Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [30] .. 36 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Lord Zim
1281
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 12:07:00 -
[871] - Quote
Tippia wrote:The fundamental question remains: what's wrong with the current representation? They're not saying "buff hisec" and "nerf nullsec". |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
747
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 12:10:00 -
[872] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Tippia wrote:The fundamental question remains: what's wrong with the current representation? They're not saying "buff hisec" and "nerf nullsec". Well not something I would say but if that is what you want
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Lord Zim
1281
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 12:12:00 -
[873] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Tippia wrote:The fundamental question remains: what's wrong with the current representation? They're not saying "buff hisec" and "nerf nullsec". Well not something I would say but if that is what you want Well, if the CSM had been saying "yes, nerf hisec, it's for the good of the game and here's why: [long list of reasons]", hisec would still go "YOU'RE NOT REPRESENTING ME!!!!!!!!! FILTHY NULLSEC SCUM!!!!!!!!!!!!" |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9358
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 12:12:00 -
[874] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Just because you can not understand the answer it does not mean it was not supplied. No, the fact that you didn't answer it means that it wasn't supplied.
You've made a lot of grandiose claims. You've proved none of them. You haven't even been able to show that a problem exists to be solved. Thus the implied answer: nothing is actually wrong with the current representation. All you're doing now is evading the question in the hopes that this answer will be made less clear (hint: it does the exact opposite).
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.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
747
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 12:19:00 -
[875] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Just because you can not understand the answer it does not mean it was not supplied. No, the fact that you didn't answer it means that it wasn't supplied. You've made a lot of grandiose claims. You've proved none of them. You haven't even been able to show that a problem exists to be solved. Thus the implied answer: nothing is actually wrong with the current representation. All you're doing now is evading the question in the hopes that this answer will be made less clear (hint: it does the exact opposite). As to your grandiose claims you were going to answering what games had what specific player interaction levels lower than EvEs and whether they had player elected representatives.
Oh and I have answered that question about 5 times, so maybe you need further education. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9358
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 12:26:00 -
[876] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:As to your grandiose claims Which ones?
Quote:you were going to answering what games had what specific player interaction levels lower than EvEs and whether they had player elected representatives. No I wasn't, because I didn't say anything about specifics and because it doesn't actually matter: engagement is engagement; interaction is interaction. You use what's available to you and the conventional wisdom is that ~1% of the players are active on any given game's forum with another ~9% visiting but not being active.
Quote:Oh and I have answered that question about 5 times. Prove it.
What's wrong with the current representation? 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.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
747
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 12:30:00 -
[877] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Frying Doom wrote:As to your grandiose claims Which ones? Quote:you were going to answering what games had what specific player interaction levels lower than EvEs and whether they had player elected representatives. No I wasn't, because I didn't say anything about specifics and because it doesn't actually matter: engagement is engagement; interaction is interaction. You use what's available to you and the conventional wisdom is that ~1% of the players are active on any given game's forum with another ~9% visiting but not being active. Quote:Oh and I have answered that question about 5 times. Prove it. What's wrong with the current representation? So what you are saying is that you are unable to back up any of the claims you made in this thread with actual figures and now you are making up even more figures.
As to how many times I have answered that question try reading for a change, rather than just commenting. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9358
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 12:34:00 -
[878] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:So what you are saying is that you are unable to back up any of the claims you made in this thread No. I'm saying that the 1% rule has been well-established for, oh, closer to a decade now. Hell, it's pretty much the internet version of the Pareto principle which is a century old. If there are any other claims you have problems with, please enumerate them.
Quote:As to how many times I have answered that question try reading for a change, rather than just commenting. I didn't ask for a count. I asked you to prove it. Should I interpret this as your being unable to do so?
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.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
748
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 12:36:00 -
[879] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Frying Doom wrote:So what you are saying is that you are unable to back up any of the claims you made in this thread No. I'm saying that the 1% rule has been well-established for, oh, closer to a decade now. Hell, it's pretty much the internet version of the Pareto principle which is a century old. If there are any other claims you have problems with, please enumerate them. Source?
Tippia wrote:Quote:As to how many times I have answered that question try reading for a change, rather than just commenting. I didn't ask for a count. I asked you to prove it. Should I interpret this as your being unable to do so? Again you asked and it has still been answered. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
325
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 12:41:00 -
[880] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:Many look at the CSM & just see space rich NULL Alliance heads controlling 70%+ of the CSM when 70% of Eve is part of the poor unwashed have nots. You mean the 70% which is 75% nullsec alts?
