I'm moving this line of conversation, because I hate when nesting fails. It bothers me.
{quoted}
What are you trying to do then? From your very first post all you were doing is trolling. You aren't helping progress the conversation you're just antagonizing me.
You asked a question: "What do my personal chat logs have to do with a hypothetical situation meant to point out the flaws in the reporting system?"
I provided a possible answer to that question. Since then, all I've done is defend my statements and myself, while you've insulted me.
You said if I don't provide a chat log that proves that somebody was wrongfully warned or restricted that my hypothesis has no basis.
That's explicitly not what I said at all. At no point did I say that.
I did, however, say that it's not unreasonable for a person to assume that chat logs showing wrongful restrictions might be the basis for your hypothesis. I also said there might also be a different basis. Either way, if your audience is seeking to validate your hypothesis, that's a good thing.
So however you want to boil it down, that's the first thing you posted on this thread. You can refer to it as hypothetical and say that it has no hypothetical basis all day, but that doesn't really make sense.
The first thing I posted on this thread? Let's look over that, paragraph by paragraph:
"One would presume that your hypothetical is based on some kind of information. One might then recognize the most likely form for that information to take would be a chat restriction - either your own or someone else's - that is believed to be false."
Here, I posit an assumption, and indicate how that assumption could logically lead someone to believing that your hypothesis is based on someone's presumably-invalid chat logs.
"Establishing the validity of that chat restriction would then either a) remove the basis for the hypothesis, or b) support the basis for the hypothesis."
Here, I note the importance of validating hypotheses. As I pointed out earlier, merely accepting every hypothesis that's presented to you without objectively verifiable evidence has a lot of silly potential.
"Of course, if this concept was created whole cloth, with no basis other than your own pre-conceived notions, that's an entirely different story."
Here, I indicate that, for any situation in which the assumptions in my first paragraph are false negates the rest of that post. The language is pretty clear, I think. I'm not sure why you're so keen to interpret everything in the worst conceivable light.
The point is you threw away my original post as invalid immediately by backing up an insulting comment with your 'clarification' that was clearly not needed by anybody.
It seems to me that a person asking a question may well need clarification. If that's not the case, I kindly invite you to indicate to me how one should be expected to recognize that based solely on the question itself.
You continue to defend Slumberjack which leads me to the conclusion that you just wanted to butt in to support the riot employee and berate the other guy by acting high and mighty. You can construe this as an insult.
I'm not defending Slumberjack. I'm merely pointing out my interpretation of his statement. Because that's my opinion. Are you saying that any opinion other than yours is an insult to you?
Warnings aren't meaningless, it's a way to tell you that you've been reported a lot, and if you've been reported a lot you're more likely to be punished. How is that meaningless?
Warnings are not an indicator of how likely you are to be punished. Players who receive warnings are not necessarily more likely to be punished. Moreover, warnings are not connected to the Instant Feedback system (this would be the system that actually handles case review and punishment).
Since your hypothesis is that the Instant Feedback system is flawed, and warnings have exactly zero connection to that system, they cannot be considered to be meaningful in relation to your hypothesis.
