Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 67 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Tauranon
Weeesearch Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
863
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 03:22:00 -
[1021] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Tauranon wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Tauranon wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
How would you know where the idea was hatched from, unless someone on the CSM broke the NDA and told you.
Because I want "extra materials" on my BPOs said nobody ever. The net effect of this change is basically equivalent to formalizing extra materials on every single BPO, except that now at least when they fix the numbers on them to get rid of the extra materials our research will apply to all the materials so returning power that extra materials take away from research, but this affect is being applied to every BPO, instead of just tieracide hull BPOs now. That is based on the observation that consumption of materials is what keeps the game afloat - excess isk is far less critical to the game, since we only bid to get rid of the other bidder and then we stop, where as item flooding above any possible consumption trends the item to nil. I doubt very much its coming from CSM members. That is not what you said. You said with certainty that this was a CCP idea. How would you know unless someone in CCP or the CSM told you? Not that I am surprised that inside information is being leaked. http://community.eveonline.com/community/csm/meeting-minutes/Perhaps you should direct your attention to CCP and get the last year and a half published and that way you can know for sure that everyone is out to get you, and that Mynnna is personally removing your income sources, one by one, tick tock. Hint : I'd like them published too. Way to evade the question. 2012 minutes are utterly irrelevant. You said that was this was a CCP, not CSM hatched idea. How do you know that unless someone told you?
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/csm8-meeting-minutes-published/
try those. ie hint: hint you are the one with the crackpot theory, not me. |
admiral root
Red Galaxy Disband.
1009
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 08:23:00 -
[1022] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Not that I am surprised that inside information is being leaked.
[email protected]
Except you have no proof, so you won't. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff |
Benny Ohu
Beneath the Ashes Margin of Silence
2765
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 08:25:00 -
[1023] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Has this whole thread been a bunch of tears over much need balance and highsec nerfs? why, are you surprised? |
Sarah McKnobbo
McKnobbo Universal Traders
113
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 09:21:00 -
[1024] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Not that I am surprised that inside information is being leaked.
I'm going to need to upgrade to a 2-ply tin foil hat
|
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
418
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 09:27:00 -
[1025] - Quote
Sarah McKnobbo wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Not that I am surprised that inside information is being leaked. I'm going to need to upgrade to a 2-ply tin foil hat
Well lets be real here. Ofc info is being leaked and ofc people are leveraging change towards their own interests.
I mean this is EVE afterall, not to mention its no different in any other area of human interaction.
No need for a tinfoil hat for that. Infact denying it happens is tinfoil hattery in and of itself. |
Sarah McKnobbo
McKnobbo Universal Traders
113
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 09:32:00 -
[1026] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Sarah McKnobbo wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Not that I am surprised that inside information is being leaked. I'm going to need to upgrade to a 2-ply tin foil hat Well lets be real here. Ofc info is being leaked and ofc people are leveraging change towards their own interests. I mean this is EVE afterall, not to mention its no different in any other area of human interaction. No need for a tinfoil hat for that. Infact denying it happens is tinfoil hattery in and of itself.
Why of course? I'm not siding either way, it's just a bit drastic to state out right that that is what's happening, don't you think.
Yes i'm sure, even hope, that people (assuming you mean the CSM) are leveraging it towards thier own interests as that is usually what they are elected on. |
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
2403
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 09:35:00 -
[1027] - Quote
Moonlit Raid wrote:Pretty much this mate. The big alliances with the majority of accounts have the biggest say, almost in an identical way to shareholders do in a plc. If you can get over that then just find what you're happy with doing. If you don't like the majority shareholder having their way sell your shares [quit the game] and leave eve.
The majority shareholder is the hisec playebase, and the numbers prove it. However, they are of an independent mindset and would, for the most part, like for things to remain as they are, because with the exception of the mining barge changes last year every new expansion has only brought changes that make their gaming experience less enjoyable.
The reason for this, as everyone knows, is that the CSM are all nullsec powerblock flacks, and they've got the biggest mouths & the best liars on their side. Their goal is to make everyone in EvE either kneel before their ego-driven internet empires or quit the game entirely, and they don't even try to hide this fact. Whether or not the game actually survives this mass exodus is of no concern to them.
Therefore making any allegories to EvE's development process having anything to do with democracy or shareholders are sarcasm at best and farcical at worst. The "majority shareholders," as you call them, are the minority of the playerbase. Just as in real life, a powerful minority holds all the actual power and yet the sham facade of democracy - which no one believes is any way fair or honest - continues to persist.
