NOW = 1.7 Million Active Subscribers | 3 Months from now = Guess What

Blizzard have never released numbers on the amount of multiple account holders that they have registered. I suspect the reason they haven't is because it contributes a good 20-30% to their subscriber numbers.

Dunno, but with people saying there are "dead" servers, and not seeing them currently adding servers, I'd say they better do some serious work if they want sub rates to go up.

From the fanboiz themselves they admit that heavy,standard and full mean nothing.

They say they increased some servers but not others so to me that means that some servers would be working on the original numbers of being full and some would be working on the new ones. I ever read somewhere (not an official statement I dont think) that they actually increased the servers two times. It was probable a fanboi thinking he would add his 2 cents in to make the game seem better but that would mean that there are actually 3 numbers for standard and 3 numbers for full and 3 numbers for heavy.

But all the fanboiz will think that all those numbers mean the largest number.

Even if they did say get rid of 1/2 the servers. Some idiot will come in and say they increased the servers again by 500% so having 1 heavy server was like having 20 at launch.

Wait... on second thought, hey honey you want to take the kids out to a money.

You can increase most servers capacity by adding more/better hardware.
You can improve most software by optimizing the code for whatever you need most (speed, memory consumption, reliability)

You're claim is missing something - you don't tell me how you got there. How did you count the 4.7 Million drivers?

Let's pretend for a moment we're in the same room. I tell you: "I've got 10 € in this bag"
You say: "I don't believe you". I say: "Okay, then open my bag and check".
What would you do:
a) Say: "No, I don't need to check. You need to provide the evidence."
b) Open my bag and count the money.

Of course, I could open up the bag myself and count in front of your eyes. But then you could say:
"No, you cheated. You had some money palmed before so it would match. Some of the money may even be fake".

Hardly comparable. His method of checking the server population and concurrent number of players is ridiculously inaccurate. I could tell you that I counted the number of cars on the road myself, then calculated the number of people per square mile locally before proportionally matching that number to the rest of the United States. There's my methodology. Refute my claim.

Your example contains a physical item that I can check. His statistics were merely summoned on a whim without so much as a screenshot. If I were to claim that many drivers were on the road at that exact time, then I would most certainly provide mathematical calculations as evidence at the very least.

You claim to have 10 euros. You have 10 euros as evidence. You no longer have the burden of proof. The original post that I replied to had NO EVIDENCE to back up his claim. He still retains the burden of proof.

3.1 million as many more migrate from WoW due to lackluster content quality and quantity from Blizzard

Okay, first off, he met the burden of proof. He made the statement and told you how you can check to verify his claim. ANY other "proof" he could provide would immediately be discarded. Screenshots? Photoshop. What else could he possibly provide that would meet the burden of proof than to tell you exactly how you can check his results? What would be better? He's not just saying, "This is what I've done and here's the screen shot." He's saying, "This is my conclusion, and here's how you can conclusively 100% verify this for yourself."

That's how it's done with every new scientific theory on the planet. Telling others how to replicate your work is the only true way to truly offer up 100% proof of what you're claiming.

Secondly, when you use phrases like "debate 101" it makes it look like you're not interested in reality at all; it makes it look like you're only interested in winning the debate. His statement wasn't a counter-point in a freshmen debate class. It was a theory based on his own personal experiments. With that, he did exactly what is 100% expected when giving a theory: he provided his methodology so you can see - for yourself - that what he's saying is correct. That is the most universal requirement of anybody that ever gives a theory.

The fact that you refuse to verify it and instead demand that he gives proof that would be less than the proof he gave, strongly suggests you aren't interested in the truth as much as you're interested in winning. If you truly wanted to know if he's right, you'd replicate what he did and come back with your exact methodology and conclusion. If we doubted the truth of what you're saying, we could verify it ourselves.

Really, what possible proof could he provide that would be more certain than telling you exactly how you can replicate it yourself?

Edit: For the record, I don't really care about this particular corner of the debate. I just wanted to clarify that making a claim, then providing methodology so others can check it without any danger of worrying about fabricated results is, in fact, the highest proof a person can offer.

Well, what I got out of his post were the thresholds for server population categorization. The numbers that followed, (going from 2,400 for below the "Heavy" threshold to 3,000 per server) seemed to be mostly speculation to me as well. But on the other hand, knowing the actual thresholds and making observations about server population classification over time should give us some ballpark figures.