|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26662
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 14:37:46 -
[1] - Quote
Once again, the unproven and rather silly notion that there is a GÇ£highsec majorityGÇ¥ (to say nothing of the outright laughable idea of there being a coherent highsec affiliation that sits in opposition of some equally coherent nullsec affiliation) is bandied about.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26663
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 16:25:11 -
[2] - Quote
Jace Varus wrote:Go to the beta map in-game, and turn to the average number of pilots in space in the last 30 minutes. There you go. Just one problem GÇö in fact, the exact same problem as with all those inane claims: it doesn't display players. The mythical majority is just that: a myth, at best born out of bad maths, at worst born out of sheer ignorance and wishful thinking.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26665
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 17:10:48 -
[3] - Quote
Deitra Vess wrote:I don't get why they don't just have it so before you vote you declare your a "high sec player," "wormhole player," ect and then just put people into the csm as part of parties or whatever. Make the number of members divisible by 4 (for each major group) and put for example 3 people in to represent each aspect of the game. We would also see where the majority of the player base resides and they can focus on the areas where the most people are. Because it would be ridiculously easy to rig, and would yield the result that the majority is in null, and that, for some curious reason, all the GÇ£high sec candidatesGÇ¥ would also be mostly focused on null issues.
The main flaw is that the distinction between those player types is itself pretty nonsensical. Again, they aren't coherent groups; treating them as anything even remotely resembling parties makes no sense because there is no shared opinion or policy outlook. Any pre-selected representation will inherently not be representative and any other representation will only be of those who show up and who organise, which will always be derided as biased and unfair.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26669
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 22:48:00 -
[4] - Quote
King Aires wrote:CCP tells us there is 1.5 accounts per person on average. So GǪnothing, because it is an average. What is the distribution among Gǣnon-highseccersGǥ compared to GǣhighseccersGǥ? What is the character distribution among these accounts? What is the distribution of characters among the two groups? Until you know all of those, you cannot conclude anything, and guess what? Not even CCP has any idea of where the players are. That's why all they have ever been able to produce is character counts.
The best guess we have is based on the general trend that Gàö of all characters tend to be parked in highsec. However, this means that if every account that has a non-high character also has a highsec alt (and this is not a very drastic assumption to make), we have a character distribution of Gàô non-high, Gàô highsec alts, and Gàô GÇ£pure highsecGÇ¥, making them a pretty small minority.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26670
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 08:46:13 -
[5] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Nice try. But no Tippia. CCP's numbers solidly place 'High Sec' players in the majority. No, they don't, for the very very very simple reason that they have never counted players. The numbers you're suggesting don't exist. The best they've ever been able to do as far as figuring out anything about actual players is a long-term trend estimate of 1.5 accounts/player, with no ability of telling how those accounts are distributed.
They have only ever counted characters parked in a given section of space at the time (and yes, this includes characters not being logged in) for the simple reason that this is all they can count. People then get confused about the difference between characters and players, forgetting that such a thing as alts exist (on average 3 per account).
The only facts we have GÇö character distribution, average characters per account, average account per player GÇö actually point to higsec being a minority. It just comes inherent with the simple fact that alts are a thing and that so few characters sit in highsec. When CCP themselves they tried to filter out GÇ£junkGÇ¥ characters that could conceivably just be some single-purpose alt, the shift away from highsec was pretty drastic. This isn't a matter of buzzwords; it's a matter of actually understanding what the data covers and not making the boneheaded assumption that counting characters is even remotely the same as counting characters.
