Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AdamH]

The problem was our "estimation" was useless at best and misleading at worst.

Useless at best? I find value in people saying this kind of stuff. It gives me a rough idea of where their head is at. The problem comes where people take that number and put more value on it than it deserves and try to draw more conclusions from that than you really can.

I don't think that anyone that uses a percentage when talking about Dominion is trying to be super-precise. Maybe instead of making fun of people who use percentages we could learn how to actually understand them from what they are and not read too much into it.

But the majority of this forum would prefer to mock and imitate me rather than educating me to improve my methods.

I am going to manually count all the replies in this thread, just to prove how wrong this statement is, along with your general assumption on the community. If you come in here and start off with "I know better than you" I can guarantee you that will no go over well. There is no "nice way" to say things like that, and if you wanted to discuss things don't start off combative.

Any number greater than zero is not cool in my book.

[theright555J]

Overall, I have to say that this has been my favorite thread in well over a month on this forum.  Why?

1.  Nice long thread with plenty of spice!
2.  I've been so focused on "ZOMG King's Court" that it's educational to learn a practical example with possible generalizability for when KC can be a trap card.
3.  funkdoc may have just convinced me to start a Twitter account.  I'm really living in the early 2000s technologically.
4.  Chris is me is starting discussion on Adventures cards.  Score!  I've only been able to play 2 IRL Adventures games in total! Will be great to see this discussion.
5.  The emotional ramifications of feedback are of a particular interest to me, so it strongly piques my interest to see how threads like this play out.

I reread the OP and read through the game log.  Just reading that again without any of the subsequent responses, I was certainly NOT thinking that it was intended to be hypothesis-generating.  It's quite declarative, with a tone of superiority which admittedly I may be reading too much into.

Then this comes along...

At the risk of being 'that guy', I played two games with you just before Christmas and after both you told me my wins were 'bad' and I didn't deserve them.

And I felt very sad.  I'm a horrible sport and I've typed some things on Dominion online which I regret, but I've NEVER told someone their win was "bad" (FWIW, I just almost never type "gg" or "glhf", just either resign or bolt after a game which may be viewed as rude by some players). A win may be lucky, but never bad. This type of attitude acts as confirmation of the tone I thought I read into the OP, but was giving the benefit of the doubt.  Tone of communication is extremely important, not just on f.ds, but in real life!!  The majority of communication is nonverbal (I won't give any % estimates because well, uh, it was frowned upon in this thread).

[Witherweaver]

But the majority of this forum would prefer to mock and imitate me rather than educating me to improve my methods.

I am going to manually count all the replies in this thread, just to prove how wrong this statement is, along with your general assumption on the community. If you come in here and start off with "I know better than you" I can guarantee you that will no go over well. There is no "nice way" to say things like that, and if you wanted to discuss things don't start off combative.

To be fair, Goon Garden raised a valid point, just the delivery may have been a bit off.  He presented a board where some players may have immediately assumed KC was a good buy, but in fact a money strategy is better.  Even if the log didn't represent optimal strategic play, his analysis was valid (modulo minor disagreements).

[enfynet]

But the majority of this forum would prefer to mock and imitate me rather than educating me to improve my methods.

I am going to manually count all the replies in this thread, just to prove how wrong this statement is, along with your general assumption on the community. If you come in here and start off with "I know better than you" I can guarantee you that will no go over well. There is no "nice way" to say things like that, and if you wanted to discuss things don't start off combative.

Edit: I counted (Forgive the numbers not adding up exactly, some posts counted for more than one "type" of post.)

Goon Garden:
On Topic - 15
Off Topic - 22
Humorous - 0
Attacks - 5

Other Replies:
On Topic - 28
Off Topic - 86
Humorous - 20
Attacks - 0

If you go back and read the first two pages, you will notice that the majority are on topic, with a few jokes in there. It really got derailed when the forum members were accused of mocking/insulting/attacking Goon Garden, where there was no malice intended.

