Here is the thing I’m not normal and number changes so long as they go up matter to me. That being said I think that enough high jacking of dudes post
1 Like
His point was that if you place a cap of 1M on a skill that can do 1T, then that build will be doing 1M with just rare gear, when every other skill is still doing 100k.
At that point, why would you chase any items? You can’t improve your build anymore. You’re done before you reach empowered monos. The character is already maxxed.
And this is bad on a game that relies on progression to keep players engaged.
3 Likes
Do people understand the level of gear you need to do 1mill a hit with any skill. Even when static orb mana stack or jav rot were still around they were not out the gate broken or even casual player broken. All these skills that people want nerfed require high end gear to become “op”.
I’ll get hate for it but if a skill needs more then yellow gear to function it’s not broken. If a build can’t function with out a uni it’s not broken if a skill requires stacking stats it’s not broken. Even bug builds generally still require specific gear to function take zombie sac pot lich. No experimental zombies on pot use on belt or free summon zombie rings that build was dead in the water.
Again this all started as me asking a why and it became a nonstop “how dare you not agree with me” spiral.
I’ve been trying to do my best to stay civil here, I’d appreciate it in return thanks.
1 Like
First off, the first part of your argument is factually wrong.
If a class or build trivializes the game (Void Knight Erasing strike as an example, no effort, massive results) without significant investment (which several builds didn’t need and were beyond any comparable measures for other builds) then that’s literally the definition of ‘OP’.
Secondly, if you state ‘you’ll get hate for it’ then you can be prepared to handle it accordingly instead of throwing the towel. It’s standing up for your ideas, which can be good, bad or anything between. Instead claiming moral high ground by proclaiming others haven’t acted civilized (infering you did, which you actually didn’t by proclaiming that others didn’t without any reasonable basis provided for it) rather then focusing on the actual topic is what actually brings you in a position where you’ll get flak.
So yes, if you can stay personally civil then people will also stay civil, lead by good example, not make a bad example. And if someone isn’t staying civil then they’ll also get flak for it accordingly.
My examples were obvious exagerations.
But the point remains that if you have an OP build, like vengeance/erasing strike was, like EQ bear currently is, or reflect spriggan/pally right now, then with an enforced cap they will reach the maxx their build can output earlier than everyone else.
While most builds are struggling to get the 2-3LP slam that will allow their build to even dream of doing Uby, those builds will be running with single 1LPs because nothing else will improve their damage, since they’ve hit cap already.
There is currently already a meta for stronger builds each season, but at least those builds can always still improve. Their gear progression doesn’t end.
With an enforced cap, the meta would simply be which build can reach cap faster/with less effort and their gear progression would end much sooner.
I said it before: enforcing a DPS cap is a lazy solution that simply doesn’t solve any of the underlying issues.
I’d say it became more of a “Why are you against nerfs but in favour of what is effectively a nerf (and not a good one) anyway?”.
I’ve been civil always. Where have I not been?
1 Like
I don’t want nerfs I don’t want a dps cap.
I used a dps cap as a blanket of which I believe a previous post used that exact wording and then spoke on buffing “bad” skill.
I always have been and always will be a buff the underused before nerfing the over used.
People need to stop pretending they actually want nerfs and just admit they don’t want to be outclassed by a skill they don’t use.
Erasing strike without a min of world splitter with at least one t7 is embarrassing by comparison and if I could magically produce a heatmap of erasing strike builds with it the data would 99% support that.
Eq bear requires at a minimum strength stacking and is also a combo of a parent skill applying its damage modifiers to high damage skill of which the player does not pay for. Which is a slap to basically all other indirect cast skill combos. To name a few; basically any indirect form of sacrifice cost you mana, glacier on evade, indirect smite while spinning or smite fissures , indirect cast of meteor, acid flask indirect casts from explosive trap and the change to it to prevent max traps max flasks with t7 reduce cost and the prevention of it reaching zero cost after the rework of skill. I could keep going.