At the end of the day, in order for highsec to be a majority, you're going to have to show that non-highseccer on average have an non-highsec:highsec alt ratio higher than 3:1. In other words, with an average number of alts per player being 3, a significant portion of them would have to not have any alts in highsec at all. You could approach this with numbers (which we don't have) or with some wishy-washy gut feelingGǪ but guess what? The gut feeling is that the ratio is actually much lower than that; that most of them do have a highsec alt or five. If we go by anecdotal and individual data points, we often get ratios in the 1:2GÇô1:4 range, but we can dismiss those as not being representative since any ratio lower than 1:2 would mean there are no highseccers at all.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26671
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 15:53:27 -
[6] - Quote
King Aires wrote:Two things wrong with this. CCP knows pretty accurately from unique email accounts to IP addresses to linked accounts how many actual players they have. Whether they release that info to us is another story. The trend of accounts per unique player has gone up over the years, I believe it used to be as low as 1.2 and is now over 1.5. So you can blow that theory of yours out of the water right now. Then do so. How does an increase in accounts per player blow my theory out of the water? And no, CCP does not know how many players there are GÇö if they did, they wouldn't have such problems giving a very specific number of accounts per player. Look at the numbers they released when they finally were able to offer a guesstimate that statistic GÇö it's a range with a lower bound and an upper bound, with 1.5 being the mid point. This has been stable, and haven't gone up much, over the years.
Or, to quote CCP Quant:
CCP Quant wrote:I have in front of me an interval of the number of accounts per player in EVE Online. "An interval? You mean you don't know?" you may ask... well email isn't a proper player identifier since back in the days we comically blocked attempts at making accounts on existing email addresses :) This is why we have to do some guesswork for estimating the upper limit, with the accounts per unique email being the lower one. So no. They do not know very accurately, and it cannot be deduced from unique email accounts and IP addresses (especially not the last one).
Quote:Next we have the problem of self-identification. Here is the states we have people who self-identify as "Independent" because they don't like the political parties. But history shows us certain groups of "Independent" voters always vote one way or another. GǪand that is exactly why the supposed highsec majority does not exist. At the end of the day, CCP has no way to ever determined algorithmically or through data-mining where you GǣbelongGǥ, and none of the stats actually show anything that would give a useful answer. What we can say with some certainty is that it would require a hugely unrealistic distribution of non-highseccers' alts for the highseccers to be a majority.
Quote:So roll the semantics dice and tell me why Null Sec CFC makes up more than three-fourths of the CSM? Because they're organised and because they represent the voters. No die-rolling necessary.
Now, you said there were two things wrong with what I said. Which two things were that?
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26671
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 16:03:55 -
[7] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The alternative hypothesis - that "true" high sec players are actually a majority, but that they're collectively so stupid, ignorant and uninvolved with the game that between the "62%" they represent, they can't out-organise and outvote the - what is it we're told now now? 10%? that some people say are nullsec players is, of course, completely implausible.
I refuse to give any credit to such a disrespectful and unfounded hypothesis that slanders my fellow players, and people, like the OP, who advance it should be ashamed for themselves for putting out such bigoted dogwhistle style implications. Beyond that, assuming this hypothesis is actually accurate, it also raises an immediate question: what's the problem?
If these players are that stupid, ignorant, and uninvolved with the game, then so what if they're not represented? By very definition, they don't care, don't notice, and ultimately don't understand what's going on in the game and have no valuable insight or input into where it should be going. Their input is, at best, worthless; at worst downright erroneous and destructive.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26671
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 16:14:41 -
[8] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:That's racist.
There, I said 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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26671
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 16:29:24 -
[9] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
GǪwhich in any way relates to what I saidGǪ how?
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26671
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 16:52:41 -
[10] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Those are subscriber archetypes based on the ingame activity of their accounts over time. Look at what they do, where, and how many there are of each. There is no GÇ£whereGÇ¥; the GÇ£how manyGÇ¥ counts logged activity (i.e. accounts online), not players; there is no coherent majority that holds one particular view in one particular part of space GÇö it's all a smear of activities, with the largest portion of players doing just about everything.