I'm quoting myself to show the numbers I came up with. There was a worthwhile discussion going on before the jokes were found "unfunny" by the OP and started the entire off-topic discussion.

But the majority of this forum would prefer to mock and imitate me rather than educating me to improve my methods.

I am going to manually count all the replies in this thread, just to prove how wrong this statement is, along with your general assumption on the community. If you come in here and start off with "I know better than you" I can guarantee you that will no go over well. There is no "nice way" to say things like that, and if you wanted to discuss things don't start off combative.

Any number greater than zero is not cool in my book.

Adam, as you can see, I counted no directed insults by regular forum members. Now, does this mean our recurring pedantic jokes were received in the manner they were directed? Possibly not. But there was no aggression on behalf of the "majority" of the forum.

[Deadlock39]

The problem was our "estimation" was useless at best and misleading at worst.

Useless at best? I find value in people saying this kind of stuff. It gives me a rough idea of where their head is at. The problem comes where people take that number and put more value on it than it deserves and try to draw more conclusions from that than you really can.

I don't think that anyone that uses a percentage when talking about Dominion is trying to be super-precise. Maybe instead of making fun of people who use percentages we could learn how to actually understand them from what they are and not read too much into it.

I guess I just don't see any value in putting a number on something if you are only dealing in rough ideas. I think putting a number on a rough idea is, in and of itself, placing more value on it than it deserves, and drawing any conclusions from it at all would be drawing more conclusions than you can.

I don't disagree that people using percentages to talk about Dominion are not trying to be precise. I am only putting forth the argument that numbers are by definition precise, and should not be used if you aren't trying to be precise.  My intention is certainly not to make fun of anyone for using percentages, but to attempt to convince people not to use them in ways that are not meaningful.

[AdamH]

Adam, as you can see, I counted no directed insults by regular forum members. Now, does this mean our recurring pedantic jokes were received in the manner they were directed? Possibly not. But there was no aggression on behalf of the "majority" of the forum.

You are counting the posts that you think were attacks. I don't know what your definition of "attack" is but whatever it is, it's not the definition that matters. The only definition that matters here is Goon Garden's, and he can point out posts that made him feel uncomfortable in any way, regardless of intent.

I realize a lot of people will disagree with that statement, and I'm not trying to suggest that we cater to every sensitivity of every person who ever posts on this forum, so even Goon Garden's number wouldn't necessarily be something we can put a lot of stock in unless he points out all such posts and then that would start a debate on whether or not it's reasonable for someone to feel offended at that post, which sounds like a waste of everyone's time.

Suffice it to say that I don't buy this line of reasoning in the slightest. You can't say that just because no offense was intended, that we're OK in everything we say here and people need to suck it up and deal with how insensitive it is as long as it isn't an attack by our own definition. Frankly, that definition is terrible and backwards and I think that anyone who stands by it needsto really reconsider the way they interact with people in general, not just on the internet. The fact that Goon Garden specifically asked us to cut out the pedantry and was immediately greeted with pedantry is something that we as a community should not be doing to welcome in new members.

I really really don't want to link specific posts because it puts me right in the middle of this instead of being more of a mediator; I think it's pretty clear the posts I'm talking about. I'm not going to link them.

[zporiri]

LOL what did i just read 8 pages of

[enfynet]

Adam, as you can see, I counted no directed insults by regular forum members. Now, does this mean our recurring pedantic jokes were received in the manner they were directed? Possibly not. But there was no aggression on behalf of the "majority" of the forum.

You are counting the posts that you think were attacks. I don't know what your definition of "attack" is but whatever it is, it's not the definition that matters. The only definition that matters here is Goon Garden's, and he can point out posts that made him feel uncomfortable in any way, regardless of intent.

I meant to say "insult" and there is a post much earlier in the thread where someone counted out 8 times GG had "insulted" or "responded aggressively" to previous posters.