The amount of people that complained about static orb mana stack erasing strike/judgement/healing hands post changes is staggering.
This is a non competitive game unless you care about arena place ment which is only a seasonal thing and arguably a niche playerbase depending how you look at it.
You literally lose nothing from a skill being overpowered as a player. You can comment anything you want about farming efficiency and uber ability but that’s all fomo. Unless you care about those things they have zero impact on the play experience.
Just because I said I’d be hated for saying something is not an admission of defeat or however you phrased it. If I wanted to be uncivil I could have said it like “suck on this statement” I was just preemptively letting you know I understand the general play won’t like this. Maybe a part of it was me getting fed up and starting to become childish and trying to start something. Of which I seem to be successful at.
Finally for this post It’s become so focused on me and what I say I don’t even know if anyone answered specifically why you want a nerf without going at me for not being 100% down with the nerf train.
Both are necessary, though.
If a build is struggling to do endgame content, then it needs to be buffed because it’s not fun to hit walls.
If a build is trivializing and one shotting endgame content, then it needs to be buffed, because this is not an autoclicker. And because it causes a bad impression on players with weaker builds.
They both need to be brought a little to the middle in order for it to be somewhat challenging for everyone.
Not only that, but analyzing why one skill is so overperforming vastly while another is underperforming badly might actually give you insight on what you need to bring both closer together.
MG is also competitive in nature, as is all trade.
And there’s also the social pressure competitiveness aspect of it.
You might not care about that (as I don’t) but plenty of people care, many even subconsciously.
That was simply because you said “Just buff, don’t nerf”. And other people replied that both are required for a healthy game. But you kept disagreeing with that and people disagreeing with your disagreement.
1 Like
Well, that’s exactly once more what the issue with World of Warcraft was and what nearly killed their game before they reigned it in again.
Buffing constantly is not a good thing.
Nerfing constantly is also not a good thing.
You don’t take into consideration that the enemies are - supposed to be at least - balanced around the power of the player. Hence both sides are bad.
Unless you want to change the stats of all mobs regularly (which is a shitload of work) you need to both buff and nerf fitting to the enemy power, and as overall options raising player power universally you then adjust mobs… which is supposed to happen very… very rarely.
Yes, by comparison. And still it competed with builds at the top end of being mediocre. It was a completely fine build without any legendaries and became absolutely bonkers the second you added even more damage through LP.
I played it personally, it was ridiculous. Still is strong but better at least.
Yes, which is another issue, the synergize without investment. We got that also with other skills partially, but at least the effects there aren’t that extreme.
The design existence itself is a problematic aspect there sadly… you either have to invest into triggers… or you nigh universally let triggers be balanced as a simple added thing to avoid issues with investments.
Because at the time the damage wasn’t the major issue, it was that you generated 10 times as much ward as supposed to, literally, decimal error in the code which EHG was too incompetent to fix in a hotfix for the reason of ‘but the poor people which have already put so much effort into their builds!’ and nearly tanked their game for it because of how outrageously extreme the difference was. It was a basically immortal build.
Also wrong.
We got MG, MG is a inherently competitive environment. Only as a solo player and CoF you’re not in any competition with someone else. And as soon as you play together with someone else and that person being extremely strong or underpowered compared to you it also produces issues again.
The only way EHG could’ve avoided the competitiveness aspect is to not make it life-service in the first place.
That’s also factually wrong.
The second you compete in any way you are personally affected.
Prices in MG change according to the vastly higher acquisition rate for others, hence comparatively everything is harder to acquire for you which has a low drop rate but relatively high demand.
Any active ladder as well, you’re automatically behind with no chance to catch up unless you’re vastly superior compared to your competition.
And for playing together it just utterly sucks when your friend demolishes everything 2 screens away and you cannot even kill a single enemy as your skill doesn’t even reach before everything’s on the ground. Not fun.
