I like it how people keep “debating” with Whisperer.
No, that’s a sentence said by me based on my knowledge of argumentation theory, as I’ve been taught it.
Logos is extensive and detailed. Usually the written form is prefered.
Pathos is charismatic and simple. Usually the spoken form is prefered.
Ethos is authoritative and controlled. Usually the visual form is prefered.
I’m not saying this as it pertains to PvP or Arenas or anything like that. I just brought it up as a general point - that Whisperer and Homoerecktus can be right at the same time, because they’re using a different premise to assess the same point. Ethos vs. logos.
On a side-note I simply added that ethos tends to be a cheap way of arguing on the forums (and anywhere else on the internet really). A pet-peeve of mine perhaps, couldn’t help slipping it in. 
Because the authority is respected.
That’s why ethos is often visual in its form. A police officer in uniform - authority, credibility, because of the uniform.
“I’m a doctor!” - authority and credibility, because of a title.
I don’t think…at least that’s what I observe…that the same degree of authority and credibility is given to anyone in WoW. It doesn’t matter how high rating you have, how many Mythic bosses you’ve killed, no one gets to be more right by default among the community. Logos is really the only thing that carries weight - the facts.
I mean, players have no issue ripping any of the developers arguments apart.
“Senior Game Designer with years of experience in the industry? You’re full of crap!”
The community is fact-oriented. If you have to bring up your armory profile to assert a point, then it’s like admitting that you can’t reason it with logic and facts. If you can do both, then it’s amazing, but ethos on its own isn’t worth as much as logos on its own.
Well that’s up for discussion.
I think contrary to the doctor who’s an expert in the field of medicine, then WoW - even at the expert level - is approachable to a broader audience. We don’t have to play it at the highest level to understand what’s going on.
Cardiac surgery? No idea what’s going on, even if I’m watching it.
There are also a small fallacy here that often comes around.
The correlation between being a good player and being a good designer. There’s no correlation between the two. Eating a lot of hamburgers doesn’t necessarily make you a great chef, even if you think you know better than anyone what a perfect hamburger should taste like.
Likewise, being good at playing WoW doesn’t necessarily make you good at understanding how to design an enjoyable game.
Consuming and creating aren’t really the same.
(this is all logos btw - I’m flexing my skillzzzz)
I think, more than that, what’s important with regards to ethos and credibility in particular, is that it’s shown to have merit.
If someone says “I’m a doctor, let me through!” you expect the person to know what he’s doing. And the fact that doctors have a history of actually knowing what to do when they use their title as an authority, that is the reason we give them credibility.
Top WoW players don’t get the same treatment, because they don’t do much that warrants any particular credibility in the first place.
“I’m a high-rated WoW player, I know how the game should be designed!”
“No offense dude, but your post history on the forum is filled with childish outbursts and immature insults, so you’re going to have to elaborate on your ideas.”
Ethos only carries weight if it’s asserted, which on the forums means you have to use logos to establish why you’re right, so everyone can see that the high-rated player actually does know best. If the high-rated player never asserts himself with logos, then his rating doesn’t give credibility.
Yes, I conveyed that post on the premise of the Arena design I would like, based on what I find enjoyable and fun in a video game.
That’s emotion. Pathos. Appeal to emotion. It’s popular on the forum too. All the QQ tends to be pathos in a very simple form.
The persuasion of the argument there hinges on the person’s ability to convey his emotions to the audience, and make them feel likewise.
If my argument about the removal of 2v2 was convincing, then it was because the feeling of joy and epicness this new Arena design could inspire was worth the price of removing 2v2.
But it arguably wasn’t a convincing or persuading way of presenting the point, because people didn’t really respond with the same emotion toward it.
What you’re saying here is that ethos reigns supreme, damn it!
But it’s not that simple.
If I were to respond to this from a logos point of view, I’d say that the merit of an argument depends on its reasoning, not the person behind it.
That’s logical.
Anyway, this is terrible off-topic. I just think when reading a thread like this that there’s a lot of people talking past each other, seemingly unaware why the other guy just doesn’t get it.
An arena forum is hardly a place for philosophical discussions or whatever that crap is. When you make ridiculous claims and “arguments”, you better have the experience and CR to back it up with - that’s how knowledge in a field works.
All I see from you and Whisperer are mountains of nonsense upon nonsense derailing every single arena thread regardless of it’s purpose, it’s rather annoying tbh.