As I stated:

It really got derailed when the forum members were accused of mocking/insulting/attacking Goon Garden, where there was no malice intended.

Does he read it that way? I don't know. What I do know is that any counter-argument or contradiction to his posts were met with negativity and aggression. I will gladly go back to discover exactly where this happened if you do not believe me. But no one here came out and insulted this guy, or even flat out said he was wrong. He turned this on himself, sadly, and the forum members who responded were then accused of attacking him. Read through it objectively and you will see what I mean.

[enfynet]

After the initial discussion was met with these replies, it derailed into nitpicking and humor. Before these, discussion was mostly open to both sides. After this, one side was closed off in favor of finding faults in the argument as a whole.

There are many seasoned players who believe KC is never skippable. These players are wrong.

When I say "more skippable" it means "more frequently skippable" than the consensus believes.

I know that. That's why I qualified the statement with "generally" -- But I guess you ignored my careful wording so it would be easier to have a counterpoint.

You are one of those people who disagrees for the sake of disagreeing. It would take a lot of time for me to break this down for you and hash all this out since you stubbornly insist KC is a good choice in all games. It isn't.

Now, I don't necessarily see Awaclus as being argumentative at any point, but at least the disagreement he presented the conversation was still on topic.

[markusin]

The problem was our "estimation" was useless at best and misleading at worst.

Useless at best? I find value in people saying this kind of stuff. It gives me a rough idea of where their head is at. The problem comes where people take that number and put more value on it than it deserves and try to draw more conclusions from that than you really can.

I don't think that anyone that uses a percentage when talking about Dominion is trying to be super-precise. Maybe instead of making fun of people who use percentages we could learn how to actually understand them from what they are and not read too much into it.

I guess I just don't see any value in putting a number on something if you are only dealing in rough ideas. I think putting a number on a rough idea is, in and of itself, placing more value on it than it deserves, and drawing any conclusions from it at all would be drawing more conclusions than you can.

I don't disagree that people using percentages to talk about Dominion are not trying to be precise. I am only putting forth the argument that numbers are by definition precise, and should not be used if you aren't trying to be precise.  My intention is certainly not to make fun of anyone for using percentages, but to attempt to convince people not to use them in ways that are not meaningful.

I haven't been in the mood to jump back into this thread over the last few days, but I just want to say that I don't mind the use of a percentage like "90-93%" to describe something rather than something like "most of the time". Like, Person A says "almost always" and Person B says "usually". It can turn out that Person B's perception of "usually" is higher than Person A's "almost always". Indeed, something like this seemed to happen in the thread until the " 90-93%" came into the picture.

Percentages don't have to be interpreted as needing to be accurate when it's more important that the percentage comparisons be used relatively. Someone saying "I think KC is unskippable 90-93% of the time" gives me a clearer picture of how they perceive the worth of KC than "I think KC is usually unskippable".

We are the ones that give meaning to a percentage. Traditionally in science we like to see percentages as being objective. In the context of a forum bouncing off ideas, I don't think it's inherently wrong to interpret a percentage as being subjective and used for relative comparisons.

That said, I think it's fair to suggest to someone guessing at percentages to check out the stats provided by The Exprecissist's tool. New users probably won't know about that. I myself don't even remember where to find that tool.

[AdamH]

As I stated:

It really got derailed when the forum members were accused of mocking/insulting/attacking Goon Garden, where there was no malice intended.

Does he read it that way? I don't know. What I do know is that any counter-argument or contradiction to his posts were met with negativity and aggression. I will gladly go back to discover exactly where this happened if you do not believe me. But no one here came out and insulted this guy, or even flat out said he was wrong. He turned this on himself, sadly, and the forum members who responded were then accused of attacking him. Read through it objectively and you will see what I mean.