So, again, it relates to what I saidGǪ how? At best, that last bit absolutely annihilates the silly notion that the supposed Gǣhighsec majorityGǥ even exist.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26678
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 17:23:16 -
[11] - Quote
Goatman NotMyFault wrote:I really couldnyt care less about this, but i should really run for a Place in CSM just as a protest.... And should it begin snowing in hell and i won a Place, i would do my best to try to change the game in directions that would **** off most of the old grumpy vets that refuses to leave EVE (Yeah those that try to keep EVE so they wont loose anything of their own goods.)
VOTE GOAT FOR CSM. SEE EVE CRASH AND DIE IN FLAMES!! Well, I'm convinced.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26681
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 18:18:29 -
[12] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:A vote for Remiel is a vote for getting 'bacon' added to available trade commodities on the market.
I promise I won't do anything else but that. Oh, la-di-da. Bacon, huh? What everyone else is having isn't good enough for you? Pff. =ƒÿñ Bloody space-bourgeoisie ruining it for the common protein farmer.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26681
|
Posted - 2016.01.10 19:08:41 -
[13] - Quote
Goatman NotMyFault wrote:VOTE GOAT AND ILL FINALLY WASH!! What, and ruin the raw animal appeal?
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26683
|
Posted - 2016.01.11 12:12:46 -
[14] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Lets see... A very small group of people, supposed to 'represent' a very large amount of players, elected through a process that many don't know about, which is easily monopolized, spreading flags of what 'they' feel Eve should be like, hindering CCP's attempts at progress in developing a game that entices large audiences, and doing so under the premise of what 'they' feel will make a 'better' Eve.
I'd rather abolish the CSM and rely on protests. How is it easily monopolized?
Well, you see, if lots of people don't voteGǪ
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26684
|
Posted - 2016.01.12 23:23:45 -
[15] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:... Link or GTFO, tbh. I am in a fleet. In other words, you chose GTFO because you got caught lying through your teeth and, as is usually the case when that happens, cant produce even the slightest shred of evidence to support your fantasy.
Quote:Anyway, enough of you for now. Seems like trolling to get a thread locked. Why would you want to get your own thread locked? Is it because you accidentally revealed that it's just a bunch of baseless hot air and whinging without any substance or connection to reality?
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26685
|
Posted - 2016.01.12 23:55:59 -
[16] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
GǪdoes not demonstrate the CFC controlling 75% of the votes. Since that's your claim, that's the one you need to back up.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26698
|
Posted - 2016.01.13 19:15:32 -
[17] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:P.S. Not bothered about a link that I grabbed just before going to bed. Additionally, the public list and the actual list sent out could easily have had a different order. GǪwhich means that it proves your point even less than it does in its current state (which is not a whole lot since it holds no information about voters, their voting patterns, and the supposed control over these voters).
Quote:There were a lot of really good candidates that were not on that list and didn't make it to CSM, whilst others were surprising results. GÇ£GoodGÇ¥ and GÇ£surprisingGÇ¥ by what measure? Your personal preference and knowledge?
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26702
|
Posted - 2016.01.13 20:07:49 -
[18] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Tippia wrote:...GÇ£GoodGÇ¥ and GÇ£surprisingGÇ¥ by what measure? Your personal preference and knowledge?... I am clearly an introverted person, who never discusses anything with anyone else and is not even in a corp much less a fairly large coalition. So there's nothing to actually suggest that there was anything surprising about the people chosen or that the supposed alternatives were any better. Ok. vOv
In short, the entire list is a red herring that failed to have the distracting effect you were hoping for, and your claim remains unsupported and unproven. If anything, all you have to go on disproves the scenario you've dreamed up.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26792
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 12:51:58 -
[19] - Quote
Alphea Abbra wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:All those ships in highsec have a player flying them. If there was only a modest difference between the head counts of highsec and everywhere else i could see your point but the difference is overwhelmingly in favor of highsec having more players.