Yeah sure =========================================================
EVE residents: 5% Wormholes; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 6: 100% Nullsec residents. EVE demographics vs CSM demographics, nothing to worry about... |
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
748
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 12:43:00 -
[881] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:Many look at the CSM & just see space rich NULL Alliance heads controlling 70%+ of the CSM when 70% of Eve is part of the poor unwashed have nots. You mean the 70% which is 75% nullsec alts?
If that was the case that would make Null sec the most Apathetic lot out there. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Lord Zim
1281
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 12:45:00 -
[882] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:As to how many times I have answered that question try reading for a change, rather than just commenting. I've yet to see much other than "waah the CSM doesn't have hisec representation", without any proper categorization of what a hisec representative should be like. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
204
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 12:47:00 -
[883] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:Many look at the CSM & just see space rich NULL Alliance heads controlling 70%+ of the CSM when 70% of Eve is part of the poor unwashed have nots. You mean the 70% which is 75% nullsec alts? If that was the case that would make Null sec the most Apathetic lot out there.
Ignoring the obvious logical flaw in this argument that has pushed my estimate of your IQ well into the negative.
I'm incredibly lazy which is why the CSM allows me to vote in somebody I trust to represent my interests, or at least listen to me when I care. Otherwise I'd have to go about petitioning CCP directly which is far too much effort. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
748
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 12:53:00 -
[884] - Quote
Yeep wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:Many look at the CSM & just see space rich NULL Alliance heads controlling 70%+ of the CSM when 70% of Eve is part of the poor unwashed have nots. You mean the 70% which is 75% nullsec alts? If that was the case that would make Null sec the most Apathetic lot out there. Ignoring the obvious logical flaw in this argument that has pushed my estimate of your IQ well into the negative. I'm incredibly lazy which is why the CSM allows me to vote in somebody I trust to represent my interests, or at least listen to me when I care. Otherwise I'd have to go about petitioning CCP directly which is far too much effort. You really don't understand mathematics do you Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9358
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 12:54:00 -
[885] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Source? Very difficult to find
Quote:Again you asked and it has still been answered. No, I didn't ask you for a count. I asked you to prove it. You didn't. So I'm asking you again: prove it.
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.
|
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
204
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 12:56:00 -
[886] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Yeep wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:Many look at the CSM & just see space rich NULL Alliance heads controlling 70%+ of the CSM when 70% of Eve is part of the poor unwashed have nots. You mean the 70% which is 75% nullsec alts? If that was the case that would make Null sec the most Apathetic lot out there. Ignoring the obvious logical flaw in this argument that has pushed my estimate of your IQ well into the negative. I'm incredibly lazy which is why the CSM allows me to vote in somebody I trust to represent my interests, or at least listen to me when I care. Otherwise I'd have to go about petitioning CCP directly which is far too much effort. You really don't understand mathematics do you
No, but I have pretty uncontestable proof I understand it better than you |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
325
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 12:59:00 -
[887] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:Many look at the CSM & just see space rich NULL Alliance heads controlling 70%+ of the CSM when 70% of Eve is part of the poor unwashed have nots. You mean the 70% which is 75% nullsec alts?
PROVE IT =========================================================
EVE residents: 5% Wormholes; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 6: 100% Nullsec residents. EVE demographics vs CSM demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Lord Zim
1281
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 13:00:00 -
[888] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:The ones where you claim HI SEC is well represented by a bunch of NUL/LO/WH CSMs that populate CSM7, or the group of CSM6ers, etc to the original CSM1 Yes?
Chances are they'll understand hisec better than your average tunnelvisioned spreadsheet nerd, since they're more liable to have experienced all which hisec has to offer and more. Some of them might even have an idea what might be best for the game, instead of best for "me". Case in point, hisec weirdoes such as ankh, or people who put up threads whining about how PI taxes are sucking out their profits, completely ignoring the fact that reducing taxes would not increase their profits one whit. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9359
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 13:02:00 -
[889] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:The ones where you claim HI SEC is well represented by a bunch of NUL/LO/WH CSMs that populate CSM7, or the group of CSM6ers, etc to the original CSM1 GǪand I made that claim, where, exactly? My claim is that highsec doesn't particularly need special representation (and I've yet to see a good case being made for an issue where such representation is required).