I read through the thread objectively, it read just like the first time I read through the thread, which was objective. I'm really trying not to take a side here, what I see is happening is that there are two perspectives on this that are different: Goon garden's perspective, and the perspective of the community as a whole (I guess you could say "everyone else" but that's a slight oversimplification. I will make this slight oversimplification). After reading through the thread again, I saw the same 5+ posts that I was thinking of before that I will continue to not point out. They are there, even though some say they aren't and they put your hands over their ears and shout LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

Neither party acted perfectly at any point in this entire exchange. I don't see myself as being part of either party, but rather as one of the very few people (and the only one really saying anything) that actually understands where both sides are coming from (namely, the only one that understands where goon garden is coming from other than goon garden). I thought it would be useful to try and help the two sides understand each other. I don't really feel emotionally invested in this but maybe some people seem to think I am. Go back and look at the nasty threads from a couple of months ago, that's what it looks like when I'm emotionally invested. Does this look the same to you?

The thread derailed when Goon Garden said he didn't appreciate the nitpicking (whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter) directed towards him, and instead of being polite and stopping, we continued to poke at it and do more of the exact thing he said he didn't like. The community is trying to wash its hands of any blame here and act like nobody did anything that was the slightest bit objectionable when that's just not the case. Maybe Goon Garden wasn't helping but the community we should have here shouldn't care about that; yes I'm saying that the community should be held to a higher standard than goon garden because if we don't we come across like a bunch of jerks to new people to try and post here. BTW, guess how we're coming across to new people?

The telling thing is that goon garden has taken some time and made several posts afterward looking critically at his own actions: something that has great value in Dominion as well as real life (you make your own IRL luck? Nah, needs work). The community, on the other hand, still refuses to look critically at the way it has treated him. You say you are but if you aren't seeing what I'm seeing, you must be looking with your eyes closed. Look harder, it's there. The community should be acting better, and there are so many people out there who just don't believe that anything the community did here was a problem and that all conflict here was caused 100% by goon garden. No. Wake up, make yourself a better person. I even said it earlier in this same thread about Dominion but here it applies to real life: the day you stop looking at your plays [actions] critically and blame your losses on bad draws [arguments on other people] is the same day you stop getting better at Dominion [being inviting to new people on the forum]. I'm getting like really philosophical all of a sudden, where did this come from? This is weird.

I suppose it's getting difficult to continue this without me pointing directly to the posts I find the most objectionable. I'm not willing to do this publicly. I don't know of a way to point this out even though I think it should be obvious. I'm not sure what to do about this.

[drsteelhammer]

Quick thing regarding the numbers: I consider some numbers to be acceptable. If you're talking about quartiles, maybe in some case about 10 percentiles. I can live with that, chances are you won't be too far off the actual data. But there comes this assertion (I wouldn't call it hypothesis) of 90-93%. Based on a memory of his limited amount of KC play he's experienced ( I assume nobody has enough games of any card to be this precise). This alone I find hilarious. I don't think making a joke about that is out of place, and it wasn't even made in bad spirit.

To top it off, he skips KC 100% more than he asserted according to Deadlock data, but that's not relevant.


@Adam: Sorry, you can't be a mediator here. You're not necessarily an advocate for Goon Gardens, but you revealed your intended way of moderating such threads in the past and it shows. You definitely have a bias (we all do) in this conflict and saying you're being objective doesn't change that.

But even if that wasn't the case you're comments are more judging than mediating anyway (atleast the later ones). My advice: atleast call those comments you feel uncomfortable about out. I don't mind being among them and I'm pretty sure that most others don't mind either. Otherwise you're just groundlessly accuse all of us.

@Goon Gardens: I don't know why you bring your personal feelings in here. Nobody insulted you personally. However, you did insult other people because they commented in a way you didn't agree with. That unfortunate for you, but you can't control how other people react. If that bothers you, it's not the other people who have to change.

Also, who needs to say "I'm a kind person"? Not the kind people I know of.

