This is simply not true. For example; I support Abrams fixes and improvements, but if someone starts demanding unreasonable changes, I am the very first to:
I was talking more so about the people screeching in pain about “US haters” or people claiming that others have a negative bias towards the US.
I wouldn’t say the disagreements that we have in the game are just minor disagreements. They tend to feel like the other side doesn’t want you to exist.
When I like heavy tanks and the opposing side wants heavy tanks to be penetrated with ease, or in cases like Maus they would rather have it literally removed, than put up with balancing it, then how am I supposed to handle that disagreement.
Whenever I think there was a change that was unfair to the other side, I tend to point it out. Especially when I often have played on the other side or want to play it, even though I play one nation more than the others.
Almost there. There is no way to insert objectivity, but there is a way to insert bias into a question of taste.
They tend to feel like the other side doesn’t want you to exist.
What? I’ve been having discussions on this game for years and I’ve never felt this way even when the person is hurling the most disrespectful things in the book. I think you might want to remove your own emotion from the discussion if you feel this way.
When I like heavy tanks and the opposing side wants heavy tanks to be penetrated with ease, or in cases like Maus they would rather have it literally removed, than put up with balancing it, then how am I supposed to handle that disagreement.
You can start handling it by realizing everyone has an opinion? By not getting emotionally invested? Just think “Okay, they think that’s the way it should be, cool.” The Maus debate is a hilarious one because the best way to fix it is to keep it exactly where it is.
I was about to edit that out. A question of taste is one which is purely bias, which is consistent with my original point: everyone is biased.
they are not, however your tastes lead you to have a bias;
the fact that you PREFER realism, leads you to be biased towards it when it comes down to making a decision e.g. this vote
You just refuse to accept that preference is different from bias.
It’s just circular logic at this point.
“Everyone is biased, because everyone has a preference, and everyone’s preference is due to the fact that they are biased.”
You’re arguing for the sake of arguing now.
you have it backwards, everyone is biased because they have preferences, I’m not arguing this anymore.
Just because you cannot understand basic english concepts, does not make you unbiased
Okay but quick question. What is the point of meticulously accurately modeling a vehicle then putting it in a completely make believe game mode with made up parameters?
That’s incorrect. In a question of taste, the subject only relies upon their own perception of goodness, not on an objective method of determining what is objectively good. It follows then that any subjective method which the subject uses must be proper. Therefore bias and preference are interchangeable in a question of taste, or, as I said at first, preference doesn’t exist in a question of taste.
A bunch of smart words to say bias = preference, when it’s not the case.
Like @nerfthat213 said, it’s “the action of supporting or opposing a particular person or thing in an unfair way”.
Judging apples by things other than their qualities is unfair to other voters.
The fact that you sell apples is not their quality.
enjoying vehicles is quite literally a quality of them
I’m not a dev, you should ask them. It is however a game, and in my opinion, a game and its aspects should however be enjoyable, even to an extent to the cost of realism.
The no’s are winning and we have 3 days left so let’s hope this change gets thrown into the dumpster.
I think the majority of everyone here agrees though that we’d like to see solid shot buffed.
Voting no, because a few vehicles you like will benefit from this, is unfair to other voters.
The fact that a few vehicles will benefit from this change is not this change’s quality. Balance is a quality of this change, a few vehicles becoming better/staying better than the others isn’t.
How can a person decide something which is completely subjective in an unfair way? Unfairness implies objectivity.
its also unfair to voters to vote for realism over gameplay.
Furthermore, enjoyability is very much a quality, even if it is in your eye minor.
It’s an objective fact that the taste of fruits is one of their qualities, but the fact that you are selling them isn’t. It’s a quality only for you, a bias.
Then Gaijin loses even more credibility. Why ever hold another vote again if you ignore the results and do it anyway. In every poll, vote, election ever, there are always people who are misinformed or uninformed. And how do you know if they voted in bad faith? It’s wild you are asking for Gaijin to just ignore the majority opinion. I would say that is “operating in bad faith”.
You are conflating two different ideas. Fruits have an objective chemical composition which means that when we eat them we experience taste, but which one tastes better is purely subjective.
So again,