It serves a role of deterring future lies, or to remind people to at least double check their anecdotes before serving them up for everyone.
With some of these red posts, you’re going to get the whole package of all or nothing. I’ll take the “all” over the “nothing” any day, and even OP (in the case of a misunderstanding/human error) seems to appreciate being told everything is still okay.
Further, this discussion brought up a second point that John addressed when “exposing” OP: the extremely improbable RNG (on the magnitude of winning the lottery every day for about a month) that OP claimed.
While “things are working normally” was welcome news to all, “1.92 dust/ecto on 145 ecto” also served to end the pointless discussion about astronomical RNG by people who mostly did not realize how astronomical it was.
John’s response was completely appropriate. The OP made a claim that the company’s technology was malfunctioning based on the interpretation of some data. The response was that there is no malfunction, because the data being used was incorrect. Providing the real data was important in this case beyond the simple “working as intended” line, because the originally claimed data was so far outside expected values for a working as intended system.
An appropriate response was the first few posts, where he tests it and shares the result of the test.
Going further to point out the lie does not prove anything except that the OP lied. The information about how many they salvaged was entirely irrelevant in regards to proof that the system was working normally.
Although, to be entirely fair, we don’t really have any proof that what John Smith claimed about the OP is true either, although that’s another can of speculative worms that I’m not going to open.
John’s response was completely appropriate. The OP made a claim that the company’s technology was malfunctioning based on the interpretation of some data. The response was that there is no malfunction, because the data being used was incorrect. Providing the real data was important in this case beyond the simple “working as intended” line, because the originally claimed data was so far outside expected values for a working as intended system.
An appropriate response was the first few posts, where he tests it and shares the result of the test.
Going further to point out the lie does not prove anything except that the OP lied. The information about how many they salvaged was entirely irrelevant in regards to proof that the system was working normally.
Although, to be entirely fair, we don’t really have any proof that what John Smith claimed about the OP is true either, although that’s another can of speculative worms that I’m not going to open.
It stopped further (pointless) speculation about why OP got the numbers he did and how likely that was.
Not unprofessional. When someone presents false data in an attempt (intentional or not) to make your business look bad, point out that the data is false is completely professional. There is no code of decorum that suggests that you have to sit there and nod your head whenever false data is publicly presented about you.
Again, the only necessary information required was the results of his test to show that it’s working properly and normally.
Stating what the player did or didn’t do in their game serves literally no purpose other than to humiliate them. It doesn’t help prove that the ecto:dust ratio is unchanged.
That’s the difference.
If the data had been posted that it’s working properly and then the thread locked, the outcome as far as defense of the game goes would have been exactly the same. Instead, it’s just become a “Oh, and here’s the truth, now everybody make fun of the OP.”
Or maybe now people will think twice about posting large numbers to waste Mr. Smith’s time in trying to track down something that was never even remotely likely to have been an issue.
Letting people know that it wasn’t 2500 ectos salvaged stopped further speculation and math about why OP got the numbers he did. It was relevant to the thread as there were numerous posts about the numbers he claimed he got and whether that was likely or probable.
The 2,500 ectos is irrelevant. He could have said 3,000, 178, or 18. The problem was that his rate of dust was wrong. Maybe he was calculating wrong. Maybe he missed counted somewhere. John confirmed that the rate of ecto to dust hadn’t changed. That was all that was needed to resolve this issue.
John’s response was completely appropriate. The OP made a claim that the company’s technology was malfunctioning based on the interpretation of some data. The response was that there is no malfunction, because the data being used was incorrect. Providing the real data was important in this case beyond the simple “working as intended” line, because the originally claimed data was so far outside expected values for a working as intended system.
An appropriate response was the first few posts, where he tests it and shares the result of the test.
Going further to point out the lie does not prove anything except that the OP lied. The information about how many they salvaged was entirely irrelevant in regards to proof that the system was working normally.
Although, to be entirely fair, we don’t really have any proof that what John Smith claimed about the OP is true either, although that’s another can of speculative worms that I’m not going to open.
It stopped further (pointless) speculation about why OP got the numbers he did and how likely that was.
So would have locking the thread after the official answer that everything was unchanged.
So would a simple addendum of “Remember, kids: Random numbers are random.”