In order for nullsec to have some huge 'unseen' mass that is truly the heart and soul of EVE pretty much every highsec player would have to have like 50 accounts and be playing them simultaneously 23/7 but that isnt the case. Tippia is wrong but desperately wants to be right. I dont get 'her' obsession with this point but it is a lost case straight out of the gate. But this is simply not known. CCP says how many characters are where. We don't have the data to extrapolate from that to any certain knowledge about player distribution. The best we can do is educated guesses, as Tippia has done. [GǪ] And just for the record, the claim isn't that hi-sec players have 50 accounts. It's that plenty of null-, low- and WH-players have several alts in hi-sec, and that that skews the numbers (Again, SurrenderMonkey has 5/6 of his characters in hi-sec, I have half my active characters in hi-sec...). Just so you don't make yourself look like an idiot next time by missing the discussion by a nautic mile. In fact, let's run the numbers again and not assume anything special about the highseccers GÇö definitely not something as silly as their having 50 alts each. Hell, let's even ignore the more sensible character counts and go for the really na+»ve ones CCP have done, where every last non-trial character is counted, even those who have never trained a single skill or hardly even undocked.
The FF2012 presentation (which is still the last time I saw them compare the two numbers), put the na+»ve character distribution at 71.5% highsec; 28.5% elsewhere. Quant's data mining that was presented at the last FF and on reddit put the expected account per player at 1.5; the average character per account at just above 2, meaning an average of three characters per player.
Highsec is still the place to trade for basics and essentials like craptons of base minerals and skill books. So let's do the very conservative assumption that everone who lives outside of highsec has one (1) alt character in highsec, and let's look at a statistically representative sample of 1,000 characters.
285 of them are not in highsec. At our assumed 2:1 split between highsec/non-highsec alts, these characters represent 142-+ actual players. 715 of the characters are in highsec. Per the same split, 142-+ of those are just outsider alts. 572-+ characters are owned by GÇ£true highseccersGÇ¥, who have three characters each. These characters therefore represent 191 players.
The 72/28 split in character distribution has translated into 57/43 split in players. Yay! Highsec is a majority! But the majority is less than a third the size of what the character count would suggest (14pp rather than 44pp).
What if we look at the more sensible character count where all the unused and untrained alts aren't included? The same presentation suddenly shifted the character population to 65.3% highsec, 34.7% outsiders. Let's do the maths again 347 ousider characters yields 173-+ players. 653 highsec characters - 173-+ alts yeilds 479-+ true highsec characters. 479-+ characters at 3 per player yields 155 true highsec players.
The 65/35 split in character distribution has translated into a 48/52 split in players. Oh my, no more majorityGǪ What looked like a 30pp majority actually turns out to be a 4pp minority. All because we make two fairly reasonable assumptions: that averages are indeed average across both types of players, and that the non-highseccers only have one alt each in highsec.
So what about the map? For one, there's the sample bias of picking pilots in space. Being in space in highsec is a fair bit different than being in space in low or null GÇö in the latter two, being in space without a plan is a bad plan; the the former, milling about half AFK is done habitually. Oh, and w-space doesn't show up and all, so we're ignoring something on the order of one in twenty players.
Then there's the matter of density. There are some 1,200 highsec systems; almost 3,300 null, and 700 lowsec ones. With more people being actually in space, rather than safely docked up, but crammed into a third the number of systems, is it any surprise that the heatmap shows up differently for the two? Even if w-space was shown GÇö a place where docking up happens in one very special system GÇö there are 2,500 of those systems so those brave few who are in there are very spread out and would hardly even register.
All of that just based on numbers. The heretical idea that some true highseccers might still want to align themselves with the (supposed) non-high candidates would erode the GǥmajorityGǥ even furtherGǪ
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26796
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 17:47:45 -
[20] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:i.e. During that process are you going to tell me that they don't know what the proportions are simply because it was a different figure that was released? Yes. They have never had a good grasp of actual players. Even their best guess at the most basic of stats GÇö accounts per player GÇö has a whopping -¦10% margin of error. There are so many ways to start an account and just as many ways of registering and paying for them that they simply cannot find something that simple out with any degree of certainty (and even with that one, the +10% bit is itself an estimate rather than a strict limit).
