New Accounts and Losing Veterans Over Time.

Well that's what you get for betting on Nyr to deliver anything but cockbaggery.

Oh, we're on a new page. I'd best keep Nyr from feeling too comfortable.

---

Unsupported point. Also a Red Herring, as the reason for player loss is irrelevant to whether or not player loss is happening.

Unsupported point. You're also combining the Bandwagon Fallacy with Argument From Personal Incredulity. We neither need to provide you - nor a group who supposedly share your opinion - the additional data you've asked for to alleviate your doubts, in order for the data we have context or meaning. You've provided nothing to justify your doubts of the data outside of an implied high standard of accuracy, which is not proof the data is utterly useless.

Equivocation. Even if the numbers do not support an argument about veteran retention, that does not mean there is no possible use for them.

Strawman Argument. Anaiah made two claims. One was that veterans were leaving and one that the claims of player retention were false or overstated. You have summarized her argument and left out one of the two claims. This is made worse by the fact the claim you left out was the one the data was significant to.

Unsupported point. This relies on the false presupposition that a veteran player will return to Arm under their old account instead of a new one. This is also possibly a lie, given that some people here who acknowledge they are vets also acknowledge registering new accounts and/or multies.

Every sentence except for the first and last one is an unsupported point.

Argument From Personal Incredulity. No explanation is given, outside of Lizzie's feelings, for why no serious claim can be made. This also ignores the fact the unique logins count can be used without knowing what the "new player" count specifically includes.

Argument From Personal Incredulity again. Other serious claims can be made without clarifying one word for that one claim.

Unsupported point. It is also Equivocation. Participation on the GDB (which is the unsupported part) does not require logging into the MUD.

Sweeping Generalization / Ad-Hoc Reasoning. The second post implies the previous post successfully disqualified ALL of the proof previously given. This was done using a standard invented on the spot that all of the data must be verified with for any of the data to be considered to have fit that standard.

Alternately, the second post was an unsupported point, while the first post was just Argument From Personal Incredulity followed by 4 numbered counts of Appeal To Probability. Reader's choice.

Argument From Personal Incredulity. Possibly another Appeal To Probability. If the information provided was taken as factual, it demonstrates player attrition is occurring somewhere, because it is mathematically impossible to come to another conclusion from the mismatch between new accounts and accounts being used. Unless this was an Appeal To Probability, in which case the assumption would be that all 9794 inactive accounts were duplicate accounts of active players solely because it's possible.

Appeal To Probability. Just because it could happen is not proof it did happen. It is also worth pointing out that no evidence has been presented regarding the manner of data collection, therefor no conclusion could be made about skewing.

Unsupported point. Possibly an Irrelevant Appeal in there too (Appeal To Spite, directed at Nyr).

Hasty Generalization. Also an unsupported point.

Red Herring. When a "week" occurred is irrelevant to aggregating data into information showing 1) trends over years and the entire lifetime of the data, where the displacement of 2 days becomes statistically irrelevant or 2) estimates that are openly stated as not being totally accurate.

Red Herring. Irrelevant for the same reason as the previous one.

Red Herring. Irrelevant for the same reason as the previous two.

Unsupported point.

Sweeping Generalization and Red Herring. In regards to the former, just because the numbers can mean what you've said doesn't mean they always (or even frequently) mean what you said. In regards to the latter, given that this is a discussion of shifts in player volume over time, it's completely irrelevant to try to bring up what a single moment in time means by itself.

Unsupported point, which was attempted to be proved by a second unsupported point in lieu of evidence.

False Dichotomy. A game can both gain players it doesn't currently have while simultaneously losing players it already has. In fact, if you define a "player" as anyone attempting to play a game, those are literally the only contexts a game can either gain or lose players under.

Unsupported point.

So here's where this gets interesting. Since you've repeatedly claimed the data @anaiah gathered and I compiled was meaningless, if you were correct, this would be an entirely unsupported point. If you were incorrect about our data being meaningless, this is merely unsupported because you've offered no evidence of Arm's population and claimed the only numbers that were presented were meaningless.

