So you poison the well and expect me to engage with you in good faith lol? Sure I’ll bite.
Show me where I used the fallacy fallacy.
I implore you.
Just so we’re clear, if you’re trying to say by me pointing them out over and over again and not engaging with each new strawman of me he presents. You’d be wrong, and the “fallacy fallacy” you’re referring to you don’t understand, and probably just googled logical fallacies and tried to find one that relates to what I’ve said.
Not engaging with any of his meaningless drivel about things I haven’t said, didn’t insinuate and didnt present an opinion on isn’t a “fallacy fallacy.” It’s not being baited into a different argument I don’t care about and didn’t respond to.
If you’re implying a “fallacy fallacy” is being used because I said his reasoning was bad because it is bad regarding necron being indicative of anything. Then again, you’d be wrong. That’s demonstrably bad logic, pointing it out as such isn’t a “fallacy fallacy” because his conclusion being made with bad reasoning, is a bad conclusion. You can make the same conclusion for a myriad of good reasons. This was not one of them.
Hey buddy you’ve still not actually addressed what my argument was. You may have missed it but if you scroll up you’ll see I reposted it a second time for you.
How are you this delusional you’ve quite literally appealed to a fallacy 9 times or at least insinuated to one in every single reply you’ve made to casino you keep bringing up supoised fallacies without definitive proof that quite literally is the fallacy fallacy
If i were you i could quite literally just claim this is a loaded question and disregard anything else youve said because you made a fallacy thats quite literally what you’re doing but you’re taking it to a further extent and throwing in random fallacies that dont even corelate to what casino is saying
Also as casino said you still haven’t responded to his arguement you’re just sidestepping and trying to shift the conversation to be only about supposed logical fallacies he made
It’s not a loaded question, I asked you to present the fallacy. I presented a point regarding 2 possible responses of literally any arguments you could give. I didn’t strawman you and say these are your arguments, and it’s not a loaded question because didn’t even give you a question. You understand loaded question is a … question, right?
Would you like examples of a loaded question?
I don’t need to respond to his different arguments because they’re unrelated to the argument I did make, his logic is bad and necrons skill level is indicative of necron, that’s it. If he or you want to discuss why that’s bad logic, let’s have at it.
If you want me to have a discussion about the Abrams, I won’t because I don’t care, it’s not a discussion I care about or want to be in, with a tank I don’t even use. I only play top tier. There’s plenty of reasons why the Abrams should or should not get that round. As I don’t play it, I’m indifferent and It’s irrelevant to the point I made.
I don’t need to respond to his different arguments because they’re unrelated to the argument I did make, his logic is bad and necrons skill level is indicative of necron, that’s it.
You’ve still not given an explanation as to why they perform significantly better in an apparently “inferior/incapable” tank compared to others at the exact same BR that are apparently superior to it and it needs to brought into line with.
Or is it because I never discussed it in the first place. How do you know I don’t agree with you? You assume by my responding to you that you used bad logic, it must mean I disagree with you about your point. I’ve never said anything in agreement or against it, so I’m not sure why you keep trying to have that discussion.
Or is it because I never discussed it in the first place.
Right because you were taking my statements out of context. At which point I made clear the context from the arguments before and after it. Which you are ignoring because you’re trying to strawman.
Yes, which is why I was mentioning sample size, because it is massive compared to most studies.
Which doesn’t mean they are actually balancing effectively, or that having more public data like Thunderskill (with its substantial sample size) shouldn’t be used or referenced.
Yes, which is why I was mentioning sample size, because it is massive compared to most studies.
That doesn’t have anything to do with what I said though. It doesn’t matter how large your sample size is if that sample size is biased to start with.
Which doesn’t mean they are actually balancing effectively, or that having more public data like Thunderskill (with its substantial sample size) shouldn’t be used or referenced.
There are certain stats that you cannot change through your skill alone, and Thunderskill already takes skill into account.
What on earth are you on about? Thunderskill does not collect data on all players, it only collects data on people who care about their performance enough to go onto the website and refresh their statistics. Broadly speaking this is going to be people who care about how they are doing and want to keep track of this. It is a biased sample.
The only ones that have the true measure is gaijin.
No, just objective reality. The 2S38’s, BMP-2M’s, B-29’s, Tu-4’s, R3’s, Arietes’, Merkavas’, etc. BRs show this.