It’s simply a wrong statement since you didn’t take those things into consideration.
That was me, not DJ…
And it was in conjunction with the virtue signaling afterwards of people not being ‘civil’ towards you, hence stating ‘you’re civil’ which gives you the moral high ground and is a (intentional or unintentional) method to get social standing comparatively to your argumentation partner.
That’s why I mentioned it, keep it at the technical aspects and don’t try to win the emotion-marathon instead.
Yeah, then you would be uncivilized and not smart.
You would be surprised how many devious tricks are used to put yourself above others without any merit behind it.
So once again… stay with merit based things and leave the other stuff away, you mentioned it first… take the loss there for bringing it up and move on with the other things. You’re not making it better.
Don’t do preemptively anything which isn’t directly attached to a topic discussed as it opens up new attack avenues. If you do it be very sure how and why you do it, there’s more ways it can go awry then it does tend to go well.
As you see with my answer currently 
And here is a preemptive one which makes sense to state:
This is intended to be informative, not judgmental, words don’t provide the needed framing and tonality to make that clear, so I mention it.
You’ll always be successful with that here 
And I’m not beyond stating that I’ll ‘fall’ for it. I’m a argumentative person as I literally use this Forum as a method to train debating, with the side effect of it being a product I have potential to enjoy greatly but are unhappy with currently.
Ok, I’ll summarize it then again:
I want nerfs since the enemies are underpowered generally. Hence providing the player with more rather then less power is not a sensible choice.
I want changes to the itemization progression as we have more then ample powerful options potentially available, just not accessible.
And I want the few skills which are actively underpowered to be buffed since there’s (very few) some which are actually not holding proper pace with the expected difficulty scaling.
I hope that clears up the specific stance and reasoning.
It’s too late for me to reply to everything now I just want to say about the it was me who said this. I did say I don’t know how to quote people on the iPhone.
This feels ironic given you’re stating he wasnbeing polite while also giving no evidence, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander… I thought everyone was polite.
That’s not incompetence, that’s a bad decision.
This is actually the reason for not reigning in the egregiously op builds. If a build was able to do 10k waves while everything else was able to to 1-2k then nerfing that build means that nobody else is going to get higher for the rest of that season. So while it may be incompetence for the bug to get through in the first place (and the rest of the mere mortals make mistakes, btw), the decision to not fix it has some logic behind it which apparently you agree with! Which is nice!
Ahhh, bless. From the mouths of babes & all that…
You can’t just use words that other people have decided mean bad things, that’s, like, a dog whistle of the other team.
If you highlight the text you want to quote, you should get a small “quote” box, you can then adjust what text is quoted with the small blue blobs at the ends of the highlighted text.
Bad decisions are incompetence of the moment.
Competence comes from knowledge.
A lack of knowledge leads to bad decisions.
Bad decisions hence are incompetence in some area because we lack competence.
We had that argument already for the definition of competence and the modern stigma behind the word, which I try to use properly.
No matter which wrong you do, it’s always coming from a position of lacking knowledge in the moment and hence incompetence.
Yep, and that is a good argument!
There is always the situation of having that issue itself… resetting the ladder for those builds specifically or resetting the ladder in total.
It’s a tricky thing, but it needs to be done if the outcome is too severe. And in this case with one specific build reigning not simply slightly supreme but so far that even with superior skill nobody else can overturn the outcome of a vast portion of people which are also superior in skill… but not quite ‘as superior’ it warrants action rather then inaction.
Virtue signaling is the terminology coined for the usage of any communication strategy which isn’t based on facts but on emotions.
We all do it, regularly, it’s just not called out regularly.
You got 2 options to garner social standing. One is competence. The other is being ‘wise’, hence not based on knowledge but by tugging on emotional strings.
Hence any communication tactic which positions you morally on a higher position is inherently ‘virtue signaling’. You win arguments because people like you, not because the arguments uphold truth.
