Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[Gloomlord]

He's basically lost the argument at this point if he hasn't already.

The man doesn't have a single shred of integrity in his body. He's now accusing Troxx of fabricating the data?!?!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

He's basically lost the argument at this point if he hasn't already.

The man doesn't have a single shred of integrity in his body. He's now accusing Troxx of fabricating the data?!?!

No, I am not accusing him of that at all.

You clearly can't understand the point I am trying to make. I am showing you what you have been doing to me for 250 pages. Asking me to prove a negative. Assuming my data is false.

If the standard is "You must provide data from a four man group with 2x Enchanters, a Mage, and a Cleric", he hasn't met those standards himself.

He has no proof this data actually came from a group, and there weren't 2x Enchanters in his group.

So he needs to provide better data first before he asks for more data from me.

This standard factually isn't necessary, but I find it odd he can't even match his own standard before asking me to do the same.

[Troxx]

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

He's basically lost the argument at this point if he hasn't already.

The man doesn't have a single shred of integrity in his body. He's now accusing Troxx of fabricating the data?!?!

Didn’t anyone tell you?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Gloomlord]

I understand the point you're trying to make, alright.

That you think you're a genius by trolling.

You just once again shifted the goalposts, and you think you're trying to provide wisdom and fairness here?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I understand the point you're trying to make, alright.

That you think you're a genius by trolling.

You just once again shifted the goalposts, and you think you're trying to provide wisdom and fairness here?

You keep saying "shifting goalposts". I don't think you know what that means.

The only people who shifted the goalposts are the people who assume Troxx's request are the goalposts.

I didn't agree to Troxx's request being the standard, so no goalposts even exist to be shifted. I am sorry you have nothing other than the semantic game of claiming my data is invalid because it isn't what Troxx asked for.

It really struck a nerve when I asked you to prove a negative, like you have been doing to me for 250 pages. You really can't stand taking what you dish out.

[cyxthryth]

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

This is what you have been doing to my evidence for 250 pages. I am simply pointing out you can't prove your data matches the standards you keep trying to claim I must meet.

What "standards" do you believe are being requested/required here? The only requirement that I am aware of your data not meeting is that the data must be relevant, i.e. the data must be capture/recorded/collected in a relevant environment/scenario/context. This has been explained to you multiple times by myself & multiple other posters, so I am not sure why your post would seem to indicate that you do not know this (or are pretending not to know) or that you have forgotten this (or are pretending that you have forgotten).

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

It is just nonsense. If everybody in this thread wants to claim data must come from a group, then you don't have the evidence to show it came from a group.

You have not provided the definition that you are using for "nonsense", can you please provide this for the sake of civil discussion?

There is data of the performance of other players in Troxx's data. Do you deny this for some reason, and if so - why?

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

This is why asking people to prove a negative is silly.

You have not provided the definition that you are using for "silly", can you please provide that for the sake of civil discussion?

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

Also Allishia's numbers were way different from yours

Your post to Allishia when they provided their initial data:

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

Thanks for the data! I'll get the logs from you a bit later today. Just looking at it here, the numbers are the same as Troxx's data.

As I have repeatedly stated to you - it is not always clear to other posters what particular position/claim/"argument*" you are defending at any given time due to how often you have moved the goalposts & edited your posts. This really isn't hard hehe.

Which belief do you currently hold/"argue" hehe? Please elaborate for the sake of civil discussion.

[Gloomlord]

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

You keep saying "shifting goalposts". I don't think you know what that means.

The only people who shifted the goalposts are the people who assume Troxx's request are the goalposts.

I didn't agree to that, so no goalposts even exist to be shifted. I am sorry you have nothing other than the semantic game of claiming my data is invalid because it isn't what Troxx asked for.

It really struck a nerve when I asked you to prove a negative, like you have been doing to me for 250 pages. You really can't stand taking what you dish out.

But you did, because you just implied video evidence trumps an "out of context parse".

So now we have to go even further to try and prove you wrong.

[Gloomlord]

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

What "standards" do you believe are being requested/required here? The only requirement that I am aware of your data not meeting is that the data must be relevant, i.e. the data must be capture/recorded/collected in a relevant environment/scenario/context. This has been explained to you multiple times by myself & multiple other posters, so I am not sure why your post would seem to indicate that you do not know this (or are pretending not to know) or that you have forgotten this (or are pretending that you have forgotten).



You have not provided the definition that you are using for "nonsense", can you please provide this for the sake of civil discussion?

There is data of the performance of other players in Troxx's data. Do you deny this for some reason, and if so - why?



You have not provided the definition that you are using for "silly", can you please provide that for the sake of civil discussion?



Your post to Allishia when they provided their initial data:



As I have repeatedly stated to you - it is not always clear to other posters what particular position/claim/"argument*" you are defending at any given time due to how often you have moved the goalposts & edited your posts. This really isn't hard hehe.

Which belief do you currently hold/"argue" hehe? Please elaborate for the sake of civil discussion.

I mean, you're raising some pretty good points here. I don't know why he's decided to ignore you. He can't even say "copy-paste" anymore.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

But you did, because you just implied video evidence trumps an "out of context parse".

So now we have to go even further to try and prove you wrong.

Now you understand what you have been doing to me for 250 pages. Progress!

You are asking me to prove a negative by asking me to prove my data is valid.

You are making the claim my data and math is invalid. It is up to you to prove this claim.

You really can't take what you dish out for 250 pages.

[cyxthryth]

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

You keep saying "shifting goalposts". I don't think you know what that means.

The above Quote is simply an example of you sharing what you think another person does or does not know, and I am not sure what relevance you believe it has to the discussion or what truth-based logic or math or evidence you have to support that belief, but you are entitled to it.

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

The only people who shifted the goalposts are the people who assume Troxx's request are the goalposts.

This would, of course, be - objectively - false.

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

I didn't agree to that, so no goalposts even exist to be shifted. I am sorry you have nothing other than the semantic game of claiming my data is invalid because it isn't what Troxx asked for.

Your post seems to indicate that you believe that you must agree that you have shifted the goalposts for it to be an objective fact that you have shifted goalposts; which is simply objectively false. All that is required is for you to shift the goalposts... which the irrefutable evidence - which you cannot refute - clearly shows. This really isn't hard hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

It really struck a nerve when I asked you to prove a negative, like you have been doing to me for 250 pages. You really can't stand taking what you dish out.

The above Quote is simply an example of you sharing your belief that it has struck a nerve when you asked another poster to "prove a negative", and that you apparently have some belief that you know and can make objective claims about what other posters "can't stand", although, as you have provided no evidence to support such a claim, it is simply unsusbstantiated (and probably false).