Both of you are some horribly obstinate spergs.
3 Likes
No. Knowledge is knowledge.
Experience and CR is not knowledge by default. Like I said earlier, you don’t become a great chef simply by eating a lot of food.
Pretty sure you’re trolling at this point, however:
You become a great arena player by playing a lot of arena and having the experience of having played at the higher ratings.
Your analogy is BS.
2 Likes
Pretty sure you’re trying to discredit me at this point.
Yeah, you’re right.
But being a great Arena player doesn’t necessarily make you wise about Arena balance, design, or development. It might, and it might not. That’s why just saying you have a high rating and a lot of games played isn’t enough as far as argumentation goes about those subjects – you still have to elaborate on why you think you’re right (about Arena being dead, Warlocks being overpowered, Jito being smexy, etc.).
No, it’s inductive reasoning built on logic.
It’s not about design, post was more about people like you arguing against things that actually happen. Take Whisperer. In a earlier threat he assured it was IMPOSSIBLE to cast two Chaos Bolt during a Mortal Coil. Why ? Because he has tried, or so he claimed, and couldn’t do it. So he called other people liars and said the fact was it was impossible. Is that what you call logic ? Following your own comparisons if I try to practise heart surgery thr guy will die, that’s not proof that it’s impossible to make cardiac surgery. But when your kind of people argument on forums and have zero EXPERIENCE to validate, you often say bullcrap and don’t even realize it. If you find this thread I talked about even at the end of it he’s adamant. “I couldn’t do it so it’s impossible”. “warlocks don’t play haste anyways”. The fact that several warlocks in the top have been stacking haste and are actually able to do 2 Chaos in a Coil aren’t enough for him, because HE either wasn’t intelligent enough to figure out how to do it or because he didn’t own the proper equipment and wasn’t able to understand that with it it would have been possible.
This is but an example ans that isn’t what is called “Logic”. Making wall of texts with structured arguments is cool and all, but if the base is something as idiotic as “I can’t do it thus it is not possible”, which is PURELY a result of lack of experience, then it’s useless.
I never talked about game design.
No. It is that logic without the part of CORRECT information gather has no base and thus is wrong from the start. Maybe steps 2, 3, 4, 5 of the arguments are good, but because the step 1, which started it all, is wrong, then the conclusion is wrong as well even if each step seems logical.
You - meaning people without current or recent arena experience - lack a ton of information and then allow yourselves to do some comments. This is right, everyone can express themselves. But then spitting on other people arguments when said arguments are based on things THAT DID HAPPEN just because your own logic that lacks information THINKS it isn’t possible for that thing to happen is wrong, and the mark of imbecility.
As is step one, which is informtion gathering to make sure every following reasoning isn’t garbage, and this part you miss of you are unable to go on the field (if I can say that) and collect it there, as videos and commentators aren’t enough to get a full grasp of the thing. It looks like they are enough, but not really. Otherwise everyone would do well in every aspect of the game after having looked the videos of the first guys who did well.
We’re not talking about the knowledge of HOW TO MAKE ARENA BALANCED OR WELL DESIGNED. We’re talking about the knowledge of what happens inside and to get it you need to get inside. To keep your analogy you can only differentiate good food and bad food after eating both and trying out your tastes. If you have only eaten raw meat in your life, you can’t know thr taste of well cooked meat, ans you certainly cannot pretend so even if you looked at a lot of cooned meat eaters videls. In the same way, if you have never played above 1k8 in wow you cannot really understand how the game feels at 2k7 even if you’ve watched tournament videos. You need to eat the cooked meat to know what it tastes like, you need to play high rating to know what it’s like.
ONCE AGAIN, WHEN WE’RE SAYING INEXPERIENCED PLAYERS LIKE WHISPERER AND YOU ARE MAKING BOLD AND UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS ABOUT ARENA GAMEPLAY WE AREN’T TALKING ABOUT GAME DESIGN BUT JUST ABOUT WHAT IT’S LIKE PLAYING.
I hope in caps it’s finally clear.
1 Like
Well first of all, I’m not sure how anything in this thread as it pertains to Whisperer also pertains to me.
I take a little offense that you seemingly regard us as the same. I have no relation to Whisperer – gameplay, opinions, history, or otherwise. I struggle to respond to criticism about him, because I’m not him and I’m not his lawyer. Surely he can do that himself. If you want to complain about me, then do that. You can’t just put us in the same boat and expect one to fill for the other.