That’s literally all it is.
Yeah, really sucks on phone though sadly with the highlighting 
Don’t you see the flaw in that logic? Look at past examples and how good little misunterstood development companies like Blizzard balanced their games. If they only buffed underperforming skills all skills would deal ∞ dmg. Things would spiral out of controll.
There needs to be a balance baseline and everything above it needs to be nerfed and everthing below it needs to be buffed. There will always be some wiggle room because perfect balance isn’t a thing and there need to be some meta shifts to keep people intrested but that’s it.
What would happen if every big bong skill user points at erasing strike saying “My big bnk skill deals far less dmg buff it!” and EHG would follow through and improve the dmg by a lot to mirror erasing strikes performence? Things would spiral out of control.
sadly most companies don’t care about balancing at all while EHG is one of the worst companies at it from my point of view. Without balancing goals nothing will change and EHG always moved the goal posts on this topic and fell silent about the topic when it became obvious they have no time or not enough competence to deal with it and do… whatever because… reasons.
1 Like
So basically, anything you disagree with is incompetence. Do you realise how much of a dick that makes you come across as?
No, it’s really not.. What you’re talking about is the “appeal to emotion” fallacy. Virtue signalling, described in that kind of terminology would be an “appeal to morality” (ie, appearing virtuous → virtue signalling). Trying to “shame” someone by saying they’re virtue signalling (what you’re doing) is something that the political right have a tendency to do to denigrate the left.
Yes! So you do know what it means!
I don’t usually have much of an issue with it, except in the very rare times when my phone decides that I want to highlight the entire screen, it seems to happy more when I’m trying to highlight/quote the first word of a post. It’s a bit weird & not apparently entirely consistent.
Ah, here it goes, just to return again, the virtue signaling
But to answer the actual content of your writing:
That the bug existed is incompetence as it was a decimal issue, which is basic play-testing that is expected to remove it. Hence that either wasn’t done or the feedback provided from testers wasn’t put into action.
Then the actual incompetence which is the severe one is that it wasn’t a Day 1 patch. I know server issues existed and that was the primary thing to be handled… but that’s still Day 1 patch content… and in our case post server-issue fixing as the ladder was already utterly fucked since it screwed over any racers anyway given they often had no access, it warranted a reset of ladders simply.
Or do you want to tell me that it was competent work?
There is only 2 states: Competence… or incompetence.
The absence of competence is by default incompetence. Simple as that, always was the case, always will be the case.
Fair, badly worded, you pointed out my wrong usage of terminology there.
Still was virtue signaling as it wasn’t an appeal to basic emotions but a appeal to ‘right and wrong’ which is one of morality. And a appeal to morality is virtue signaling.
As for the political statement… obviously? Shame is a highly necessary fundamental aspect to uphold morality? It’s the negative effect crated from not adhering to societal morality, it’s not a political side thing… it’s just that it’s sadly something which one side lacks more then the other… but both can fall into that pit.
Shame is bad for the individual but good for society. And if we’re in a group environment - like a Forum - it offers a very important system to cause adherence to upholding morality.
Without calling it out - hence shaming - it’s impossible to uphold morality as there is no negative effect to diverting from it.
By the way, I’m centric if you wanna know.
Nice one, morality is adhering to the position of the ‘wise man’ and hence having the moral upper position, hence yes, my argument there upholds. I worded it badly though.
It’s by being ‘the good guy’ basically. ‘You cannot say this because it hurts others feelings, and we cannot hurt others feelings’. Welcome to saying anything at all, you can always offend someone.
What? Even experiencend and brilliant people made bad descissions. Let’s state something obvious… LE said pay once get everything else free (in short while leaving a lot of context out). They said this and I’m sure they wanted to act accordingly. They didn’t have the experience and foresight to see how rediculus this claim was.
So google Isaac Newton or Winston Churchill just as examples about some influental and smart people and the bad descissions they made. Are they incompetent all of the sudden?