[Deadlock39]

Person A says "almost always" and Person B says "usually". It can turn out that Person B's perception of "usually" is higher than Person A's "almost always". Indeed, something like this seemed to happen in the thread until the " 90-93%" came into the picture.

Except none of these things actually help determine if peoples perceptions match in reality or not. It is possible that Person A's 90-93% is lower than Person B's 82% because they are being used in the same way as "usually" and "almost always".  You don't know where they actually stand until you look at real data, or spend time discussing the actual situation. So, we should be doing that instead of making up numbers.

Percentages don't have to be interpreted as needing to be accurate when it's more important that the percentage comparisons be used relatively. Someone saying "I think KC is unskippable 90-93% of the time" gives me a clearer picture of how they perceive the worth of KC than "I think KC is usually unskippable".

The problem is that if your percentages are not accurate, you can't even use them relatively, because they do not have a common basis. I would argue that saying that "KC is unskippable 90-93% of the time" does not give you a clearer picture of how they perceive the worth, especially in this case. It is not possible to know if the number someone else has given based on their perception matches the perception that number gives you. It's a bit like silly existential questions like "is the red I see the same as the red you see", except in this case, we can pretty confidently say the answer is no more often than not.

We are the ones that give meaning to a percentage. Traditionally in science we like to see percentages as being objective. In the context of a forum bouncing off ideas, I don't think it's inherently wrong to interpret a percentage as being subjective and used for relative comparisons.

I don't understand how you can make a relative comparison between subjective values. GOON GARDEN says 93% and Kirian (representing consensus) says 97%. Relative comparison says that GOON GARDEN thinks KC should be skipped twice as often as the general consensus. Actual discussion and inspection of data shows that GOON GARDEN probably thinks KC should be skipped approximately the same amount of the time as general consensus. The numbers allowed us to make a relative comparison, but it was completely meaningless, and ultimately incorrect.

That said, I think it's fair to suggest to someone guessing at percentages to check out the stats provided by The Exprecissist's tool. New users probably won't know about that. I myself don't even remember where to find that tool.

Real stats are a great tool to generate discussion, and put things in perspective.  I don't necessarily think it would be appropriate to substitute a real statistic any time someone is compelled to make one up. In my opinion, the best thing to do when compelled to guess at a statistic would be to think critically about what you are really trying to communicate, and say something that has more meaning. I can accept that made up statistics feel like an effective form of communication, but I don't believe that they actually are.

[GOON GARDEN]

But the majority of this forum would prefer to mock and imitate me rather than educating me to improve my methods.

I am going to manually count all the replies in this thread, just to prove how wrong this statement is, along with your general assumption on the community. If you come in here and start off with "I know better than you" I can guarantee you that will no go over well. There is no "nice way" to say things like that, and if you wanted to discuss things don't start off combative.

Edit: I counted (Forgive the numbers not adding up exactly, some posts counted for more than one "type" of post.)

Goon Garden:
On Topic - 15
Off Topic - 22
Humorous - 0
Attacks - 5

Other Replies:
On Topic - 28
Off Topic - 86
Humorous - 20
Attacks - 0

If you go back and read the first two pages, you will notice that the majority are on topic, with a few jokes in there. It really got derailed when the forum members were accused of mocking/insulting/attacking Goon Garden, where there was no malice intended.

I never blamed anyone for the thread getting derailed. Actually you can find me saying multiple times that its my fault that the thread was derailed.

I knowingly derailed my own thread because I would prefer that over endless repetition of unfunny jokes that were far more unfriendly than they were funny.

But you wouldn`t note that, would you. Because you would rather ignore that so you have one more thing to scold me for.

I am willing to see my faults and I have admitted them in this thread.

But this forum has  been extremely nauseating so far.

I love roasting my friends and I love being roasted. It`s good fun if it is genuinely amusing and good-natured.