Ad Hominem.

Sweeping Generalization.

Shifting The Burden. In a debate, both sides have to take a stance and provide points the presenter supports by evidence. Furthermore, even if this weren't a debate, in which case your invocation of debate rules is the same blind stupidity of someone in a foreign country invoking the rights of their native country, you're still making arguments which it would be a double-standard to claim you don't also have a burden of proof for.

Unsupported point.

Red Herring followed by another Red Herring. Referencing competition is irrelevant because the stances on Arm having poor player retention were supported with internal numbers, not a comparison to other MUDs. In addition, how successful Arm is compared to its competition is entirely irrelevant to the questions of 1) if Arm has internal problems and 2) the impact of those problems on player retention. As to the second Red Herring, the data does not include other MUDs, therefor it doesn't prove anything regarding other MUDs.

Self-contradiction. This is not a fallacy, it's just incompetent lying. If the data has no importance at all, you can't turn around and grant it importance by basing an argument on it. I refer to the lying as incompetent because the sentences you contradicted yourself with are all adjacent to each other, reducing the effort in spotting the self-contradiction to zero.

Strawman. Neither I nor anaiah (who you addressed this to) made this argument in regards to the data.

This is actually just a bald-faced lie. No need to reference a logical fallacy. If the data is accurate, it puts Arm's ability to retain players at less than 1%. The only recognized unknown is the lifespan of those players lost/retained. While "leaving in droves" is slang, pretending that failing to keep 99 out of 100 people who showed interest in playing isn't "leaving in droves" is asinine.

Strawman again, for the same reason as the last one.

Strawman again, for the same reason as the last one.

Strawman again, for the same reason as the last one.

Strawman rehash triple-combo.

Equivocation, following a massive Red Herring. Logins aren't votes, and the unproven claims of the technical limits of Gemstone have nothing to do with arguments made about Arm's player retention given that no one has claimed crashes were driving off the playerbase.

A player is not going to have access to all of this data, for every time in the day, by typing "who". You have also asserted, without proof, that the source of the data is Nyr and that Nyr gathered player data by typing "who".

Unsupported point. Even if all of your previous comments were accurate, supported, and you had provided a means of verifying your information, none of it actually included player loss. You also have repeatedly asserted the data we're using is utterly meaningless and without context, which means you are once again contradicting your own claim out of convenience.

Unsupported point that, once again, requires you to contradict your previous claims the numbers had non-existent importance/meaning/context in order to use them to support something you're saying.

Sweeping Generalization followed by Ad Hominem. The fact that one game is commercial and the other isn't is held up to claim every aspect of both games are completely different. This is followed by an underhanded insult; since Anaiah already compared the games, she is being discredited as crazy.

Unsupported point.

Red Herring. The topic was retaining people who already found the game.

Argumentum ad nauseum and unsupported point.

Red Herring. Not knowing why Arm failed to keep 800 players is irrelevant to if it happened.

Equivocation. It is not necessary to "capture" someone in order to have them in your game and then fail to keep them there.

Appeal To Morality and also a Red Herring. Whether or not Arm should keep those people is irrelevant to if it did keep them.

Strawman Argument. I've given no indication about how much weight I believe people should give to playing Arm.

Strawman Argument. I've spoken to the loss as a sign of poor conversion of new players to returning players, not a failure to meet obligations.

Strawman Argument. An off-hand reference to "all of the players doing X" is not a claim "the numbers show every player is doing X".

Bald-faced lie. I actually had to stop looking up earlier quotes for fear of hitting the post character limit.

Equivocation. Failing to keep members is not the same as the loaded phrase "Arm's failure".

Strawman Argument.

Unsupported point.

Red Herring. "Internet etiquette" is neither a centrally regulated list of rules nor are you a recognized authority in it.