Then it seems it’s a bad descission for me and you to make posts here because we both obviously lack knowledge in a lot of areas mr “taking slavery as an example and fall flat” .
Bad descissions come with good intentions. I once wanted to help someone because once i cared. Was the worst and most expensive bad descission in my life. Yet I’m still competent when it comes to helping and I want to help.
Try more 
.
Nah lacking knowledge don’t make you incompetent. I make an easy example. I was once a journeyman mechatronics engineer even while beiing completely incompetent. I snailed my way through 3.5 years of training without achicing anything. I was realy bad at it and just did because of social pressure from all sides. Still I graduated (or wahtever you call a berufsausbildung in englisch ^^) and was thrown into the open job market and I was asked if my training consistet of SPS and whatnot and I said “Yes sure.” because it did. So I was hirered and looked at the SPS knowledge needed for the job and fell flat instantly because I was incompetent. I still had knowledge… at least back then… but I was simply bad not fitted to do that job.
So I mad the bad descission to learn the first best craft that sounded bearable. Making that descission wasn’t incompetence it was a lack self awerness at the monent and my near future.
long story short: You need competence or you need to make people belive you have competence and fuck up big time to show you are truely incompetent. Talking smack about slavery makes you look a bit foolish but noone thinks you are incompetent because of this. Recruting me as a mechatronics engineer makes every recruiter in the future look incompetent 
.
I know rich kids with a high social standing who are neither competent in anything special or wise. Still they inherited their staus because of daddy and mommy. Seems to me like you made another bad descission just using 2 neglectable examples about status.
or you call people this or that phobic or nazi or whatever buzzword comes up. Look at the Crap Emiure is taking from Denim as an example of the present. From my point of view there is no winner because it’s a complete mess but the hate is aimed towards Emiru who made a “I’m not intrested in talking politics” statement.
What communication tactic is this? Throwing dirt untill something sticks?
if you win an argument it depends on the topic. If 2 people without vision problems argue if a green dot is green or black you know who is right. If people debate about grey zones where different oppinions are valid things change.
If I ask if Last epoch is a well balanced game every sane person who isn’t make up excuses would say no. Now we come to the problem. If someone tells me “Yes it’s balanced and completely fine and everythin is good.” I want to know why said person thinks this. If said person thne talks shit I ignore said person and don’t start an argument because A said person is a troll or B so mentaly dull I can save a lot of time. So said person would’ve instantly won the argument .
The examples you deliver are a bit lackluster these days and sound like you want to justify your point of view with them. It’s a tad bit selective but maybe I’m wrong and I guess there are no failproof examples to be made here because language is pretty much an eroded mess these days.
1 Like
Yes, and at that moment they were incompetent.
It’s a very negative word, but it solely describes ‘lack of competence’.
And competence is the word describing ‘the ability to do something successfully and/or efficiently’.
There has to be a realization that at any time in your life you’re vastly more incompetent then competent as you don’t know everything in the world and your physical ability is not perfect, you know overwhelmingly less then you know and you cannot physically do a overwhelming amount of things compare to those you can do.
Every even so little failure in life is a situation of momentary incompetence. Be it a lapse in memory, a failure of your bodily capability… all of it.
Every single one.
The word is perceived extremely negative since nobody wants to be incompetent… but we all are, always, at every day. Our task is solely to increase the range of competence to reduce the amount of incompetence we have.
Universally? Obviously no. Nigh nobody is (albeit with some I would argue it’s borderline a yes ). But momentarily? Obviously so!
Yep, fell flat, entirely And yes, many bad decisions, daily ones, we all have em. Just gonna need to reduce them. Incompetence is not bad actually, erring is human and without failing you cannot learn as well. Doesn’t mean you should seek failure… but you gotta accept it’s a inherent part of life.
Intentions are separate from competence as well.
You can praise the intention and a person can still be utterly incompetent at their task.
