…nothing. We know enough — because we've been told and shown it — that we can formulate legitimate criticism against it, especially when it correlates to or explicitly changes something we know everything about. You can try to dismiss it as much as you like but the fact that we know things will not go away — especially not when you then turn around and argue that we actually do know some things.
Ok. That's fine. But don't assume that other people's concerns suffer from the same lack of information just because yours do.
…and funnily enough, none of that matters to the main points of criticism levelled against the system — points based on what we do know and what is in there. Again, don't dismiss criticism against something we know a lot about just because we know little about something completely different. And especially, don't dismiss that criticism using arguments that treat those unknowns as if they were absolutes.
Ah, so now we can know something? We can treat it as an absolute? Even though the details about it is far more vague than the thing that is supposedly “made up”? Do you understand where this observation of bias is coming from?
So when you say that, they're making things up, you're not dismissing them? When you say something cannot possibly work (which you don't know by your own admission), you're not dismissing what they say? You can try to play with words as much as you like, but let's just be honest here: yes you are. Don't be silly and suggest otherwise.
Just one problem: you don't know that. You're only assuming that you know. You are treating your assumptions as absolutes, generally without even having the courtesy of explaining how you've arrived at that conclusion based on the facts available; and you're treating other people's reasoning and argumentations as if they're “just made up”. If you can't see and own the bias in this approach, then you're in trouble…
That surely depends on the criticism. A lot of what I have seen does not come from what has been seen, but from assumption about how it will work.
I don't, but I will point out when they do.
I will dismiss criticisms against something we don't know yet, as that criticism as pointless. Most of the criticism has been thrown at stuff that we don't have enough info about yet and some of it hasn't made any sense like the silly blindfold analogy. There have been concerns about certain playstyles which I fully understand and think that something could be done about that, which I have put suggestions up to try to mitigate those issues without completely destroying the new mechanic.
Because it wasn't a criticism but an idea that wouldn't worked from what they have told us.
Ere, what. I may dismiss what they are saying depending on what it is, I have the right to do so, but I don't dismiss them as a person. That is completely different. No word games going on.
Yes I do as they have the same information as me. When people start criticising stuff which the information we have only partially covers or doesn't even cover at all, then I am sorry, that is not an infomed opinion, it is an uninformed opinion that could be a load of rubbish.
…and a lot of what you have dismissed comes from what we do know, and is being dismissed on the basis of what we don't. See the problem?
It's not, actually. For one, just because it's not known yet does not mean it will not still be a problem later on. For another, it's a process — something that is identified as a fundamental problem early on can already at that stage affect later decisions and reveals, and waiting too long may cause all kinds of long-lasting and frustrating lock-ins because it seemed like no-one had seen or criticised it in time. Even if it is resolved later on, the criticism is still valuable because it informs what the devs need to consider and communicate as they move forward.
How is it silly? We KNOW FOR A FACT that we will have less information. They say so, explicitly. If you say otherwise, you are actively dismissing the OP. You tried to defend it based on something we do not know how it will work, and based on a wholly separate set of circumstances. Not only that, but what you said was factually, demonstrably false, and you even ran out of arguments when this was pointed out to you.
So, again, we can know something? We can treat it as an absolute? Even though the details about it is far more vague than the thing that is supposedly “made up”? Do you understand where this observation of bias is coming from?
It was a simple question, and the answer was as simple as it was obvious. Yes, you are indeed dismissing them. You do that a lot. No amount of word games changes this — it just erodes the optics of all your statements.
That doesn't mean you know anything of the kind. I simply does not follow. It just means you make — according to your own rules — unfounded assumptions, not just about the facts themselves but about how people are allowed to value them. You are not the final objective arbiter of what is “enough facts.” You may not be convinced by the collection of facts presented to you, but that is something very different from knowing when there is and when there is not enough knowledge available. That's just your biases talking, and after all, that problem is where this whole discussion started: you need to start owning them and accept what they do to your arguments.
No i haven't. Sorry, but I have not done that. The only time I have said that is when we do not know, and expressed that very clearly, and even then I haven't dismissed. So please stop making stuff up.
Depends on what they are talking about.
No we do not have less information. We just have to do more of one thing and less of another to get the same information.
No I am not.
Yes we do know somethings. But there are a lot that we don't know yet which will have a bearing whether it is good or not. I know where the observiation of bias is coming from. Don't you worry about that.
Ere no. There is a difference. And no it erode nothing.
I have not made any unfounded assumptions as I am not assuming the mechanics will be good or bad. Infact this whole sentance is utter rubbish. Do you not understand english. This is about the exact opposite of what I have been saying. Infact I you are talking utter giberish now.
…aside from when you dismissed something based on multiple false claims. Or when you dismissed something based on assumptions of how the UI will work (because it's not finished yet, and we don't know). Just because you don't like the word or don't like the inescapable fact that you express biases does not mean I'm making things up.
False.
…and your explanation was demonstrated to be irrelevant to the context of the discussion. Before, you had all the information you needed for the activities and decisions being discussed; afterwards, you do not have that information. Period. If you think otherwise, please quote the part of the OP or the presentation that supports that — the part where they say that the new honk populates the system map and provides all the HUD markers that tell you where the planets are. You know, the part where the new system does not blindfold you compared to the old one and forces you to play the minigame to slowly loosen that blindfold but instead reveals all that navigation and body information from the get-go.
Good. Finally. Then don't dismiss what people say just because you don't like the conclusion or because your interpretation of the unknowns suggest the possibility of something unrelated.
Again, the wordplay does not alter the reality of what you're doing — it just make it look worse.
…and yet, you've made unfounded assumptions about numerous things unrelated to mechanics. Nice attempt trying to sneak that shift in there, though. You've made assumption about how access to information will affect the minigame, even though you don't know how the minigame will work yet. You've made assumptions about what people know and about the sufficiency of this knowledge, even though you've made factually incorrect statements that demonstrate that you aren't even fully aware of the systems you're discussing. You've even implied that your judgement of what counts as “fully informed” is some kind of objective truth, which is as huge and as unfounded an assumption as they come.
