[Spectral Knight]

Originally Posted by Menchi

I want more than anecdotal evidence - because my own anecdotal evidence pretty much contradicts what he's claiming... Until someone can produce some hard evidence, these anecdotal tales serve no purpose other than to support some odd crusade to spread misinformation about the fourth edition.

So your anecdotal evidence is better than his anecdotal evidence? I knew you had an ego problem, Keggy, but I never knew until now just how bad it was.

No such crusade exists. And you're not a hero holding back the screaming hordes of detractors.

Originally Posted by Menchi

Because I have only seen one or two posts that have legitimate commentary about 4th ed and a vast number of wishful thinkers who seem to feel that if they do a tinkerbell (i.e. I don't believe fourth edition is popular) approach, then they will inevitably be proven correct.

More of your 'superior' anecdotal evidence, I guess?

A negative opinion is hardly 'spreading misinformation about the Fourth Edition'.

Originally Posted by Menchi

Fact of the matter is, the only solid evidence that has been produced - Mike Mearls pointing out that 4th ed went into second printing the day before release because the initial run had sold out and consisted of more copies than 3rd ed and 3.5 ed's initial print runs - suggests that more people are enjoying the game than such anecdotal tales claim.

No, it means that more people are buying the game. Whether or not they are enjoying it isn't supported by either your data or your anecdotal evidence. Some people do hang on to items they don't like if they buy them, figuring that it was just 'their mistake'. And some sell them on Ebay, and some take them back. Not finding people doing so doesn't mean there aren't any.

Originally Posted by Menchi

Now there is a possibility that you are right - but until some solid evidence comes to hand, this friend of a friend and the word of a man who does not have any access to sales information other than rumours and hearsay from local gamers in his area ... it just doesn't hold any weight at all.

They hold roughly the same weight as your own anecdotal evidence. Which ain't much.

Originally Posted by Menchi

Except, that already this has been invalidated by the release of the Dragon article for Illusionist Hero tier wizards - providing a whole new Wizard build.

So again, may be a reasonable point - but you fail to prove it and fail to address the fact that it is not binding.

As the reviewer is reviewing the D&D4 game as written, and not D&D Insider, I find this to be an invalid point.

Originally Posted by Menchi

Most of the critique of your review is just that - of your review. It is a poorly thought out review and it is more focused on saying 4e is not as good about 3.x without providing the remotest bit of evidence to back up the claim. It makes accusations about 4e's rules that are inaccurate at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.

Most of your criticism is, frankly, pedantic statements that the reviewer did not 'prove' his claims. This is in spite of the fact that you've shown that nothing that doesn't agree with you will be considered 'proof'.

Originally Posted by Menchi

Sorry mate, but the burden of proof was on the person claiming a trend towards most people disliking the new edition. I was pointing out that the only viable evidence suggests contrary. I have said time and again, I'm going to be interested to see the figures in a years time before I declare 4e dead. Evidence at the moment suggests that it is more reasonable to believe that it is popular with the majority of purchasers.

Poor, poor reading comprehension skills...

Nobody has said that most people dislike D&D4. They have, however, said that not everyone who has played the new edition has liked it, countering the point that somebody made that everyone who actually plays the game loves it. Clearly that isn't the case.

Originally Posted by Menchi

Conversely, who do you think you are to rant off at me for raising reasonable questions about the validity of this review? I don't believe I said I was an authority that must be obeyed. I do think I just stated my own opinion. If you are going to get up in arms about me purportedly crushing others opinions (and I'm not) then don't then turn and rave at me for simply expressing my view that this review is weak.

I'd say that he's doing the exact same thing as you: attacking the reviewer; the reviewer in this case being you, reviewing the review. If you'd held off at stating your own opinion and not assuming that your own viewpoint was automatically superior, no one would be giving you back what you gave the reviewer.

Originally Posted by Menchi

Wow - considering nothing I have said supports this accusation, I'm not really sure what to say. Other than thank you for showing what I've been saying - if you need to resort to overstatement and hyperbole, then you mustn't have much in the way of valid points to make.

Wrong. Most of what you've said supports what was said. You refuse to accept any proof that doesn't agree with you merely because you didn't witness it or find corresponding facts (after a very cursory search). In the end, that puts you on ground that is just as shaky as you accuse the reviewer and your own detractor of being on.

Originally Posted by Menchi

I didn't realise making reasonable debate about why this wasn't a particularly good review counted as trolling. I thought it counted as discussion. I'm not ranting, and I'm not just floating around the negative reviews writing short misleading personal attacks or overstated hyperbolic fawning about D&D 4e or 3.5.

It's not what you're saying that's the problem, it's the stuck-up-and-superior way you say it. And that you ignore any evidence that doesn't support your own viewpoint.

The trouble is, you might make a point, but you bury it beneath so much pedantic drivel and egotistical assumptions that no anecdotal evidence is as good as your anecdotal evidence that you end up killing your own points. Get that ego under control. Otherwise, other people are going to make remarks about Not Feeding The Troll.