And sometimes you got people which have awful intentions but are supremely competent at what they do.
Yep, hence you failed.
Is that competence?
I get this argument a lot by now and I actually quite enjoy it. The primary thing to think about always: What exactly defines competence? Which timeframe are we talking about? Which detail of process? Is there any definition basis on any of those adjustable aspects for the terminology?
Well… then my question is: If you knew everything needed for it, at full, 100%, perfect knowledge… why didn’t come anything from it?
It means you had less competence in the area of it then was needed to fulfill the respective tasks. Hence for that specific task… you were incompetent. But your competence sufficed for the final exam to pass.
Two situations… each has their own bar where you’re competent or incompetent.
Same with helping people. If you know how a person can be brought to do specific things which will cause them to be helped, have the full knowledge and physical ability to do it at any second (impossible, there’s always unknown parts, and hence aspects of incompetence at total) then it would succeed with a 100% success guarantee.
But since we’re neither omnisicient nor omnipotent we cannot do that.
Yeah, but that’s a combination of competence in one area (convincing people) versus incomptence in the actual deed you’re supposed to do.
We can also define the competence in relation to the competence of the recruiter. Your argumentation skills were higher then the knowledge about you from the recruiter, hence your task suceeded (competence) versus his task failing (incomptence).
Has nothing to do with competence though? It’s being privileged simply, hence having a different starting point compared to another individual.
Competence is solely the personal actionable results of any situation.
Yep, virtue signaling, the other nice buzzword I used.
Adhering to morals, not adhering to merit.
Colors are very tightly defined at the exact spectrum. Once again… competence of perception here.
If there’s a gray zone you can test the wavelength precisely, hence with 2 different opinions one will be right and one wrong… or one at least closer to the truth then the other, unless they’re perfectly deviating from the actual outcome to both ends.
Also true!
As mentioned… I argue partially for the training of… well… learning to argue better. So it’s helpful for me… but not for others here plainly spoken
Sadly so… it often depends if you use a strict precise methodology or use the social normative way, yeah. You’re absolutely right with that.
I try to make clear since a while that I try to use the precise one which is neutral rather then the socialy accepted. How much better or worse that is… very much depends. I think it’s a bit needed to move towards more defined usage as otherwise words loose a lot of meaning and we know less what someone wants to convey then we could otherwise.
You tend to always see only in black and white.
Competence simply means doing a good job with the knowledge you have.
The doctors in the middle ages doing exsanguinations and using leeches weren’t incompetent because they didn’t give them antibiotics instead. They were actually very competent given the knowledge available to them.
The cavemen using crude knives made of stone weren’t incompetent. They were actually very competent hunters given the knowledge available to them.
Plenty of scientists that have had their findings made obsolete weren’t incompetent. They were actually very competent given the knowledge available to them.
In all these examples they were absolutely wrong by today’s standards. And yet they were extremely competent in their time. And have all been a crucial part in arriving at today’s knowledge.
So no, every wrong decision doesn’t come from incompetence. Especially because most wrong decisions seem like good decisions at the time and it’s only later that it becomes apparent (with new knowledge) that it wasn’t a good decision after all.
A wrong decision only comes from incompetence if the one making the decision had access to knowledge that would have clearly shown it was a bad decision.
That is not what virtue signaling is. Virtue signaling, as in the buzzword being thrown around willy nilly these days (even by those who don’t really know what it is, apparently) is the act of trying to come off as virtuous in an argument. Usually by being offended by something they see as moral but which they have no interest on or has any impact on them.
It’s simply using statements, which one doesn’t really believe in, so that other people would view them as virtuous.
1 Like
Kinda like I have ASD
But for the follow-up: That’s not the core description of it. The fundamental one is ‘success’ and ‘efficiency’. Those are the defining aspects of it.