Anything to do with accounts or characters is silly easy to do stats on because they own all the data. The players behind those accounts and characters are hidden behind non-unique (hell, in many cases unverified) emails, a wide array of payment methods from a whole bunch of different vendors, some of which CCP probably aren't even allowed to know.
To make matters worse, they're often very casual with how they use the word GÇ£playerGÇ¥, often attaching it to stats that actually deal with characters or accounts, as if there was an absolute 1:1:1 correlation. So any time you hear them say it, you need to look very carefully at what it is they're actually counting. Only once (the aforementioned account-per-player estimate) have I ever seen them actually count people, and not something else.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26796
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 18:10:59 -
[21] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:So, on one hand, we have people saying that the average High Sec players are too apathetic or dim to vote and on the other, they are taking special measures to use different IP addresses, home networks, machines and e-mail addresses ... riiiight. No.
On the one hand, we have people saying that most players GÇö regardless of classification GÇö don't care to vote for some reason. On the other hand, we have CCP themselves saying that some of the restrictions they have had throughout the history of the game mean that they can't use email as a unique identifier: they accidentally mad it impossible to do so by (bad) design. They're also saying that none of the other potential identifiers are all that unique, at least not to the point where they can resolve the initial identification issue.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26798
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 19:59:51 -
[22] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:1) Is the IP address used the same? 2) Is the same machine used? 3) Is the same e-mail used? 4) Are multiple accounts carrying on conversations at the same time? IP addresses are not unique, nor exclusive. GÇ£MachinesGÇ¥ are not unique, nor exclusive. Emails are not unique, nor consistent. Multiple accounts can be in conversation at once.
Do you for a second believe that CCP wouldn't like to know exactly how many players they have if they could? They can't. It's that simple, and while you may think that it's a bit embarrassing, they are not exactly hiding this fact. They've told us that they can't and why on multiple occasions.
They are already using all those methods and the best they have is a -¦10% margin of error.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26801
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 00:22:54 -
[23] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:For starters:
Exclusive? How often do you see two people playing EVE on the same computer at the same time? For starters. MACs are not unique or exclusive GÇö the wiki page even explicitly explains how and why this is not the case. For another, you just demonstrated yourself why it can't be used to pin it on one person. The only bet you have is if the person is multiboxing and if it's all done on the same computer and if the client records that hardware information and if that information is actually sent to and collected by CCP. If two people use the same computer, and you rely on this unreliable piece of data, you get a false positive.
So it doesn't really do what's needed for the kind of precision you're after.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26810
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 17:42:38 -
[24] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Average players? Manufacturers have begin making hardware and software that continuously randomise MAC addresses without any prompting, and as mentioned. So yes. And even then, the whole idea hinges on the client collecting and sending that data, which as mentioned will create tons of false positives.
Quote: ... and you think that a combination of tests IP + MAC + + + would significantly throw off a statistical study? I'm saying that in spite of knowing more about this than you do, CCP cannot produce any better than an estimate with a 20%-wide error margin. So yes, the statistics can very obviously be thrown off significantly.
None of your ideas work the way you want them to work, nor do they work for the purpose you want. Trying to combine these inherently imprecise and unreliable data points will most likely just create even more false positives and false negatives that make the whole thing even more unreliable, since previously dead sure predictions will not improve, but will rather be mixed up with all kinds of uncertainties.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26811
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 18:23:27 -
[25] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:It means that all the cyber criminals that take deliberate measure to not be found or counted are simply made up figments of the media and propaganda! No, it means that you, your ISP, CCP's ISP, and the peering networks between the two of you have no reason to respond to information requests from a local non-LE like CCP.
On the flip side of that coin, an LE the size of CCP would just keel over and die if they had to identify all the individuals behind a 300k:ish group of accounts with the required degree of precision.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26811
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 22:26:15 -
[26] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:What can be accomplished with a Trojan? Now, what can be accomplished with a client or launcher? A lawsuit that forces the company to shut down, and which still doesn't provide any useful information.