No that is your opinion. That isn’t what objective means.
Win rates - The same for all players within the match
Skill - Thunderskill takes into account how “skilled” a player is based on their stats, and iirc they had data showing the number of players in each general skill level
Even with a biased sample (of which it is not that biased, going off of pure sample size), you can adjust for that, and they already keep track of player skill.
Objectively, these vehicles do not belong at their current BRs. Some are too strong, and others are too weak. Knowing your bias towards Russia, would you say that the B-29’s, Arietes’, or Merkavas’ BRs make sense?
Win rates - The same for all players within the match* Skill - Thunderskill takes into account how “skilled” a player is based on their stats, and iirc they had data showing the number of players in each general skill level
Nothing here has anything to do with what was being discussed.
Even with a biased sample (of which it is not that biased, going off of pure sample size), you can adjust for that, and they already keep track of player skill.
Hello? If it is a biased sample it is a biased sample. It doesn’t matter if you have 10, 100, 1000 entries for it. If the sample is inherently biased then the result will be too. This isn’t exactly groundbreaking stuff, this has been widely accepted in regards to thunderskill for a long time now and even the devs have said in the past as to why thunderskill isn’t reliable.
Objectively, these vehicles do not belong at their current BRs. Some are too strong, and others are too weak. Knowing your bias towards Russia, would you say that the B-29’s, Arietes’, or Merkavas’ BRs make sense?
That, is not, what, objective, means. What you are stating here is your OPINION. Your opinion is your subjective feelings. Go read a dictionary.
So you just jump into a random part of the conversation and disregard everything that was before and after expanding on or showing the initial intent? And to you this isn’t taking something out of context?
Alright then. Also dare I say, a fallacy to disregard an entire argument as wrong based on one thing out of context in isolation.
All bombers are overtiered why are you mentioning the B29 specifically there’s no reason to
With the buff they’ve recently received they’re fine where they are also once again you’re commenting on a topic you know nothing about your highest BR is 9.3
Again its fine where it is you cant move it down without ruining the br below it some vehicles just have to be worse until decompression happens
I didn’t address your whole point about Abrams, just evidence you used. Your logic was bad in that, and I addressed it. It’s what you said, in your post, in its entirety. That not out of context.
Nor did I disregard your entire argument, it was never related to or a part of what I addressed.
Whether an Abrams should or should not get better round and stay at its current BR is irrelevant to the point that saying necrons performance is indicative that the tank is good. Necrons performance as good as it is, is an outlier and indicative only of that, his performance.
That is bad logic. I said as much, and that’s all I discussed, it has no bearing on the topic at hand, other than to say it’s a bad basis to prove a point.
I can see this is seriously going nowhere. So this is where it ends… for the 3rd time lol
Your logic was bad in that, and I addressed it. It’s what you said, in your post, in its entirety. That not out of context.
But you didn’t. You took a single part of my argument out of context by your own admission since you never read anything else and you used it as a strawman.
Also why you are refusing to respond to me pointing out the context that was surrounding the part you isolated.
It’s a stat that Thunderskill tracks, so it is being discussed.
If its a biased sample and you know what the “normal” data should be (in this case, the relative number of low, medium, and high skill players [or whatever divisions you want]), you can adjust for that. It’s an important part of the statistical sciences.
All you are doing is defining “objective” to be “whatever Gaijin does,” and not “the obvious performance of the vehicle at its BR compared to the other vehicles at its BR.”
I’m showing why Gaijin’s BR placements isn’t actually based on their objective performance.
Why do I need to be at 12.0 to know the Ariete is the worst top tier tank? Are you saying they deserve their 11.7/12.0 BRs?
If its a biased sample and you know what the “normal” data should be (in this case, the relative number of low, medium, and high skill players [or whatever divisions you want]), you can adjust for that. It’s an important part of the statistical sciences.
So I suppose you’re going to enlighten the entire community on what the “normal” data should be now, yes? You don’t mind proving this for us right? The entire community is awaiting eagerly for you to provide the statistics that people have been wanting to gaijin to make public for years.
All you are doing is defining “objective” to be “whatever Gaijin does,” and not “the obvious performance of the vehicle at its BR compared to the other vehicles at its BR.”
No it is literally the definition. You are voicing your opinion. It is not objective, it is subjective. It is your opinion that those vehicles are not at the right BR. That is all.