As for the framework we put it in… yes, absolutely so! It entirely depends on that. I stated already the specific framework I put my usage of that word into for that reason. But you’re right there, 100% so. The example with the middle-age doctors and caveman is a good one to provide.
Ultimately their ‘range of competence’ was simply lower then a modern ‘range of competence’ comparably. Relativity to each other.
Yes, and the usage of it is far faaaaar wider then the obvious examples.
Virtue signaling is nothing else then a word which can be freely exchanged with ‘adhering to morality’. In any form. It’s just commonly reserved for the pure negative aspect of it, not for the positive one.
If I say for example ‘Don’t block traffic for protesting against oil usage because it’s disgusting’ then the message of ‘don’t do it’ isn’t provided with a merit-based reasoning like ‘you just increase the use of oil since now cars have to wait at a standstill and burn even more fuel’ but at the moral side of it because of the word ‘disgusting’, which is one from a moral standpoint.
So in that moment I am virtue signaling because I perceive myself at the moral high ground.
I’ll pull out a bit of a ‘wild one’ and even state that the likely invention of the word happened by mistake and was used as a stand-in for ‘appeal to morality’ since that one has a positive meaning in our understanding commonly, so it’s simply interchanging it and trying to proclaim that winning an argument based on purely morality rather then merit is inferior.
But that’s my own perception there and we first of don’t exactly know and also me probably conflating a few things together as it still doesn’t feel 100% right.
Still not virtue signalling.
Which I believe I said, or at least thought. Ok, apparently I didn’t say it, probably because that’s obvious.
So are you saying that the inclusion of the initial bug wasn’t incompetence? 'Cause that’s what “then the actual incompetence” bit means.
It depends. As an outsider who doesn’t know how their processes do(/don’t) work, it’s very easy to fall into the “but this is a trivial fix & should have been a day one patch” to the significant amount of bug that exist, but they have to prioritise what stuff they work on because they don’t have infinite resources. You can disagree with their prioritisation as much as you want, but given you’ve never been in that kind of situation (since you’re not a developer, let alone in a decision making position for a live service software company) you don’t know what it’s like.
And no, me disagreeing with you isn’t “virtue signalling”.
And since they aren’t flawlessly perfect, they’re clearly so incompetent that they should all be made redundant & never earn a living so they need to live under a bridge, right?
Nope, I wasn’t appealing to some sense of morality to make myself look better. I don’t think I was appealing to a sense of morality at all.
If you say so, that’s just not how you come across, but whatever.
Nope, that’d probably be “appealing to authority”.
And this is what you’d say is “virtue signalling”, you’re implying that you’re better than Mac because you only argue based on merit (which you don’t, but anyway).
And yet different people can see different colours from the same thing. Even that isn’t black & white. There was a thing that went around social media some years ago where some people saw a dress as black (I think) & some saw it as a different colour (maybe it was between black & green, or blue, I don’t really remember).
Should’ve worded it differently.
Even bigger incompetence (as it culmulated since it already was he state before but was aggravated through lack of action).
It’s literally a 5 minute fix. It was one decimal being set wrong.
You cannot tell me that a fix with absolutely no time investment needed (comparatively to many other issues) while having significant impact isn’t one of the topmost priority fixes existing.
There is simply no excuse for the misprioritization there to postpone it a whole Cycle long.
Yeah, because you didn’t use any emotional words, hence none there
Now instead… that’s clear-cut virtue signaling on the other hand
Yep, I know. Because no matter which side opens their mouth a centric is generally pushed to the opposite side. With few exceptions.
And from where does this ‘authority’ come from? Authority is social status, social status is not inherent but comes from a more baseline basis.
Morality or Merit, optimally both.
I intended to here, that’s why it comes over as harsh and unforgiving. Merit without morality is not accepted easily as it tends to push at the individual boundaries. Morality without merit is dangerous simply.
Not in the example given. Both have good eyesight without any issues. The argument expected a equivalency basis to make sense. So I took that simply.
But otherwise you’re right there.