As for actual representation on the CSM, highsec is represented in CSM7; CSM5 was shock-full of them (leading to the backlash of CSM6 when their limited perspective and poor ability to represent the player base caused the nullseccers to step up); and then, of course, there's AnkhGǪ 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.
|
Lord Zim
1281
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 13:04:00 -
[890] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:Lord Zim wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:Many look at the CSM & just see space rich NULL Alliance heads controlling 70%+ of the CSM when 70% of Eve is part of the poor unwashed have nots. You mean the 70% which is 75% nullsec alts? PROVE IT I have 2 chars in nullsec and 7 chars in hisec, and I'm not extreme for a lot of nullsec. |
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
749
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 13:08:00 -
[891] - Quote
Yeep wrote: No, but I have pretty uncontestable proof I understand it better than you
God you really are dumb.
so we will make this simple there are about 350,000 accounts in this game, ok with me so far? now if 75% of the remaining 70% is Null sec alts that would be about 183,750 hopefully still with me but I doubt it. Now as there were 59,109 votes that would mean a massive amount of Null sec alts did not vote.
I doubt you got that but I can expect no better from a member of Test "We are Bankrupt" Alliiance. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Lord Zim
1281
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 13:08:00 -
[892] - Quote
Tippia wrote:and then, of course, there's AnkhGǪ
Just to remind people what apparently passes for hisec logic:
"CCP would look into more permanent consequences for criminals, so far this hasn't happened. Probably because everyone with a few destroyer alts can do it, and punishing too harshly will only result in character recycling. I must admit I am very fond of Ultima Online's justice system, where murderers could lose 20% of their stats and skills, and criminals tossed in jail for several hours or days. There are even games, where PK characters are deleted if they are caught within a certain time after the crime. Now that is consequence. If you destroyed someone's hulk, setting him back 15 hours, then you shouldn't get off the hook by whacking rats for an hour. Now as I said I don't see it practical to implement an UO-style system into EVE, but things should be brought more into balance, and there should be more long-term consequence to crime." |
Lord Zim
1281
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 13:10:00 -
[893] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:I doubt you got that but I can expect no better from a member of Test "We are Bankrupt" Alliiance. Pray tell, where does it say that he's part of the alliance called "test alliance please ignore"? |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
325
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 13:10:00 -
[894] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:The ones where you claim HI SEC is well represented by a bunch of NUL/LO/WH CSMs that populate CSM7, or the group of CSM6ers, etc to the original CSM1 Yes? Chances are they'll understand hisec better than your average tunnelvisioned spreadsheet nerd,
They may understand it better but they do not represent it better without representation of some peers CSM7's just a bunch of space rich NULL SECers I wouldn't trust any farther then I could throw a nerfed Titan. =========================================================
EVE residents: 5% Wormholes; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 6: 100% Nullsec residents. EVE demographics vs CSM demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4517
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 13:10:00 -
[895] - Quote
See if you can dig up a few of her better "PvPers are sociopathic bullies" quotes. There were some real peaches. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
749
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 13:11:00 -
[896] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Source? Very difficult to findQuote:Again you asked and it has still been answered. No, I didn't ask you for a count. I asked you to prove it. You didn't. So I'm asking you again: prove it.
Quote:The 1% rule states that the number of people who create content on the Internet represents approximately 1% (or less) of the people actually viewing that content (for example, for every person who posts on a forum, generally about 99 other people are viewing that forum but not posting). The term was coined by authors and bloggers Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba,[2] although earlier references to the same concept[3] did not use this name. For example, a large 2005 study of radical Jihadist forums by Akil N Awan found 87% of users had never posted on the forums, 13% had posted at least once, 5% had posted 50 or more times, and only 1% had posted 500 or more times.
So a hypothesis tested on a radical Jihadist forums, sounds like a real fact...Not. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Lord Zim
1281
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 13:12:00 -
[897] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:They may understand it better but they do not represent it better without representation of some peers they're just a bunch of space rich NULL SECersI wouldn't trust any farther then I could throw. You can't represent something you don't understand. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9359
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 13:13:00 -
[898] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:so we will make this simple there are about 350,000 accounts in this game, ok with me so far? now if 75% of the remaining 70% is Null sec alts that would be about 183,750 hopefully still with me but I doubt it. GǪjust one problem: the 70% figure has nothing to do with accounts. 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.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
749
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 13:14:00 -
[899] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:I doubt you got that but I can expect no better from a member of Test "We are Bankrupt" Alliiance. Pray tell, where does it say that he's part of the alliance called "test alliance please ignore"? No idea why I thought he was test, Must have got that from the apparent IQ.
Apparently he is a Member of Goonswarm. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
750
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 13:15:00 -
[900] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Frying Doom wrote:so we will make this simple there are about 350,000 accounts in this game, ok with me so far? now if 75% of the remaining 70% is Null sec alts that would be about 183,750 hopefully still with me but I doubt it. GǪjust one problem: the 70% figure has nothing to do with accounts. Yes Tippia alts exist without accounts... Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [30] .. 36 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |