoken to in this forum today, ill find you that link since you asked ever so politely, and ill message back with it when I do.



Well again, listen you can be as aggressive and rude about this debate as you like, I can admit that I may be wrong and in this case you linked me some interesting information from clearly reputable sources, but that dosent change the fact that it is different in other countries, and that my belief came from a video where Linus talks about his dealings with lawyers/financial advisors in relation to his company, where he states the opposite. So perhaps Linus or those advisors are wrong, or perhaps its different in Canada. I dont know.

Anyway this is a clip, I cant find the full video, I dont know what its called - https://youtu.be/Faa-b2uq0gA?t=512 At some point in the segment (unsure if its in this clip or not) he does discuss the lawyers/financial advisors he consulted.

Anyway, you're yo-yoing from calling me outright lazy, stubborn, ignorant, and arguing with bad faith - all incredibly rudely lol

To saying false assertions, bad information - which you know, is a reasonable way to talk to people, but hey its easy over a keyboard right haha.

Either way thanks very much ill stick by my guns on the original point you're referring to about the 100k + figure, I absolutely stand by that, I know what I said, I was very clear it was opinion based/based on assumptions and I still think that 100k+ individuals is extremely reasonable. If you dont agree fine, you've made it clear, you can keep harping on about not being able to back them up but all I can repeatedly say is ,yeah, I said it was a guestimation lol, what do you want me to say"

Anyway I hope you find the video interesting, ill be reading through this full paper by Lynn Stout later tonight.

- - - Updated - - -



I dont care if people like you take me seriously, not sure why I would take someone seriously that only steps in to mock others because they have nothing constructive/pleasant to talk about? Not sure who the balding Englishman is though, assuming you are talking about preach (because I assume you're educated enough to realise Bellular isnt English lmfao, at least, I really hope so haha) but I didnt parrot their opinions, maybe press the page back key and read what I said nice and slowly.

I said that when 3 individuals alone have at least 3 million followers, at least 100k+ of those are inevitably going to agree with him, and IMO will have shared that sentiment in some form or another publicly. Anyway I dont care if you take that seriously or not, its not my problem you arent reading the posts.

Poorly sourced opinion, where is the laughing out loud emoji sorry. Its literally my own opinion, not sure how you're saying that sourcing my own opinion from my own brain is somehow 'poor sourcing' but you'll make anything up to support your argument and mock another user right haha.

Anyway like I said, not sure why you step in just to make cocky remarks, and not earlier to try to actually debate, but we all have different personalities dont we.

For somebody who "doesn't care" about being taken seriously you sure seem to love employing the use of many, many words to say nothing at all. Having a platform doesn't make an opinion hold any more gravitas and assuming that because people have platforms that they're somehow representative of some quantifiable aspect of the community is just plain ridiculous. I only commented because you literally admitted you made shit up and I thought the video I linked was relevant.