[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by Ennewi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Last Penultimate post

Perfect opportunity for an inside joke.

Originally Posted by long.liam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Just pointing that the "evidence" you posted is insufficient to make the changes you want.

https://project1999.com/index.php?pageid=about

Server Staff
Management
Nilbog Project Founder & Manager; Content Developer; Goblin
Rogean Project Manager; Server Administrator; Programmer

Development
Haynar Programmer
Alunova Content Developer
Telin Content Developer
Ropethunder Content Developer
long.liam Classic Arbiter

Originally Posted by long.liam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Major game mechanics changes like the max cap on hate for bard songs requires substantially accurate evidence before any changes should be made.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/a.../t-179088.html

No evidence required for change to the effectiveness of lifetaps.


https://project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19

Old 09-24-2010, 05:07 PM
Uthgaard Uthgaard is offline
VIP / Contributor

Uthgaard's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,446
Default
Just a reminder:

While a lot of you have been contributing a lot of bugs recently, which is awesome, we have a high standard of accuracy / evidence. While we don't need a congressional hearing about every bug fix, throwing us a link to something definitive from a waybacked site is the most helpful thing you can do, other than pointing our attention to the bug itself. It helps us make the change with confidence that we're doing the right thing.

Also, search the forums to see if your issue has already been addressed.

Originally Posted by long.liam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Major game mechanics changes like the max cap on hate for bard songs requires substantially accurate evidence before any changes should be made. Anything you posted up to this point has been inconsistent and/or vague and unclear.

"Historical methodology is the process by which historians gather evidence and formulate ideas about the past. It is the framework through which an account of the past is constructed. Historical researchers often use documentary, biographical, oral history, and archival methods, in addition to many of the methods commonly used across the social sciences. In order to answer the how and why questions of historical analysis and research, historians need to gather all the possible evidence, vet it for bias and authenticity, understand the larger picture presented by these facts, and then make logical conclusions based on what they have learned."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898) proposed a seven-step procedure for source criticism in history:[3]

If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proven.
However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.
The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.

When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most "authority"—that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.
Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries.
If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.

When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.

Originally Posted by long.liam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It might be considered more reliable if someone had actually posted some actually parsing data to prove what the actual hate numbers were at that time and then what they became after a certain point, but you haven't seemed to have found that.

A personal sentiment that needs to be supported with evidence, links to posts where a requirement of "substantially accurate evidence/parsing data" has been shown as the official position.

Alright, that about does it for bug reports personally. Good luck to the other posters and thanks to Dolalin for the search engine access; it was game-changing, quite literally.