So no. I am absolutely not going to put my thoughts – good or bad – about another person on public display. I consider that highly disrespectful. I would never discuss your person in this manner on the forum, or Whisperer’s, or anyone else’s.
It’s fair game to take general jabs at the community as a whole, or aspects of it. But discussing individuals is unkind and borderline bullying.
I am no kind of people. I am myself, as is my posting, and I don’t represent anyone else on this forum.
What I have said in this thread so far has been general theory from my school books. If others have been taught similar things in school, then hurray for their educational system, but that is as far as I can associate.
That depends on the logical reasoning. If it’s deductive you’re more likely to be right than if it’s inductive. Likewise if it’s a short deduction versus a long one.
But it’s not that black and white. 2+2=5 is wrong, but 2+2=Egypt is more wrong.
I’m not sure if this pertains to me. I doubt it does.
I never comment on Arena class balance, strategies, tactics, comps, or otherwise, because those areas of discussion does rely on first-hand experience as you say. So I stay away from those. I always have.
I respond only to topics pertaining to general game design, development, Blizzard, and other subjects that have nothing to do with first-hand experience at Nagrand Arena at 2k rating.
No but I did. You’re responding to my posts (like the other poster), so I believe I am the one who defined the contexts of this exchange. You don’t get to change the narrative after the fact, and then say I’m in the wrong. You replied to me, not the other way around.
Stop saying “we”. It’s I. Everyone else – if they feel like it – can express their own opinion. Don’t invoke a majority to suit your argument. I care not for this kind of cheap rhetoric.
No. Your emotion doesn’t carry seriousness, just anger and immaturity. Calmness is a better carrier.
Anyway, I shall be done with this topic. Not sure how I got so entangled in it in the first place. It was just a loose thought to begin with. 
Think of it like chess. It requires an insane level to understand the possible moves ahead, and the likely moves that’ll be used, and to recognize recurring patterns and so on. As well as what’s best to do of course, and the pros and cons of every possible action.
WoW does have its own similar structure, however with much fewer variations.
Then there is the rating system. In a rating system, doesn’t matter which game, the more players participating in it will solidify the skill differences of all rating ranges to a much higher degree of details.
So when a lot of players are participating, the skill difference between 2000 to 2500 can be huge, but when there aren’t a lot of players participating then the difference can wind up smaller.
You’re obviously choosing to believe what suits your perception best though.
Have you ever considered it might be a mix of… both? Ethos without logos doesn’t carry much weight, as you’ve pointed out in your examples. But logos without ethos doesn’t carry much weight either, kind of like an AI that literally only shows you the possible actions but without a point difference of what’s best to do and what’s worse, like in a chess engine.
I think that makes my point.
I played chess in my younger years. I could not play games like Kasparov, but I could understand Kasparov’s games, because the information behind each move could explained to me and others.
I think WoW is the same.
The Arena Tournament games showcase some top level play. I am not skilled enough to replicate that kind of skill. But I am familiar enough with WoW that I can understand what’s going on. It’s not a mystery.
That’s why I say that top players in WoW don’t get as much credibility as they might want to have, because whilst their level of play is unattainable to others, then the information and knowledge distilled from it is not.
It is not brain surgery (see how I threw that all the way back to my doctor example earlier? Pretty good, eh? 
).
Ha! Not going there, sorry. No time for these time-exhausting topics. 
Yeah, I think I hinted at it earlier, though maybe I should be more explicit, I don’t know. Here:
Ethos has some real oomph! in some discussions, and then in other discussions it’s completely irrelevant.
I would say that on this forum it ought to be very relevant, but the topics that dominate the discussions are a bit out of place.
You would think that this forum would be filled with aspiring Arena players who would ask for advice on what comps to play, what strategies to use, what tactics to practice, and so on. And that’s where credibility shines. Being a high-rated player with lots of Arena experience would make you the best source of help and advice possible. That’s where credibility carries a lot of weight. Sadly, the forum doesn’t have many actual Arena threads going on where such is talked about without devolving into a flame war.
This forum is more often filled with threads about Blizzard neglecting the community, Arena being dead, classes that should be deleted from the game, and the past being better and the future being even worse than the present.
Those threads are rarely short on people asserting their right to the truth by pointing out how high rating they have, or how low rating others have. The Epeen contest has always flourished around here.
What there is a real shortage of is in-depth opinions with lots of substance – elaborate reasoning, multiple perspectives, open-ended conclusions, respectful disagreements, and so on.
In my opinion of course.
Anyway, now I’m out!
Yet you go out of your way to play the devil’s advocate where you should really read the mood sometimes.
You also don’t seem to think any different of a beginner whom you can see became frustrated because he was outplayed, and a person frustrated because there’s no proper way to outplay it due to the design of the game itself. (Classes are designed for encounters rn instead of vice versa, and that does carry severe ramifications.)
You also trivialized the ethos by saying it “belongs in this/that place”, when in actuality it belongs in more places. A person who is very experienced AND good at the logos reasoning, would be more likely to come up with a solid competitive design, than somebody who’s stuck looking at it only from the logos perspective. The same way a person only using the ethos to reason would be more likely to be biased, as you keep pointing out.
I’m not saying I’m a saint. I am not. I have quite a few regrets in my post history.
I don’t think that detracts from the fact that the forum has a lot of low-effort threads where credibility from top players isn’t really in high demand.
Yes, but I’m trying to slowly back out of this thread, not get more entangled in it. So forgive the simpler and shorter replies.
My-Logic-Defies-What’s-Factually-In-The-Game-At-High-Rating and I-Don’t-Need-Experience-My-Arguments-Are-Always-Outvaluing-Actual-Experience-Because-MY-Logic-Is-Best attitudes are what you have in common.
You don’t represent and you may not like the idea but you can be put in a box. What’s the color of your hair, if you have any ? Don’t tell me just answer yourself. Well, guess what, you’re part of the ginger-blonde-brown-whatever part of the population. Like it or not. That doesn’t mean you represent them. You are part of z kind. Here on these foruls you are part of the “no high rated arena experience, at least not recently” kind.
Well that’s weird because your part omnipresence on arena forums - not PvP, Arena - seem to claim differently and this is the reason why quite a few arena people consider you as annoying with your comments on arenas. Past attitudes have consequences.
Maybe you were admiring the view and no one realized. But then again the discussion wasn’t about YOU, it was about the necessity of experience to have a correct insight into arena gameplay, tactics, strategies, or what I quoted of you just above. We do agree then. Why are you arguing with the people who claim experience is needed then ? If you do agree ? Logic broke ?
I wasn’t aware your post was the first one who defined the topic. Didn’t you see the 80ish posts before yours ?
You did both made comments and tried contradicting others without the experience to back up that those bold contradictions. You less than him at the present time. You had your moment though and for that you are still in the same box - inexperienced guy whi thinks he knows but doesn’t and tries to cover it up with walls of texts and rhetoric.
I agree close to fully with that. This is why people, myself included, often laugh at comments made by people without experience when they try to impose their reasoning just because they believe that’s logic but in fact they miss something.
oh lord xdxd
Can you think of any topic where I have commented on specific Arena class balance, strategy, comps, tactics, or otherwise?
If so, please link it.
Though for the life of me, I still cannot fathom why you and others are so eager to make this about me. Why’s everything always about digging into people around here?
Regardless, I have made some general points. I fail to see what I as a person have to do with the merit of those points, or what I as a person have to do with the topic of this discussion. I refuse to discuss me. Take it elsewhere. I know I’m not your favorite person in the world. I don’t need to be reminded of it every single time I stick my head in around here. One time is plenty. The complaint is registered. Ignore me or endure me, or take it up with Blizzard.
But I will gladly double down on this particular point just to get it across:
I will bend over backwards to avoid commenting on which classes or specs needs buffs or nerfs in Arena. I believe I have done so successfully for the past decade, and should I ever make any such comment, do call me out on it.
Likewise with gameplay strategies or tactics pertaining to Arena maps, Arena comps, or similar. I will never seek to comment on any of that in order to project an opinion of knowledge about which is most successful or expert-approved or whatever.
Because I don’t deal in absolutes and I can separate one topic of discussion from another, and the merit of credibility in one case from the merit of credibility in another.
No, but I set the discussion point about ethos and credibility which you responded to. None of the 80ish posts before did.
I have no idea what Whisperer does or doesn’t do. I don’t keep up with his posting in particular. Whatever symbiotic state you think we’re in, we’re not.
What is it I think I know but I don’t? I’m rather intrigued, I must admit.