In the end what we have in these dev notes is that yes, mission runners, ratters, and anyone who does a lot of looting are going to get royally screwed. More economic power is going to be handed on a plate to the nullblock powers, but that's just par for the course (see above).
What I find interesting is this: CCP has outsmarted everyone. In the guise of doing their usual fellating of Mittani & Friends Inc they have actually unveiled another pork ridden patch that ultimately serves to pad their own pockets by forcing people to waste even more months of training time just to stay exactly where they were before, and we all know that Moar Training Team = Moar Money for CCP. Nullsec in a Nutshell: http://nedroid.com/comics/2006-08-24-2155-arrrdino.gif |
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
419
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 09:56:00 -
[1028] - Quote
Sarah McKnobbo wrote:Why of course? I'm not siding either way, it's just a bit drastic to state out right that that is what's happening, don't you think.
Yes i'm sure, even hope, that people (assuming you mean the CSM) are leveraging it towards thier own interests as that is usually what they are elected on.
I have no issue with the CSM system. Nor with info being leaked or interests being leveraged. CSM is afterall merely an advisory counsel, no actual authority or power. Having said that, insider info exploitaiton is the bigger risk than "influencing" CCP. Its arbitrary whether anyone can sway CCP. But the insider info is always extremely valuable.
It is important to remember the very small % of the player base that has actually voted for them. Representation is proportional to how many votes they get, and since the overwhelming majority of players have not voted for them, they cannot be said to represent the interests of those who have not voted for them (ie: the overwhelming majority of the EVE player base).
If it was up to me, Id disband the CSM in any term where less than 50-51% of the player base has voted. Thats not up to me, and since CSM have no direct power or authority, its not as important.
But it cannot be said that they represent the majority interests of players, even combined throughout the entire panel. Thats just a cold hard fact. And it would be naive to think insider info is not leveraged for personal interests, or that counsel to CCP would not be motivated by self interest. No tinfoil hat required on that one and as I said, claiming otherwise is infact tinfoil hattery in and of itself. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20215
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 10:13:00 -
[1029] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:It is important to remember the very small % of the player base that has actually voted for them. Representation is proportional to how many votes they get, and since the overwhelming majority of players have not voted for them, they cannot be said to represent the interests of those who have not voted for them (ie: the overwhelming majority of the EVE player base). Sure they can. In fact, that's exactly how sampling works. You can get representativeness from as little as 1%. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
2406
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 10:41:00 -
[1030] - Quote
Tippia wrote:No, it's not, unless you can demonstrate that the voters are not a representative sample of the community as a whole.
Allow me to direct you to here:
Malcanis wrote:14% of the electorate voted.
So according to one of our own actual nullsec empire flacks CSMs, the CSM currently only represents 14% of the playerbase.
I'm sure that's not he meant to say, but even an accidental confession still counts in my book.
Nullsec in a Nutshell: http://nedroid.com/comics/2006-08-24-2155-arrrdino.gif |
|
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
419
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 10:44:00 -
[1031] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Sure they can. In fact, that's exactly how sampling works. You can get representativeness from as little as 1% You are confusing sampling with elective representation. In sampling studies there is a meticulous scientific process for selecting a sample group that is representative of the whole, proportionately. It is not "elected". CCP no doubt uses and has used representative sample groups in stages of its develooment cycle, but CSM are categorically not such a grouping.
Tippia wrote:No, it's not, unless you can demonstrate that the voters are not a representative sample of the community as a whole. You cannot prove that it is, therefore there is no onus for disproving it. By the sheer fact that up to 90% of the player population is not represented in the voting of these individuals it is directly deducible that these individuals represent only the xonstituency that has actually voted for them. For example, I cant stand up and say that I represent the entirety of the EVE player base. I have no means to prove that. In the same way any given CSM can only claim to represent those who have voted for him/her. Those are the people who have, by casting their vote, put forth that they entrust their representation to that individual. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20215
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 10:51:00 -
[1032] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:You are confusing sampling with elective representation. Nope. I'm saying that representation is representation, and a representative sample can yield elected representation that is so close to full election as to make no difference.
In sampling studies there is a meticulous scientific process for selecting a sample group that is representative of the whole, proportionately. It is not "elected". CCP no doubt uses and has used representative sample groups in stages of its develooment cycle, but CSM are categorically not such a grouping.
