Yeah I'm serious. Not complaining doesn't mean that I think it's perfect.
What's the logical fallacy called where you claim something has no truth just because it's not the extreme?
I obviously was not trying to claim that anybody thought it was perfect. So yeah, in addition to the mentioned fallacy, it's a strawman. Congratulations.
I really don't know what you mean by this. I said, "I don't think anybody claimed that poll was perfect either." And you asked me if I was serious. Yes, I was serious about that. You sure seemed to be implying that in your
post here, but maybe I misinterpreted your passive-aggressiveness there.
I do think the context of the f.ds poll and the second poll on the BGG thread make them more valid. I and others both here and in the BGG thread have explained why that context is important, and why your BGG poll kind of drops the ball on that.
And I have explained why that "context" is counter-productive (actually prompting you to reply that "well the poll wasn't perfect", which seems contradictory). And nobody bothered to counter that. Of course "ignore" is a great way to kill arguments online. Afterwards you can even pretend they didn't even appear, referring to the greatness of your original arguments as if they were uncontested.
I'm looking back and not seeing where you explained why the context is counter-productive, and I'm not seeing that reply of mine either. Can you point me to it? Unless you're talking about
this post where, apparently, I misinterpreted your meaning anyway. I don't think that relates to the context I am talking about though (explained below).
People brought up good points in the BGG thread and you brushed them off pretty quick.
I actually do try to take every argument seriously, and really consider it. I won't say I always succeed. For you I "brushed them off pretty quick", but I tried to take them seriously and reply to them with how I saw it. Just because they made points, doesn't mean I should automatically agree with them, right? Of course mostly nobody bothers to reply to what I reply, so then I'm not really left with anything more to consider.
I'll change my mind because of good arguments. In this thread I started saying that you obviously can't shuffle one card. I changed my mind because of the mathematical definition, thinking that you probably want to use that definition in a game. Then I read some more arguments both ways in the BGG thread, and was not sure anymore. (The way I see it, one definition isn't completely invalid and the other completely valid.)
I do likewise. That's why I didn't appreciate your passive-aggressive implication that everyone here only care about the stuff that supports their own views. Likewise, I did not appreciate that you
explicitly called everyone here immature, when the discussion until that point seemed pretty civil to me.
I'm pretty sure I already said it earlier, but for the sake of clarity, here's what I think is the necessary context for a poll that will actually answer the question under discussion.
The question is, "Can you shuffle a deck with only one card (or no cards at all)?"
We want this answered in the context of a game's rules and rule interactions, where effects care about when you shuffle. Note, this is not the same as the context of "Dominion technical stuff", just game rules in general.
Your BGG poll had a title that omitted that context, which is misleading at best. The actual poll question says it, but it's not clear enough. There were several people who commented that they answered "no", but would have answered "yes" if they were approaching it in the context which we actually want. I think I said earlier that it was a "large number" and you said that there were only 3(?) that you counted. I didn't keep track and it felt like more to me, but I may have been mistaken. Even so, that's just among the people who bothered to leave a comment (and pretty deep into the conversation too) -- that's from a group that you yourself pointed out is different from the "general" population. They're the ones who were
more likely to read your question thoroughly and understand the desired context... and they still missed it. How many more people just read the BGG post title and said, "no you can't shuffle a single card, that's physically impossible" and left it at that? I really don't know the answer to that, but I'd guess that it's non-negligible.
I don't think any of the polls we've had so far are useful for answering the one-card shuffle question, including the f.ds one. Sorry for focusing mostly on the flaws of your BGG poll, but that's the one that we were discussing at the time. Maybe nobody was pointing out the problems with the f.ds poll, but I don't think anybody was holding it up as a paragon of poll design either. At least I wasn't -- I barely mentioned it at all.
As for the other poll that was in the BGG comments, I said that I thought the question was asked in a good way. The 99% result was interesting to me, but I never called it the ultimate answer and acknowledged that the context (5ish pages into comments) probably skewed results some. It doesn't change that the question did a better job (IMO) of providing the necessary context.