Like I said, I don’t really comment on Arena topics pertaining to knowledge per se. I usually comment on topics pertaining to subjective opinion – the free rounds basically. And then I make some assertions about the community and Blizzard, but those have nothing to do with Arena gameplay at all.
Reasoning is built on logic. What you’re saying is an oxymoron. One implies the other. It’s not missing something.
If you’re putting forth a statement, and your argument behind it is built on some logical reasoning, then that’s a well-written post and it doesn’t miss anything.
Whether your reasoning is sound or not is another matter entirely, but your statement is supported by something and that’s all anyone can ask for. That something doesn’t have to be based on your credibility (or anyone else’s).
You focus too much on that credibility thing. Reddit, fansite forums, twitter, and so on, don’t have armory profiles as we do here. That whole aspect of credibility is almost non-existent outside of here, but the same discussions happen, because it’s simply not needed.
And it’s not because you can’t use ethos as a tool, but here people don’t use it properly. You don’t. You use it as a way of asserting authority in terms of deciding who’s right and wrong. That’s not a way of using ethos as an argumentative technique, that’s a way demeaning others by claiming superiority de facto.
If you laugh at other people’s comments, then you’re not here with an intention to have constructive discussions. You’re here on an ego trip, at the expense of other people.
The goal of any discussion, whether you like it or not, is never ever in a million years to shut anyone up. Good argumentation seeks to persuade and convince, and likewise be persuaded and convinced, so a shared conclusion is reached – a consensus if you will.
Going into it with the mindset of wanting to be right at the expense of others just creates a hostile environment. Have fun with that on your ego trip, I guess.
(and now I’m really out of this thread, totally, forever, and that’s a promise)
very informativ thread, i thought jito was the worst by far but the bear and the monkey are something else. Gz ladies, you did it
Still waiting.
Nah, you’ll spam insults here, no matter if they’re wrong or not (mostly they’re).
I have some games play this season and I’m not stuck below 2k… I have over 2k rating. So your pathetic ad hominem attacks aren’t based on facts.
and?
I defeated multiple 2.6k people in arena. Rating isn’t everything.
And if you have to say “I’m an expert” then you’re no true expert. Scientist don’t tell you “what we’re saying is true, because we’re scientist”… but rather they show evidence and use arguments.
God damn, I thought that this would be made clear by me…First of all, I’ve defeated multiple rank 1 people, won vs some blizzcon players, does that make me as good as them and be able to make claims about balancing pvp more than they can? of course not…I do not have the experience or that much idea on how that works, all I can see is you arguing with high rated people that played games at that rating, played more games this season and back up their claims by them being at that certain rating/games played THIS season as well as using logic, you cannot use logic and argue your way up, I could be stupid as hell and just type as I’m doing right now in my 2 last posts I made here and still be more credible to tell you whether you can play vs warlock without it being super gimmicky and super annoying, to the point where you have to change your entire gameplay, many people have told you in the past, including some rank 1 people I noticed, yet you still found a way to argue with them even though they have much more experience than you do in this field…
You cant just go around and tell people: “I am a scientist, I know my stuff its right because Im scientist.” that just does not work, but if you say I am a scientist and this is right because of these points I made, you cant just start talking to the scientist why hes wrong, you can tell him why you think hes wrong but that does not make you right in any way shape or form.
I dont care that you are over 2k, you dont even have duelist this season, I wasnt even trying to rating bash, you, again didnt grasp the main point of me talking about rating.
And the first point you made about me mostly spamming insults is a way to deal with monkeys like you. (see what I did there?) when logic fails, this is more amusing of a way to talk to some people. Now, looking back at this and seeing how I didnt answer to your points from the first to the last, I hope your neural networks will be good enough to deal with having to read my points loud and clear.
yes, I do that, because for me backing up by rating is as good as backing it up by a quote of your mother telling me that you’re right
Exactly.
Because of the points I made.
Which means points matter, not title. That’s what I am saying. Which you tried to refute.
And yes, I can point out flaws in scientist logic, same way as I can point out flaw in higher experienced player’s logic. That’s why they’re supposed to back up their claims instead of refering to their title.
Because they can do mistakes. Because they can be wrong.
And if they show the way they think, you can actually check if they did or not.
yes you do
so you care about me having 2k or less? even though I have more than 2k and you say you don’t care about my 2? Ugh?
well logic didn’t fail.
You did.