Quote:You cannot prove that it is, therefore there is no onus for disproving it. I'm not trying to prove it. I'm asking you to prove what you said, and like you say, you can't. Until you do (which will never happen) it is not GÇ£just a cold hard factGÇ¥. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
419
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 11:06:00 -
[1033] - Quote
By means of example:
Tippia, I lay claim to represent your interests.
According to your logic, you have no means to disprove that, because you claim that your vote for me is not necessary in order for me to claim to represent your interests.
You fail to understand both the mechanics of elective representation, as well as the scientific process of constructing and defining a sample grouping that is proportinately an accurate representation of the whole. Both of which are sepaeate from each other and peform functions completely extraneous to each other.
Even a basic understanding of political science, as well as a high school understanding of the scientific process avails a person to differentiate on and discuss these matters.
Anyone I have not voted for, has no claim to represent me. |
Avon
188
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 11:06:00 -
[1034] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:It is important to remember the very small % of the player base that has actually voted for them. Representation is proportional to how many votes they get, and since the overwhelming majority of players have not voted for them, they cannot be said to represent the interests of those who have not voted for them (ie: the overwhelming majority of the EVE player base). Sure they can. In fact, that's exactly how sampling works. You can get representativeness from as little as 1%. Quote:But it cannot be said that they represent the majority interests of players, even combined throughout the entire panel. Thats just a cold hard fact. No, it's not, unless you can demonstrate that the voters are not a representative sample of the community as a whole.
Tippia, was that an intentional misrepresentation of the significance that can be attributed to sampling, or did you just accidentally overlook the importance of the sample being random?
A statistical sample from a 1% group can be significant so long as it is a random sample. Voters are members of a subset we could call "people who can be arsed to vote". There is no indication that the subset is representative of the group as a whole (or a random sample from that group) and as such we have to discount extrapolation on the grounds of bias.
The disenfranchised (willful or not) are not represented (nor could they be) and any presumption of their views is exactly that. You can't make a legitimate statistical extrapolation from a subset. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20217
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 11:17:00 -
[1035] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Tippia, I lay claim to represent your interests.
According to your logic, you have no means to disprove that Yes I do: I simply notice that you don't and say GÇ£no, you don'tGÇ¥. And that's entirely your logic, not mine because I have no idea where on earth you got that idea from.
Quote:You fail to understand both the mechanics of elective representation, as well as the scientific process of constructing and defining a sample grouping that is proportinately an accurate representation of the whole. Nope. You simply fail to understand what representativeness means and make generalisations from one (assumed) situation. You are also (as always) confusing yourself by trying to squeeze out more straw men out of what I say rather than read what I actually write. I'd also venture to guess that you are confusing your modal auxiliary verbs, and that you're attributing the wrong modalities to themGǪ
14% of a population of 450,000 is more than enough to have a representative sample that can produce a fully representative council. Have a look at your TV the next time there's an election where you live, and you'll see this in practice. Thus, the representatives can very easily both represent and be said to represent the interests of those who did not vote, and since they can elicit and pass on comments from everyone, they can equally easily both represent and be said to represent the interests of those who did not vote for them, specifically.
Avon wrote:Tippia, was that an intentional misrepresentation of the significance that can be attributed to sampling, or did you just accidentally overlook the importance of the sample being random? Nope. It was a rejection of the categorical statement that a small sample absolutely cannot be representative. In fact, there is no indication in either direction, so the claim that they do not represent any given group is just as much speculation as a claim saying that they definitely do. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Avon
188
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 11:20:00 -
[1036] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Tippia, I lay claim to represent your interests.
According to your logic, you have no means to disprove that Yes I have: I simply notice that you don't and say GÇ£no, you don'tGÇ¥. And that's entirely your logic, not mine because I have no idea where on earth you got that idea from. Quote:You fail to understand both the mechanics of elective representation, as well as the scientific process of constructing and defining a sample grouping that is proportinately an accurate representation of the whole. Nope. You simply fail to understand what representativeness means and make generalisations from one (assumed) situation. You are also (as always) confusing yourself by trying to squeeze out more straw men out of what I say rather than read what I actually write. 14% of a population of 450,000 is more than enough to have a representative sample that can produce a fully representative council. Have a look at your TV the next time there's an election where you live, and you'll see this in practice. Thus, the representatives can very easily both represent and be said to represent the interests of those who did not vote, and since they can elicit and pass on comments from everyone, they can equally easily both represent and be said to represent the interests of those who did not vote for them, specifically. Avon wrote:Tippia, was that an intentional misrepresentation of the significance that can be attributed to sampling, or did you just accidentally overlook the importance of the sample being random? Nope. It was a rejection of the categorical statement that a small sample absolutely cannot be representative.