You're asking for something truly idiotic from a position of absolute ignorance. Stop harping on about 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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26811
|
Posted - 2016.01.21 23:02:08 -
[27] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Never seen a question like that pop up when running or installing programs and games? GǪwhich wouldn't let them collect any more useful data than what they already have.
Get it through your head: they already know this infinitely better than you can ever aspire to. They're already doing everything they can. They will not get the level of accuracy you demand. Live with 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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26816
|
Posted - 2016.01.23 18:35:52 -
[28] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Websites and intranet sites collect better data than this. No. They collect a fraction of the data CCP does, if they collect it at all. That's because they only have some same tools CCP have, and even less reason to collect it.
Above all, they don't even remotely care about the question CCP is having such difficulty answering.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26817
|
Posted - 2016.01.24 05:37:42 -
[29] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:You do realise that there is object oriented programming for web, which can do pretty much anything, right? No longer just a few basic scripts to display some stuff. You do realise that this has nothing to do with his question, right? And that your ignorance about the topic is showing more and more every time you post?
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26819
|
Posted - 2016.01.24 15:02:37 -
[30] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Purely incidental encounter: So one guy not knowing, and when being told explicitly saying he doesn't care GÇö same as the guy who does know GÇö provesGǪ what?
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26819
|
Posted - 2016.01.24 17:23:05 -
[31] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:2/4 + lurkers. One who asked what it was. So one (1). Trying to make it sound like more because that one character was hidden in a bunch of unrelated static does not suddenly make him more than one guy. There's one who asks GÇ£whenGÇ¥, which is not the same question as GÇ£what.GÇ¥ This out of a conversation between 6 people plus, as you point out, any number of lurkers.
You know, since your claim is that no-one knows about it, that's an awful low amount of people who asked about it and an awful lot of people who did not, because they already know and/or didn't care.
Quote:Go and investigate instead of being one of those brats that runs around screaming Why, when you provide such ample evidence to prove yourself wrong. More than 83% seem to know about the CSM, according to your own evidence. Your claim is that a majority does not. Your anecdotal evidence disproves your made-up statistic, much like how your previous attempt at providing evidence disproved your previous made-up statistic of how many votes were being controlled.
Every time you try to prove something, all you do is prove yourself wrong. And yet, you keep saying the same thing, willingly and intentionally. This is the reason people call you a liar: because you lie. You make stuff up. That's all you ever 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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26821
|
Posted - 2016.01.24 17:50:21 -
[32] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:You can see from how thing were spelt out that Di GǪknew enough to not ask GǣwhatGǥ, but GǣwhenGǥ. That is all. Anything else is just you putting words in their mouth, and since you can't even get their names right with the text right in front of you, your attempts at reading and pulling some meaning out of it is very close to being 100% unreliable. Even if you count him, you still don't have your majority.
Your evidence disproves your claims, as always. Yet you keep lying.
Quote:Again, talk to people. Yes, please do so and come back with some actual, non-anecdotal evidence. Preferably something that doesn't immediately prove you wrong.
Quote:Why don't I make the effort to find more proof? Most likely because a) you can't, and b) because it always backfires spectacularly on you when you try. I'm sure you could invent some other reasons, but your history of lying makes anything you say highly suspect and more likely to be untrue than true.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26822
|
Posted - 2016.01.24 18:10:40 -
[33] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:"No u" We have devolved to this point. No. We're simply asking you to provide something to actually support your stance GÇö something that's been pretty much consistent throughout the entire thread.
What we've done is systematically prove you wrong on everything. You keep presenting GÇ£evidenceGÇ¥ that proves you wrong. In face of this evidence, you keep saying the same thing, at which point we say that you're wrong. You then ask us to prove it, in some failed attempt at an onus probandi fallacy, except that we also don't need to prove you wrong because you've already done so.