So why was it necessary?
John’s response was completely appropriate. The OP made a claim that the company’s technology was malfunctioning based on the interpretation of some data. The response was that there is no malfunction, because the data being used was incorrect. Providing the real data was important in this case beyond the simple “working as intended” line, because the originally claimed data was so far outside expected values for a working as intended system.
An appropriate response was the first few posts, where he tests it and shares the result of the test.
Going further to point out the lie does not prove anything except that the OP lied. The information about how many they salvaged was entirely irrelevant in regards to proof that the system was working normally.
Although, to be entirely fair, we don’t really have any proof that what John Smith claimed about the OP is true either, although that’s another can of speculative worms that I’m not going to open.
It stopped further (pointless) speculation about why OP got the numbers he did and how likely that was.
So would have locking the thread after the official answer that everything was unchanged.
So would a simple addendum of “Remember, kids: Random numbers are random.”
So why was it necessary?
Because it sets the precedent of “If I lie about how many things I’ve done, I can make John Smith dance!” and John Smith dances only for Captain Jack.
John’s response was completely appropriate. The OP made a claim that the company’s technology was malfunctioning based on the interpretation of some data. The response was that there is no malfunction, because the data being used was incorrect. Providing the real data was important in this case beyond the simple “working as intended” line, because the originally claimed data was so far outside expected values for a working as intended system.
An appropriate response was the first few posts, where he tests it and shares the result of the test.
Going further to point out the lie does not prove anything except that the OP lied. The information about how many they salvaged was entirely irrelevant in regards to proof that the system was working normally.
Although, to be entirely fair, we don’t really have any proof that what John Smith claimed about the OP is true either, although that’s another can of speculative worms that I’m not going to open.
And letting the masses know the OP lied is important. It lets us readers know that we shouldn’t just trust anything the OP says unless they can back it up.
And it lets others who may think to lie about something to get something looked into or corrected, a word of warning. Lie and get caught when the numbers are checked, you will be called out on it.
Lying shouldn’t go unpunished. And when a lie is this big in magnitude (2500 is MUCH larger than 145 or even 250), the public deserves to know. It wasn’t like it was 2145 ectos instead of 2500.
John’s response was completely appropriate. The OP made a claim that the company’s technology was malfunctioning based on the interpretation of some data. The response was that there is no malfunction, because the data being used was incorrect. Providing the real data was important in this case beyond the simple “working as intended” line, because the originally claimed data was so far outside expected values for a working as intended system.
An appropriate response was the first few posts, where he tests it and shares the result of the test.
Going further to point out the lie does not prove anything except that the OP lied. The information about how many they salvaged was entirely irrelevant in regards to proof that the system was working normally.
Although, to be entirely fair, we don’t really have any proof that what John Smith claimed about the OP is true either, although that’s another can of speculative worms that I’m not going to open.
It stopped further (pointless) speculation about why OP got the numbers he did and how likely that was.
So would have locking the thread after the official answer that everything was unchanged.
So would a simple addendum of “Remember, kids: Random numbers are random.”
So why was it necessary?
Because it sets the precedent of “If I lie about how many things I’ve done, I can make John Smith dance!” and John Smith dances only for Captain Jack.
Nothing has changed in this regard.
Letting people know that it wasn’t 2500 ectos salvaged stopped further speculation and math about why OP got the numbers he did. It was relevant to the thread as there were numerous posts about the numbers he claimed he got and whether that was likely or probable.
The 2,500 ectos is irrelevant. He could have said 3,000, 178, or 18. The problem was that his rate of dust was wrong. Maybe he was calculating wrong. Maybe he missed counted somewhere. John confirmed that the rate of ecto to dust hadn’t changed. That was all that was needed to resolve this issue.
And maybe Mr. Smith didn’t appreciate someone not telling the whole story and making him take time off from his other work to check an issue based on a falsehood (and it became a falsehood when OP allowed others to do math based on the 2500 ectos salvaged figures). And it was still relevant to say how many were actually salvaged as it stopped further speculation, even in people’s own minds, about the chances involved.
If he hadn’t corrected that number, people would be quoting OP to show you can salvage 2500 ectos and get the dust he claimed.