But no, I am wrong for disliking it, everything I do is wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

[GOON GARDEN]

Person A says "almost always" and Person B says "usually". It can turn out that Person B's perception of "usually" is higher than Person A's "almost always". Indeed, something like this seemed to happen in the thread until the " 90-93%" came into the picture.

Except none of these things actually help determine if peoples perceptions match in reality or not. It is possible that Person A's 90-93% is lower than Person B's 82% because they are being used in the same way as "usually" and "almost always".  You don't know where they actually stand until you look at real data, or spend time discussing the actual situation. So, we should be doing that instead of making up numbers.

Percentages don't have to be interpreted as needing to be accurate when it's more important that the percentage comparisons be used relatively. Someone saying "I think KC is unskippable 90-93% of the time" gives me a clearer picture of how they perceive the worth of KC than "I think KC is usually unskippable".

The problem is that if your percentages are not accurate, you can't even use them relatively, because they do not have a common basis. I would argue that saying that "KC is unskippable 90-93% of the time" does not give you a clearer picture of how they perceive the worth, especially in this case. It is not possible to know if the number someone else has given based on their perception matches the perception that number gives you. It's a bit like silly existential questions like "is the red I see the same as the red you see", except in this case, we can pretty confidently say the answer is no more often than not.

We are the ones that give meaning to a percentage. Traditionally in science we like to see percentages as being objective. In the context of a forum bouncing off ideas, I don't think it's inherently wrong to interpret a percentage as being subjective and used for relative comparisons.

I don't understand how you can make a relative comparison between subjective values. GOON GARDEN says 93% and Kirian (representing consensus) says 97%. Relative comparison says that GOON GARDEN thinks KC should be skipped twice as often as the general consensus. Actual discussion and inspection of data shows that GOON GARDEN probably thinks KC should be skipped approximately the same amount of the time as general consensus. The numbers allowed us to make a relative comparison, but it was completely meaningless, and ultimately incorrect.

That said, I think it's fair to suggest to someone guessing at percentages to check out the stats provided by The Exprecissist's tool. New users probably won't know about that. I myself don't even remember where to find that tool.

Real stats are a great tool to generate discussion, and put things in perspective.  I don't necessarily think it would be appropriate to substitute a real statistic any time someone is compelled to make one up. In my opinion, the best thing to do when compelled to guess at a statistic would be to think critically about what you are really trying to communicate, and say something that has more meaning. I can accept that made up statistics feel like an effective form of communication, but I don't believe that they actually are.

I made an estimation because I didn`t realize that this data was available to me.

Someone should have just told me I should look up the data myself, and shown me how.

And for gods sake, this whole post of yours is a waste of time. This is what it boils down to:

Look up the data, it`s more accurate than estimation. AGREED!

Your time would have been better spent teaching me how to find that data.

But instead you chose to lord it over me (the fact that accessing such data is more accurate than estimation) NO SHIT!

[LastFootnote]

But this forum has  been extremely nauseating so far.

Didn't you say you were done with this forum like 20 posts ago?

[GOON GARDEN]

This is the worst forum I have ever experienced. People picking apart every fucking thing I say.

My god, and I swear the more people pick apart every detail, the less judicious I am with my words and the way I express things.

Fuck off already

[Roadrunner7671]

Are we done talking about King's Court?

On a more [serious] note, I think F.DS was wrong here. We started out being bad and we're getting worse, but the more we try to make it better, the worse Goon Garden gets. So everyone is just getting worse until we'll spiral back into our barbaric ancestors.

[GOON GARDEN]

But this forum has  been extremely nauseating so far.

Didn't you say you were done with this forum like 20 posts ago?

I don`t think some of you realize that even though you have a point, the way you make it is absolutely obnoxious

I have never been berated by so many assholes in my life.

Someone please ban me since I am too stupid to voluntarily stop posting.

[Roadrunner7671]

This is the worst forum I have ever experienced. People picking apart every fucking thing I say.

My god, and I swear the more people pick apart every detail, the less judicious I am with my words and the way I express things.

Fuck off already

If you want things to get better...

And I think someone suggested a walk? Because a walk would be a good idea for a lot of us in this thread.

[eHalcyon]

I made an estimation because I didn`t realize that this data was available to me.

Someone should have just told me I should look up the data myself, and shown me how.

And for gods sake, this whole post of yours is a waste of time. This is what it boils down to:

Look up the data, it`s more accurate than estimation. AGREED!

Your time would have been better spent teaching me how to find that data.

But instead you chose to lord it over me (the fact that accessing such data is more accurate than estimation) NO SHIT!

He's not lording it over you.  He's just trying to explain his position, which seems to still be necessary since your summary isn't what he's saying at all; he actually says the opposite:

Real stats are a great tool to generate discussion, and put things in perspective.  I don't necessarily think it would be appropriate to substitute a real statistic any time someone is compelled to make one up. In my opinion, the best thing to do when compelled to guess at a statistic would be to think critically about what you are really trying to communicate, and say something that has more meaning. I can accept that made up statistics feel like an effective form of communication, but I don't believe that they actually are.

Deadlock is being extremely polite and patient, but you're reacting as if he is victimizing you - and this reply wasn't even directed at you.  The people in this forum aren't out to get you.  Disagreement isn't an insult.

[GOON GARDEN]

I made an estimation because I didn`t realize that this data was available to me.

Someone should have just told me I should look up the data myself, and shown me how.

And for gods sake, this whole post of yours is a waste of time. This is what it boils down to:

Look up the data, it`s more accurate than estimation. AGREED!

Your time would have been better spent teaching me how to find that data.

But instead you chose to lord it over me (the fact that accessing such data is more accurate than estimation) NO SHIT!

He's not lording it over you.  He's just trying to explain his position, which seems to still be necessary since your summary isn't what he's saying at all; he actually says the opposite:

Real stats are a great tool to generate discussion, and put things in perspective.  I don't necessarily think it would be appropriate to substitute a real statistic any time someone is compelled to make one up. In my opinion, the best thing to do when compelled to guess at a statistic would be to think critically about what you are really trying to communicate, and say something that has more meaning. I can accept that made up statistics feel like an effective form of communication, but I don't believe that they actually are.

Deadlock is being extremely polite and patient, but you're reacting as if he is victimizing you - and this reply wasn't even directed at you.  The people in this forum aren't out to get you.  Disagreement isn't an insult.

Why does it need to be explained? It's obvious that estimation sucks but I didn't realize that this data can be accessed. Explaining exhaustively why estimation sucks and how looking at actual data is superior is pointless and it is insulting to my intelligence. I'm fine with people disagreeing with me but some of you disagree in a way that is extremely alienating and irritating.

[eHalcyon]

Why does it need to be explained? It's obvious that estimation sucks but I didn't realize that this data can be accessed. Explaining exhaustively why estimation sucks and how looking at actual data is superior is pointless and it is insulting to my intelligence. I'm fine with people disagreeing with me but some of you disagree in a way that is extremely alienating and irritating.

Again, the point is not that "data is better than estimation".  It's that making up stats is not useful when you want to communicate an estimation.  He's explaining exhaustively because people are missing the point.

I don't know why you consider it insulting to your intelligence when his explanation was in response to a different forum member.

[SCSN]

This is the worst forum I have ever experienced.

F.DS is the worst forum on the internet, except for all the other forums.

[GOON GARDEN]

This is the worst forum I have ever experienced.

F.DS is the worst forum on the internet, except for all the other forums.

Was that supposed to be funny or witty?   

I won't go into which other forums I post on, but the community is way better and way more helpful on any other forum on which I have posted.

And if someone gets roasted, people are actually funny. I don't know where else parroting someone repeatedly is considered funny outside elementary schools and this forum.

Most forums would have someone say: Estimation is unreliable. You can look up your stats here: welcome to the forums.

THE END.