You then try to blame your failure on us, when it was in large part you who did it to yourself. It's not a GÇ£no, youGÇ¥; it's GÇ£so you keep saying; prove itGÇ¥.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26823
|
Posted - 2016.01.24 18:25:16 -
[34] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:I decline, for now and all eternity. Then you also need to stop making spurious claims.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26823
|
Posted - 2016.01.24 18:30:16 -
[35] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:I disagree. Doesn't matter. You've openly and explicitly said that you refuse to provide evidence to support your claims. This makes them spurious. What you think beyond that point is irrelevant.
Your insistence on disagreeing with facts is yet another reason people call you a liar, by the way.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26823
|
Posted - 2016.01.24 18:38:31 -
[36] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Your opinion No, it's just fact. It's very nice of you to equate the two, though.
Quote:I do not care about it. Again, the ample evidence you provide throughout this thread belies your claims.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26823
|
Posted - 2016.01.24 18:55:37 -
[37] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Your opinion of my claims. Again, you're confusing my opinion with facts. It's very nice of you to hold my opinion in such high regard, but it doesn't really do you any good.
Quote:Repeating a study to reproduce results that I have absolutely no doubts about GǪwould provide some evidence to demonstrate that your claims are not spurious. Your doubts (or lack thereof) of the outcome are of no consequence to how spurious they remain up until that point.
If you think that it's a waste of time to have something to support your stance, then all you're really saying is that your stance is worthless.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26825
|
Posted - 2016.01.24 22:41:33 -
[38] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:at this point never be done, simply to spite you. Trying to spite me does not make you right GÇö it only makes you look stupid (and me right).
Quote:I have cut off my nose but it was less effort than spending months going around High Sec talking to people. So what you're saying is that, if there is a problem GÇö something you have been utterly incapable of proving GÇö you are the cause. You can't be arsed with informing people, and then you complain (without proof) that they're not informed. You can't accept basic facts of statistics and sampling. You don't understand the voting system. You don't even understand the numbers we do have.
More and more, it seems like it's not the (unproven) GÇ£majorityGÇ¥ that is uninformed or ignorant GÇö it's only you.
Quote:I won't back down about this. I won't produce the evidence you want. Then you are wrong. No amount of adamant refusal to accept this fact will change it, nor will it change the proven fact that you are a liar GÇö in fact, it only provides further proof.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26825
|
Posted - 2016.01.24 22:51:35 -
[39] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:You will believe that even if I go out and gather evidence. You're confusing me with you. Just like how you're confusing my opinion with fact.
Quote:Believe as you will. Your opinion does no matter. This is not a matter of belief or opinion, but of fact. The fact is that you simply do not understand the things you're trying to discuss. We know this as a fact because it is the only thing you've ever been able to prove; it's the only conclusion of the evidence you've produced.
You are trying to argue against mathematical axioms and procedures. You are arguing against your own recorded posting history.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26825
|
Posted - 2016.01.24 22:58:29 -
[40] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:You believe I am a liar. No. I know you're a liar. I know this because of the things you've said that contradict reality, and then repeated even when this contradiction has been pointed out to you.
Quote:I know that what I have stated is true. Then you should have no problem proving it. Yet you can't; yet you refuse; yet you keep telling the same lies about things that have been disproven, often by you.
Quote:You demand I produce proof because you are too lazy to go out and find it yourself. No. I demand you produce proof because it is your duty to do so, not mine. Until you do, because you're lazy, incompetent, or just a liar, any claim you make is inherently unproven and can be trivially dismissed as untrue. Trying to shift the burden of proof is a classic fallacy and only further proves you wrong every time you try to employ 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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
26827
|
Posted - 2016.01.24 23:16:10 -
[41] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Your perception of reality. No. Recorded history and data.
Prove that the data is flawed. Prove that you haven't posted your posts in this thread.
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 skillplan 2.3 - Vanguard Edition.
|
|
|
|