(edited by Astral Projections.7320)
John’s response was completely appropriate. The OP made a claim that the company’s technology was malfunctioning based on the interpretation of some data. The response was that there is no malfunction, because the data being used was incorrect. Providing the real data was important in this case beyond the simple “working as intended” line, because the originally claimed data was so far outside expected values for a working as intended system.
An appropriate response was the first few posts, where he tests it and shares the result of the test.
Going further to point out the lie does not prove anything except that the OP lied. The information about how many they salvaged was entirely irrelevant in regards to proof that the system was working normally.
Although, to be entirely fair, we don’t really have any proof that what John Smith claimed about the OP is true either, although that’s another can of speculative worms that I’m not going to open.
And letting the masses know the OP lied is important. It lets us readers know that we shouldn’t just trust anything the OP says unless they can back it up.
And it lets others who may think to lie about something to get something looked into or corrected, a word of warning. Lie and get caught when the numbers are checked, you will be called out on it.
Lying shouldn’t go unpunished. And when a lie is this big in magnitude (2500 is MUCH larger than 145 or even 250), the public deserves to know. It wasn’t like it was 2145 ectos instead of 2500.
So let’s stretch that out.
Harassing somebody shouldn’t go unpunished. If someone gets banned for harassment, does the public not deserve to know? Or, at the very least, the person who was being harassed deserve to know that the person was punished? Why can we not be informed in private that someone we reported for harassing us has been punished, yet public embarrassment is okay?
Also, how many times do you foresee having to deal with the OP ever again? Does your knowledge that they lied actually have any discernible impact on the rest of your life?
And how come harass has one R and embarrass has two? Stupid English.
You just had a run of bad luck.
If bad luck can be defined as getting caught in a lie.
I’m talking about his reality here. The reality was he had a bad run of luck. I already commented on the lying (not outright lying, just a lie of omission).
Bad luck?
279 / 145 = 1.924 dust per ecto
Average is around 1.79 dust per ecto
Sounds like a run of good luck to me. But he thought he had salvaged an entire 250 for some reason (maybe he didn’t get as many from the TP as he thought). If he had, that would be 279 / 250 = 1.116 dust per ecto, so he came here, exaggerated how few dust he got, and then lied about his sample size by tenfold so people would listen. I guess he didn’t realize that the devs can look at the real numbers.
(edited by EnemyCrusher.7324)
Because by making an example of him it discourages others from exaggerating their data since they didn’t realize he could dive into a players personal data and extract the numbers involved. Sure clicking 150+ times could feel like 2500 and it may have been player error but it could also have been an attempt to run up the price since it’s fallen noticeably since LS2 started up again and someone got stuck with a pile of dust.
You can only dispel falsehood by shinning the light of truth on it.
(edited by Behellagh.1468)
Was it even a lie-lie or was it a “lie of omission”?
Either way, laying it out there like that with no fanfare and no accusation and just “you salvaged X ecto for Y dust” wasn’t unprofessional. It was the only professional way to handle answering that and making sure to let it be known you were thorough.
It’s like it’s not “unprofessional” to call for a manager to check your drawer when someone says they gave you $20 when they handed you a $10 and either weren’t paying attention or trying to scam you. If they feel embarrassed about the facts coming to light (you handed me a $10 instead of a $20 and my drawer reflects that) that’s their problem.
Unprofessional is adding: “Now get out of here before I taunt you a second time” as they storm out of the store.
Letting people know that it wasn’t 2500 ectos salvaged stopped further speculation and math about why OP got the numbers he did. It was relevant to the thread as there were numerous posts about the numbers he claimed he got and whether that was likely or probable.
The 2,500 ectos is irrelevant. He could have said 3,000, 178, or 18. The problem was that his rate of dust was wrong. Maybe he was calculating wrong. Maybe he missed counted somewhere. John confirmed that the rate of ecto to dust hadn’t changed. That was all that was needed to resolve this issue.
And maybe Mr. Smith didn’t appreciate someone not telling the whole story and making him take time off from his other work to check an issue based on a falsehood (and it became a falsehood when OP allowed others to do math based on the 2500 ectos salvaged figures,
Again, the 2,500 ectos is irrelevant. If the OP said they salvaged 2,500 ectos and got a rate similar to what John would expect then there would be no issue. The problem, again, was that the rate was wrong. We don’t know why it is wrong.
Additionally, the OP never said he salvaged all 2,500 ectos. It’s reasonable to believe that he salvaged a stack (or more accurately less than one), calculated the rate (incorrectly) and worried that he just wasted gold and time on acquiring so many ectos when the rate appeared to be so poor. This hardly merits the amount of personal attacks being levied against the OP.
I remember when they nerfed the ecto droprate from salvaging rares. I remember it as ‘’on the 20th’’ but I can’t remember how many months ago. I used to ALWAYS get 2-3 ectos before that. Then I salvaged 25 rares and got 0 ectos. I’ve been selling rares ever since. Never salvage.
I hate to burst your bubble, but none of that is true. Ecto salvage rates were only nerfed once, by accident, for about 3 days before they were reverted. They’re currently at the same rates as they were at launch.
Was it even a lie-lie or was it a “lie of omission”?
Either way, laying it out there like that with no fanfare and no accusation and just “you salvaged X ecto for Y dust” wasn’t unprofessional. It was the only professional way to handle answering that and making sure to let it be known you were thorough.
It’s like it’s not “unprofessional” to call for a manager to check your drawer when someone says they gave you $20 when they handed you a $10 and either weren’t paying attention or trying to scam you. If they feel embarrassed about the facts coming to light (you handed me a $10 instead of a $20 and my drawer reflects that) that’s their problem.
Unprofessional is adding: “Now get out of here before I taunt you a second time” as they storm out of the store.
Except let’s improve upon your analogy.
Because you gloss over the fact that the correction was made publicly.
So let’s add to your analogy that after the truth comes to light, that the person (whether intentionally or by accident) gave a $10 instead of a $20, the employee in the situation then proceeds to yell at the top of their lungs “See? You only gave me a $10 bill instead of the $20 you claimed.”
Now do you see the difference? It’s involving people who didn’t need to be involved. Could the OP have not been PMed that the data had actually been checked and it was found that only X number of ectos were salvaged, not the claimed Y?
Let’s also point out that no matter what the OP says in their defence, whether true or not, most people aren’t going to believe them. They’re going to believe what the almighty red poster said, even if there’s the potential that he lied or made a mistake himself, intentionally or not.
Edit: I’ll point out that the OP defended themself by saying that they are sure they salvaged a full stack, and didn’t salvage the rest of the 2,500. They never said they salvaged 2,500. In actual fairness to the OP, it’s entirely plausible that they tried to buy 2,500 but the TP didn’t allow it (I’ve had it happen more than once that I set a figure to buy a huge amount of something but it doesn’t buy all of them), or that they accidentally did something that cut down a stack and they legitimately thought they were salvaging a full stack.
But people would rather default to “Hey, this guy’s a phony. A great big phony.”
So again, given the actually decent possibility that the OP made an honest mistake, is the humiliation still warranted?
(edited by Filaha.1678)
OK, not sure where you got 145, because I am sure I definitely salvaged a whole stack (250) and got c. 270 dust, then I did a few more with a standard kit and got a low yield (1.2x, but not large enough sample size). I stopped at that point and didn’t do the rest of the 2500, but I did do another stack (250) now and got a normal result. Not sure what is going on, but problem is fixed.
Experience also looks normal again, almost 26K
Thanks for caring
lol
and yet you let an entire thread march on using the 2500 number. That’s pretty much intentionally misleading
I really don’t agree with blaming other people for someone’s own poor choices and assumptions. If it was unclear how many ectos he salvaged, it could be easily resolved by asking a question or two.
thread is diamonds
thanks for the laughs john
OK, not sure where you got 145, because I am sure I definitely salvaged a whole stack (250) and got c. 270 dust, then I did a few more with a standard kit and got a low yield (1.2x, but not large enough sample size). I stopped at that point and didn’t do the rest of the 2500, but I did do another stack (250) now and got a normal result. Not sure what is going on, but problem is fixed.
Experience also looks normal again, almost 26K
Thanks for caring
lol
and yet you let an entire thread march on using the 2500 number. That’s pretty much intentionally misleading
I really don’t agree with blaming other people for someone’s own poor choices and assumptions. If it was unclear how many ectos he salvaged, it could be easily resolved by asking a question or two.
Or once he saw people doing math on 2500 salvaged he could have stepped in and said, My bad. I only salvaged this one stack (or however many he actually salvaged). But no, he let people do math and debate on a number he posted on his original post.
Going further to point out the lie does not prove anything except that the OP lied. The information about how many they salvaged was entirely irrelevant in regards to proof that the system was working normally.
In the context this is important, however.
This is a MMO forum, not a professional business level software sold to businesses.
MMO players are notoriously unreliable as a source of information. While a public name&shame isn’t exactly something you want to do, in the context of MMO forums it can serve as a warning that you can very much embarrass yourself if you try to impress others by falsifying information.
Was it even a lie-lie or was it a “lie of omission”?
Either way, laying it out there like that with no fanfare and no accusation and just “you salvaged X ecto for Y dust” wasn’t unprofessional. It was the only professional way to handle answering that and making sure to let it be known you were thorough.
It also adds an important piece of information in that actually, the OP got more than the statistical average of ectos, not significantly less like he/she said.
I’m absolutely delighted that the dev showed the OP the error in lying. I don’t think it was wrong at all. The biggest problem with behavior on the internet is that there is typically no consequence whatsoever. Simple lesson, if you’re going to lie or whatever, you have no reason to cry foul when someone exposes your lie.
OK, not sure where you got 145, because I am sure I definitely salvaged a whole stack (250) and got c. 270 dust, then I did a few more with a standard kit and got a low yield (1.2x, but not large enough sample size). I stopped at that point and didn’t do the rest of the 2500, but I did do another stack (250) now and got a normal result. Not sure what is going on, but problem is fixed.
Experience also looks normal again, almost 26K
Thanks for caring
lol
and yet you let an entire thread march on using the 2500 number. That’s pretty much intentionally misleading
I really don’t agree with blaming other people for someone’s own poor choices and assumptions. If it was unclear how many ectos he salvaged, it could be easily resolved by asking a question or two.
Or once he saw people doing math on 2500 salvaged he could have stepped in and said, My bad. I only salvaged this one stack (or however many he actually salvaged). But no, he let people do math and debate on a number he posted on his original post.
I didn’t really see him engage with anyone but John and those who accused him of lying without evidence. Again, you can’t blame him for other people’s poor assumptions. Accusing him of lying is going too far.
Except let’s improve upon your analogy.
Because you gloss over the fact that the correction was made publicly.
Because if the accusation is made publicly, the correction should be too. It shouldn’t be private unless the customer left the store. If they start loudly, repeatedly declaring I had made a mistake on the register, and it needed to be fixed, then it’s entirely within reason . . . and professional conduct . . . to ensure it is publicly seen not to be the case.
How do you not grasp that?
Now do you see the difference? It’s involving people who didn’t need to be involved. Could the OP have not been PMed that the data had actually been checked and it was found that only X number of ectos were salvaged, not the claimed Y?
Yes.
Could he have emailed it instead of posting it on the forums and making several posts of an accusatory tone? Yes.
It swings both ways.
But people would rather default to “Hey, this guy’s a phony. A great big phony.”
So again, given the actually decent possibility that the OP made an honest mistake, is the humiliation still warranted?
Not from other players which is where all the humiliation is coming from. John Smith left facts and let them speak. He did not editorialize. He did not add comment. He left them there and left the topic shortly after.
It also adds an important piece of information in that actually, the OP got more than the statistical average of ectos, not significantly less like he/she said.
That’s irrelevant since the discussion turned to “did JS shame the OP intentionally and with unprofessional bearing”.
And I say no. I’d have behaved in the same fashion at my job if someone did the same. (And have. Several times, since I work retail registers a fair bit.) There’s been people who were wrong, people who were caught scamming, and people who seriously thought I was incompetent and could be pushed into compliance because I look the way I do. All of them handled the same way. “I need a manager to register 6.” And say nothing until they arrive, count the drawer, and either I’m over $10 or I’m not.
Nothing more than that, no need to open my mouth and go “see, I told you”. The most I’ve ever done is sigh with relief and go “okay, not crazy then”.
Was it even a lie-lie or was it a “lie of omission”?
Either way, laying it out there like that with no fanfare and no accusation and just “you salvaged X ecto for Y dust” wasn’t unprofessional. It was the only professional way to handle answering that and making sure to let it be known you were thorough.
It’s like it’s not “unprofessional” to call for a manager to check your drawer when someone says they gave you $20 when they handed you a $10 and either weren’t paying attention or trying to scam you. If they feel embarrassed about the facts coming to light (you handed me a $10 instead of a $20 and my drawer reflects that) that’s their problem.
Unprofessional is adding: “Now get out of here before I taunt you a second time” as they storm out of the store.
Except let’s improve upon your analogy.
Because you gloss over the fact that the correction was made publicly.
So let’s add to your analogy that after the truth comes to light, that the person (whether intentionally or by accident) gave a $10 instead of a $20, the employee in the situation then proceeds to yell at the top of their lungs “See? You only gave me a $10 bill instead of the $20 you claimed.”
Now do you see the difference? It’s involving people who didn’t need to be involved. Could the OP have not been PMed that the data had actually been checked and it was found that only X number of ectos were salvaged, not the claimed Y?
Let’s also point out that no matter what the OP says in their defence, whether true or not, most people aren’t going to believe them. They’re going to believe what the almighty red poster said, even if there’s the potential that he lied or made a mistake himself, intentionally or not.
Edit: I’ll point out that the OP defended themself by saying that they are sure they salvaged a full stack, and didn’t salvage the rest of the 2,500. They never said they salvaged 2,500. In actual fairness to the OP, it’s entirely plausible that they tried to buy 2,500 but the TP didn’t allow it (I’ve had it happen more than once that I set a figure to buy a huge amount of something but it doesn’t buy all of them), or that they accidentally did something that cut down a stack and they legitimately thought they were salvaging a full stack.
But people would rather default to “Hey, this guy’s a phony. A great big phony.”
So again, given the actually decent possibility that the OP made an honest mistake, is the humiliation still warranted?
Analogy isn’t completely true.
This is the better analogy:
Customer 1 posted on the company’s FB that they allow their employees to short change their customers. Manager A investigates this claim and discovers that Customer 1 was lying about their story. Manager A then goes on FB and sets the record straight. That they don’t allow it and that it never happened in the time frame that Customer 1 said he was short changed in.
The OP made the matter public when he posted on the forums and not submitting a ticket in game or through Support. The public deserves to know when they are being lied to whether by customers or employees.
And a lie of omission is still a lie. He ONLY corrected the implication he salvaged 2500 ectos AFTER John Smith posted how many he had actually salvaged.
(edited by Seera.5916)
Because if the accusation is made publicly, the correction should be too. It shouldn’t be private unless the customer left the store. If they start loudly, repeatedly declaring I had made a mistake on the register, and it needed to be fixed, then it’s entirely within reason . . . and professional conduct . . . to ensure it is publicly seen not to be the case.
How do you not grasp that?
Lowering oneself to someone else’s level is not professional.
If you can prove that the mistake was all the person’s fault, there’s no need to involve people who aren’t that person.
You seem to be not grasping the importance of necessity.
Could he have emailed it instead of posting it on the forums and making several posts of an accusatory tone? Yes.
It swings both ways.
Depends on if he believed he’d get any responses from email.
Also, by posting it in the forum, he can get other public opinion and see if it’s something common to everybody else.
This still doesn’t necessitate public humiliation.
Not from other players which is where all the humiliation is coming from. John Smith left facts and let them speak. He did not editorialize. He did not add comment. He left them there and left the topic shortly after.
Facts which didn’t need to be added, and, to be honest, he would have to be very naive if he couldn’t foresee that leaving the fact there was 100% going to make the thread devolve into insults.
Providing a can of gasoline for a fire but not being the one to pour it on does not remove culpability for the resulting inferno.
I don’t think we all agree it’s even “public humiliation”.
John Smith simply saying “we investigated ourselves and found no evidence of wrongdoing” does not appease everyone (just ask the cops), particularly the ones who have already bought into OP’s biased anecdote, or ones with conspiracy tinfoil hat theories about account luck and whatnot.
