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

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.

I know for a fact from doing /who on every class and subclass that the threshold for "Heavy" is well over 2400 players. 3000 players over 123 servers is nearly 370,000 concurrent players.

I don't care whether or not he's correct. If I cared, then I would absolutely go through all the steps of disproving what he is saying. My main concern was that he simply provide evidence of his claim. His methodology of his research is irrelevant, especially in this case because I simply do not care enough to bother with using /who to guess how many people are playing.

If you bothered to check back with my previous posts then you would realize that I could simply post opposing results to refute his claim. In fact, I'll just do it again to show you.



I know for a fact from doing /who on every class and subclass that the threshold for "Heavy" is approximately 300 players. 300 players over 123 servers is nearly 36,900 concurrent players.

Now what? The next step is... OH MY GOSH! Providing evidence of our claims. Why should I be bothered to do the legwork when he has already done so? Where is his evidence to show for this? Once again, he is making the assertion. He needs to provide the evidence, not the method.

What evidence is better than telling you how to disprove him yourself (which he did)? If he posts a screenshot, will you concede? I mean, providing his methodology is better evidence than anything else he could possibly provide. It is the absolute best evidence he could possibly provide.

You're asking him to provide evidence that is LESS than the evidence he actually provided. A screenshot is less proof than telling you exactly how you can replicate the experiment.

I just don't understand why you're demanding he provide less than what he provided. I ask again, if he (or one of us) provides you with a screen shot, will you concede that his theory is true?

It will require multiple screenshots and more. It's likely unprovable, which was my point from the very beginning. He made an assertion. I asked for evidence.

You really need to get over this whole thing about providing his methodology. It really doesn't matter. I did the research and ended up with entirely different results. Now what? Are you going to ask me for proof? Haha.

So....1.7 million subscribers / 124 servers = almost 14.000 people playing on each server on average.


yeah...right.

"I don't care whether or not he's correct. If I cared, then I would absolutely go through all the steps of disproving what he is saying."

Did you change your mind.

And I don't have anything to "get over." I was simply clarifying an incorrect assertion. You said that he didn't provide evidence for his claim. He did, in fact, provide the best, most accepted evidence there is. I was just clarifying that the "evidence" you were asking for was actually less than the evidence he provided.

And if you really did check it, the only proof I'd ask for was your exact methodology. I could then replicate it myself (if I cared) and verify your claim.

Also, if you don't care whether or not he's correct, why are you arguing against him?