What I mean is that he's stating something for us the community, and in doing so is going to get disagreement. The clarifier I'd want is not for the statement to be "opinion" but for it to be "personal opinion" as applied to himself. So, the modify would not be to add "I think" but to add "for me", as in:

"Bungie dropped the ball for me"
or
"In my experience, Bungie dropped the ball"

Those are things that are:
1. True
2. Can not be argued with.

those statements allow other people to respond in discourse, instead of disagreement. This, by the way, is marriage counseling 101, which I've done, so I'm an expert ;-)

Just stating something as opinion doesn't avoid distracting arguments.

So, "In my experience, Bungie dropped the ball" invites others to say "Really? You're not wrong, but in my experience they didn't, and here is why".

Where as "In my opinion, Bungie dropped the ball" tends to invite "No, they didn't", because the subject is whether Bungie dropped the ball globally for the community, and isn't pointed at personal experience.

But to your point, the Quodron fight is light years beyond the rest of PoE in terms of complexity.

And it's the second week of PoE. Bungie has said, more than once, that we haven't seen all there is. Why write a rant about how they dropped the ball before they show you the full playing field?

Because you can't just have a weak opening, and say "Oh hey, it gets better!". It needs to be fun day 1. And day 2. And day 3…

Oh, hey! Look who showed up?!

Because I know you missed me so much ;-p

But to your point, the Quodron fight is light years beyond the rest of PoE in terms of complexity.

And it's the second week of PoE. Bungie has said, more than once, that we haven't seen all there is. Why write a rant about how they dropped the ball before they show you the full playing field?

Because you can't just have a weak opening, and say "Oh hey, it gets better!". It needs to be fun day 1. And day 2. And day 3…

Oh, hey! Look who showed up?!

But to your point, the Quodron fight is light years beyond the rest of PoE in terms of complexity.

And it's the second week of PoE. Bungie has said, more than once, that we haven't seen all there is. Why write a rant about how they dropped the ball before they show you the full playing field?

Because you can't just have a weak opening, and say "Oh hey, it gets better!". It needs to be fun day 1. And day 2. And day 3…

But anyway, there you go. Discussion of defamation technicalities on a videogame fansite. Super Pedant, awaaaaaaaaaaay.

The example I was taught: If I say "I think Kermit stole £10" I'm modifying a factual statement to be an "opinion". But I'm still making a factual statement (Kermit stole £10), just with a qualifier. [That's important. If, without the "I think" the statement is still subjective and can't be measured - e.g. the quality of a produc - it would be different - as it is here]

If I make that statement to a person or people who trust and believe me, and know that I don't joke around, it's very likely that they'll believe that you've stolen my money. And if you haven't I've slandered you.

As you might imagine, it only really comes up in defamation cases, and the technicality exists specifically to prevent people from stating "opinions" to people they know will take it as fact, then hiding behind the words "I think".

Of course, it can be very hard to prove either way without additional evidence because it has to beyond all reasonable doubt.

Ah, gotcha. I understand within that context, and you were initially right to suggest this was a British legal technicality. Off topic, I think the British defamation laws are overly broad, but I'm a pretty staunch supporter of the U.S. first amendment, which is broad is a different direction.

Cheers!

If I make that statement to a person or people who trust and believe me, and know that I don't joke around, it's very likely that they'll believe that you've stolen my money. And if you haven't I've slandered you.

As you might imagine, it only really comes up in defamation cases, and the technicality exists specifically to prevent people from stating "opinions" to people they know will take it as fact, then hiding behind the words "I think".

Of course, it can be very hard to prove either way without additional evidence because it has to beyond all reasonable doubt.

Oh, don't get me wrong - I don't even think the technicality applies in this scenario. He's not an officially recognised authority figure or anything like that, and has made it clear in other ways that it's all just subjective and opinion.

I was just sharing some useless knowledge :)

Yeah, but I must be too dense to grok the knowledge you're passing on. You seem to be saying "I think" doesn't imply subjectivity even in a legal context, but I can easily imagine a barrister asking a witness for clarification were they to say "I think [something]."

[Raised eyebrow]

"Do you 'think', madam, or do you 'know'?"

I was just sharing some useless knowledge :)

That doesn't automatically change it from a statement of fact to a statement if opinion. If someone trusts his opinion enough to believe it to be true (in the absence of their own knowledge), it's contextually factual (at least legally).

But I know what you mean and agree. I'm just being Super Pedant (the world's worst superhero) because I like teaching people new things.

Also I dont know if its true in America. So I might have just forced some obscure English legal technicality on you all. Yay Super Pedant!

Hold up there, caped crusader.

I don't know how it is in the U.K. and Canada, but in the U.S. of A. when I say "I think" I'm identifying what follows as my own thoughts. If I were absolutely sure what I was saying was factual irrespective of my own thoughts, it would be completely superfluous to say "I think" (e.g. "I think birds fly).

As far as I'm concerned, Cruel identified his thesis as opinion in the title of the OP. Because his opinion was dramatically stated (and arguably premature?) he got pushback and over the course of this cursed thread got lumped in with the several others around here who wield their ethereal (and often wrong-headed) opinions as if they were factual, hard-hitting nunchucks.

That's kind of a shame in that he's one of the most thoughtful, articulate, and reasonable voices on DBO.