Giving something with actual impact (“I even went back to review OP’s personal claim, here’s what really happened”) greatly increases the credibility of the rest of John’s words. It’s why he has so much credibility on these forums despite what some may call unprofessional.
Again, the 2,500 ectos is irrelevant. If the OP said they salvaged 2,500 ectos and got a rate similar to what John would expect then there would be no issue. The problem, again, was that the rate was wrong. We don’t know why it is wrong.
Additionally, the OP never said he salvaged all 2,500 ectos. It’s reasonable to believe that he salvaged a stack (or more accurately less than one), calculated the rate (incorrectly) and worried that he just wasted gold and time on acquiring so many ectos when the rate appeared to be so poor. This hardly merits the amount of personal attacks being levied against the OP.
The amount of ectos the OP salvaged IS important. Continuing to disregard that and state that it isnt important serves nothing but allowing you to continue posting your argument, which again, amounts to trying to instigate a public lynching of JS. If you’d care to read JS’s posts in the beginning of the thread, hold on, I’ll quote it for you:
2500 salvages is nowhere near enough salvages to be certain about anything, but it is enough to make me query the datasets for enough salvages to be sure (say 100,000,000 or so)
There we go. If you’d read that, you’d realize that the OP’s claim of salvaging 2500 ectos IS important in the fact that it was of sufficient size that JS thought it warranted looking into. If the OP had salvaged only 10 of them, or even fewer, we’d have all laughed at them and said “salvage more so you have a legitimate concern.” If the OP had been truthful about anything in his post, JS would not have spent the time looking into it. Instead, the OP lied, JS spent unnecessary time looking at numbers, and consequently, JS stated not only was it Working as Intended, but the OP salvaged fewer than he implied, and got a BETTER result than implied. Basically an all around lie on the part of the OP.
The only people that care about the perception of it being “publicly humiliating” are you and filiha.
And yea, we can blame the OP for incorrect assumptions on the part of others. They stood back and neglected to correct the assumptions of others. At that point it stops being a lie of omission, and simply malicious neglect. He chose to not step in and correct the assumptions because it served his purpose.
Frankly, the thread can be closed with the following two quotes:
I checked the numbers and everything is normal. There is less than a .01 standard deviation since the beginning of the year in day over day ratio of ecto to dust.
As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.
If someone provides false evidence and someone corrects it, then there are TWO possible outcomes:
1. The evidence was not known to be false, or was incorrectly believed to be true – The presenter of the evidence may be a bit embarrassed, but certainly not humiliated. “Oops, sorry” and move on.
2. The evidence was known to be false and presented intentionally – The presenter deserves no respect from anyone, should be humiliated, and, in my opinion, have their forum access rescinded.
John Smith can’t humiliate someone for an honest mistake. The truth is ALWAYS humiliating to a liar though, so if the OP feels humiliated, then that speaks to his intentions.
If someone provides false evidence and someone corrects it, then there are TWO possible outcomes:
1. The evidence was not known to be false, or was incorrectly believed to be true – The presenter of the evidence may be a bit embarrassed, but certainly not humiliated. “Oops, sorry” and move on.
2. The evidence was known to be false and presented intentionally – The presenter deserves no respect from anyone, should be humiliated, and, in my opinion, have their forum access rescinded.
John Smith can’t humiliate someone for an honest mistake. The truth is ALWAYS humiliating to a liar though, so if the OP feels humiliated, then that speaks to his intentions.
Actually, it’s really easy for someone in power to humiliate someone for an honest mistake.
By not confirming it’s an honest mistake.
Most people clearly don’t care or want to even entertain the idea that it may have been an honest mistake, instead choosing to mock the OP and call them a liar. Nobody who’s calling the OP a liar is going to listen to their side of the story because the almighty red poster has spoken and didn’t suggest it that it could have been an honest mistake.
The truth can be humiliating to someone who wasn’t intentionally lying when people choose to ignore the full truth and only focus on mocking the person for the bit they know.
Not affiliated with ArenaNet or NCSOFT. No support is provided.
All assets, page layout, visual style belong to ArenaNet and are used solely to replicate the original design and preserve the original look and feel.
Contact /u/e-scrape-artist on reddit if you encounter a bug.