Good try, but you missed the important bit. To be fair though, at least you went to the effort of using a lot of words to hide the fact.
Until 51% of the eve population post here to disagree with me we will just have to assume that they do agree. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20217
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 11:21:00 -
[1037] - Quote
Avon wrote:Good try, but you missed the important bit. Nope. But nice try making it appear as if I did without offering anything to support your claim.
Actually, no. It was a pretty feeble attempt. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Avon
188
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 11:25:00 -
[1038] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Avon wrote:Good try, but you missed the important bit. Nope. But nice try making it appear as if I did without offering anything to support your claim. Actually, no. It was a pretty feeble attempt.
I don't have to support my claim, it is perfectly clear that your reply did not address the key point.
Also, my post got a like, so I shall extrapolate that to mean everyone agrees with me and no-one agrees with you. Seems legit. |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
501
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 11:26:00 -
[1039] - Quote
meh ... politics
You know all I get out of this change is the feeling that CCP intend to do some pretty massive increases in mats for T3s and Pirate ships when they rebalance them and this is a neat way of stopping people cashing in without adding another batch of "extra materials" to the BPCs. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20217
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 11:26:00 -
[1040] - Quote
Avon wrote:I don't have to support my claim Wrong. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
Avon
188
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 11:28:00 -
[1041] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Avon wrote:I don't have to support my claim Wrong.
Are you trying to hold me to a higher standard than yourself?
Seems a touch unfair. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20217
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 11:28:00 -
[1042] - Quote
Avon wrote:Are you trying to hold me to a higher standard than yourself? Nope.
Ok, I'll be nice to you: your key point was besides the point because it presumed I was making a different point than you thought I was making (GǪthat's a lot of points). My response was that no, that was not the point I was making. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
419
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 11:31:00 -
[1043] - Quote
Tippia, I hereby claim to represent you.
What are you gonna do about it? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20217
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 11:32:00 -
[1044] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Tippia, I hereby claim to represent you. You don't. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Avon
188
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 11:33:00 -
[1045] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Avon wrote:Are you trying to hold me to a higher standard than yourself? Nope. Ok, I'll be nice to you: your key point was besides the point because it presumed I was making a different point than you thought I was making (GǪthat's a lot of points). My response was that no, that was not the point I was making.
Okay, you win
https://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/mks/statmistakes/biasedsampling.html
"Drawing a conclusion from a biased sample is one form of extrapolation: because the sampling method systematically excludes certain parts of the population under consideration, the inferences only apply to the subpopulation which has actually been sampled." |
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
419
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 11:34:00 -
[1046] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Tippia, I hereby claim to represent you. You don't.
Then neither does any CSM represent anyone who did not vote for them.
Checkmate. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20217
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 11:36:00 -
[1047] - Quote
GǪand just because samples can be biased doesn't mean they must be. The question is always GÇ£is the sample biased?GÇ¥ Presuming that it is is just as wrong as presuming that it is not. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Avon
188
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 11:37:00 -
[1048] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GǪand just because samples can be biased doesn't mean they must be. The question is always Gǣis the sample biased?Gǥ Presuming that it is is just as wrong as presuming that it is not.
I even went to the effort of addressing that for you, but once again for the hard of thinking:
"Drawing a conclusion from a biased sample is one form of extrapolation: because the sampling method systematically excludes certain parts of the population under consideration, the inferences only apply to the subpopulation which has actually been sampled." |
Avon
188
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 11:46:00 -
[1049] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Sure it can. After all, that's the whole point of sampling and of representativeness.
Ah, I see the source of your confusion. You are mixing up statistical representation with elected representatives.
You could probably even fool some people with that. Clever bit of sophism there. |
Flashbang Thereal
S0utherN Comfort Against ALL Authorities
11
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 11:47:00 -
[1050] - Quote
I tried to read the devblog, but i got completly lost :-/ Im affraid of what this change wil mean for my new alt. Its a industry/mission alt. My gameplay on that alt use alot of reprossesing, due to the fact that i build everything i need for mission/mining. When i unlock lev4 missions, i wil buy a bpc for a mission battleship. Mine all the minerals i need to build it, and reprosess loot from lev3 missions to get the minerals i cant mine in highsec. I have done this from day 1 on this alt grinding rocks for a retriver with the tiny venture, building cruiser and battlecruiser for lev 2/3 missions. Its already hard as f... doing all this. And now ccp wil make it even harder?? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 67 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |