Originally posted by Placidity
Erm, I don't think you used any controls at all.A very speculative statement with no solid backing - You know this.
Yeah: count up the MVF's posts 5 days prior to RJ's ban and subtract all of RJ"s posts from that total.
Compare the number of posts from that 5 day to the 5 days RJ was gone.
Measure the difference.
Are the number of posts made in the MVF greater or lesser than the number of posts in the 5 days RJ was active? If they are greater, Omega Spawn is right. If they are lesser, I was right.
This is what I meant for controlled for RJ's posts.
Try the same test: it will take you about 10 minutes. Dead serious.
When you search, it only shows 20 results for 8 pages. You may have to use Google to do an advanced search.
Originally posted by dadudemonLOL you fail hard dude if RJ has scared away debaters... they won't come back just because he's left 😬
Yeah: count up the MVF's posts 5 days prior to RJ's ban and subtract all of RJ"s posts from that total.Compare the number of posts from that 5 day to the 5 days RJ was gone.
Measure the difference.
Are the number of posts made in the MVF greater or lesser than the number of posts in the 5 days RJ was active? If they are greater, Omega Spawn is right. If they are lesser, I was right.
This is what I meant for controlled for RJ's posts.
Try the same test: it will take you about 10 minutes. Dead serious.
When you search, it only shows 20 results for 8 pages. You may have to use Google to do an advanced search.
now look at RJ's threads 70% of the posts in them is him trolling, repeating useless information, quips with smilies attached, and him gimping characters 😬
Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
LOL you fail hard dude if RJ has scared away debaters... they won't come back just because he's left 😬now look at RJ's threads 70% of the posts in them is him trolling, repeating useless information, quips with smilies attached, and him gimping characters 😬
😬
It just so happens...a couple of posters DID make more of a presence while he was banned.😬
Originally posted by dadudemononly b/c some one begged us to come back, i mean plead no wait ordered us. we mocked him and then complied. name will remain anonymous.
😬It just so happens...a couple of posters DID make more of a presence while he was banned.😬
i agree with PR as hard as it is to believe
Originally posted by 0mega SpawnSimple fix for that. Place me on ignore.
LOL you fail hard dude if RJ has scared away debaters... they won't come back just because he's left 😬now look at RJ's threads 70% of the posts in them is him trolling, repeating useless information, quips with smilies attached, and him gimping characters 😬
Or you could quote me where I intentionally gimped a character.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
My "useless information", (Vampires getting nowhere Storm, Wizards WTF pwning the shit outta Jedi, Wizards WTF pwning Clone Troopers, Hit Girl being a bullet dodger, etc) has won every thread I've entered ✅ Just so happens that when I do this, people don't like it and lash out. It all started with Riggs vs McClane. Posters saw the shit going between myself and the McClane fanboys, fed on it, and carried it over into every post I make here. Like protocol droids, programmed for a certain task.
It's funny......In the Wizards/Jedi thread, I said the same facts over and over, time and time again, and most dismissed it. But then Borbarad steps in and repeats the same facts, and all of a sudden people buy it. I said the same things and they were dismissed just because it was me saying them. It's like default Anti-RJ sentiment. (This was pointed out to me, BTW. It wasn't even something I noticed until it was brought to my attention.)
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah: count up the MVF's posts 5 days prior to RJ's ban and subtract all of RJ"s posts from that total.Compare the number of posts from that 5 day to the 5 days RJ was gone.
Measure the difference.
Are the number of posts made in the MVF greater or lesser than the number of posts in the 5 days RJ was active? If they are greater, Omega Spawn is right. If they are lesser, I was right.
This is what I meant for controlled for RJ's posts.
Try the same test: it will take you about 10 minutes. Dead serious.
When you search, it only shows 20 results for 8 pages. You may have to use Google to do an advanced search.
I knew you would say something like that.
The test doesn't work.
What you stated is an observation of declined forum activity the same time RJ was banned.
You spoke of controls earlier, when clearly there are none.
That is merely an observation. Correlation and causation between the two events (1)RJ gone and 2) reduced activity) needs to be proven, and it would indeed be a very difficult thing to do if not impossible.
Originally posted by -Pr-
As far as perception speed goes, the vampires have a definite advantage imo. The only problem is killing people like Colossus or Juggernaut. They were shown to be pretty resilient, so i'd be left to wonder how the vampires could hurt, let alone kill them.
Throw them in the ocean.
Originally posted by PlacidityThe MVF was kickin' from day one. A few months ago it saw a decline. Recently it has seen more posts. That's all there is to it. Me being banned has nothing to do with it. One person does not make or break an internet forum.
I knew you would say something like that.The test doesn't work.
What you stated is an observation of declined forum activity the same time RJ was banned.
You spoke of controls earlier, when clearly there are none.
That is merely an observation. Correlation and causation between the two events (1)RJ gone and 2) reduced activity) needs to be proven, and it would indeed be a very difficult thing to do if not impossible.
FYI: My threads usually get alot of hits. 1255 hits, 580, 541, 473, 275, 268, 245, 231, 194, 183, 181, 175.......Out of the top 50 threads (most hits), I am responsible for 12 of them.
Originally posted by Placidity
I knew you would say something like that.The test doesn't work.
What you stated is an observation of declined forum activity the same time RJ was banned.
You spoke of controls earlier, when clearly there are none.
That is merely an observation. Correlation and causation between the two events (1)RJ gone and 2) reduced activity) needs to be proven, and it would indeed be a very difficult thing to do if not impossible.
You misinterpreted what I stated which is your fault, not mine. You can pretend that I meant that I did some sort of scientific in depth psychological evaluation of KMC posting habits when that is:
1. That's rather...well...idiotic and dumb. No offense, bro, but don't you think you're three steps into "asinine"?
2. False and definitely not what was indicated.
3. Impossible to have done.
Also, you failed to realize that when someone posts...and someone replies: traffic. If someone is replied to more often than others: more traffic.
Eliminate a catalyst of conversation and traffic will decline in two dimensions: the catalyst's posts and the posts from others that the catalyst created. This is the only avenue in which I could measure or control for ( again "control" only indicates the elimination and measure of the elimination of ONLY the # of RJ's posts). Regardless of what you think is proper or not proper, there was a significant drop in posts FROM OTHERS after RJ was banned. This increased back to normal AFTER he started posting regularly, again. You can pretend that there is no correlation when there is a direct correlational measure as described above. If you want to say "STICK TO OBSERVATION! RAWR!" Then what's the point of the conversation, period? You do know that started when Omega Spawn made a baseless claim, right? He said traffic would greatly increase RJ would GTFO when the exact opposite occurred when he left.
Granted, it's unproven if after, say, 5 weeks of RJ's absence, WOULD traffic increase above the levels when "RJ" activity was at it's prime? That's possible, but unlikely. There's no magic button that will get people to start posting on KMC more and eliminating a conversational catalyst is not a very good way of increasing posting frequency. Instead of getting fussy with me about using the word "control", shouldn't you be directing your posts directly at Omega Spawn for his very ill-conceived idea of posting volume in the MVF?
Edit - I actually just read your whole post instead of the first two sentences. lol You could be right. So prove me wrong or prove me right by measuing posting frequency for those that were active during the 5 days before the ban and then during the 5 days after the ban. See if they posted less and list the number of posts, per person. You can also do a measure on the "words" or "letters" posted by those active members. Then list the total words or letters posted during each period...just for good measure. Be sure to control for RJ's posts, as I did, though, or you could get skewed results (RJ posts a lot 😄)
Originally posted by dadudemon
You misinterpreted what I stated which is your fault, not mine. You can pretend that I meant that I did some sort of scientific in depth psychological evaluation of KMC posting habits when that is:1. That's rather...well...idiotic and dumb. No offense, bro, but don't you think you're three steps into "asinine"?
2. False and definitely not what was indicated.
3. Impossible to have done.
I didn't misinterpret anything. Not pretending anything.
Never thought you did do any study on it.
Simply saying your statement has no basis.
If you agree that what you said earlier was unscientific, then why post the following and further the argument?
Originally posted by dadudemon
You can pretend that there is no correlation when there is a direct correlational measure as described above.
I'm not pretending anything.
You want to say your conclusions are not scientific, yet go on to assert that there is a correlation? How strong is the correlation? I have yet to see empirical proof. Still have not proved causation, which is the most important point.
I assumed from the first post that you have done some sort of statistics unit and that you would understand what you are saying is completely incorrect after I pointed it out. Do you really not see it, or do you just want to argue with me because I pointed it out to you?
About your 'points':
Do you know how large this forum is? The amount of variables that you have not even began to consider? What if member X was banned the same time RJ was? Can I not use your logic and claim the decline in activity was due to member X? What if people were busy during that period? There are so many variables, the fact you have observed two events and simply assumed they are related and one is the cause of the other is ludicrous.
Also, I'm sensing incoming hostility from your tone and choice of words. Lets not turn it into that.
Originally posted by Placidity
I didn't misinterpret anything. Not pretending anything.Never thought you did do any study on it.
Simply saying your statement has no basis.
If you agree that what you said earlier was unscientific, then why post the following and further the argument?
The argument is you think that there's no correlation when there directly is one. You want to tag it as my trying to pass it off as a rigorous scientific study which I find ludicris.
Originally posted by Placidity
I'm not pretending anything.You want to say your conclusions are not scientific, yet go on to assert that there is a correlation? How strong is the correlation? I have yet to see empirical proof. Still have not proved causation, which is the most important point.
Incorrect. I have never claimed it was scientific only that I was slightly more careful than just counting.
Originally posted by Placidity
I assumed from the first post that you have done some sort of statistics unit and that you would understand what you are saying is completely incorrect after I pointed it out. Do you really not see it, or do you just want to argue with me because I pointed it out to you?
None of the above. Simple measure if activity was all that was done to see if RJ's posts had any impact of MVF traffic. This isn't a very complex system with hundreds of thousands of variables.
Originally posted by Placidity
About your 'points':Do you know how large this forum is?
This is not about any location except the MVF.
Originally posted by Placidity
The amount of variables that you have not even began to consider?
You mean the ones that you want me to have measured but could not and will not ever measure?
Originally posted by Placidity
What if member X was banned the same time RJ was?
Out of all posters in the MVF that had posted in the 5 days prior, 5 days during, and about 2 weeks later when RJ picked his posting habits back up, only RJ was banned. Does that change your thoughts on it, a little?
Originally posted by Placidity
Can I not use your logic and claim the decline in activity was due to member X?
IFF that member made lots of posts and, in turn, caused others to make posts IF you controlled for that person's posts by measuing activity during member X's absense and return to activity (elminating his posts from both sets of measures to see if that person has an impact on others' posting frequency).
Originally posted by Placidity
What if people were busy during that period?
Then you'd have to prove that all of those members were busy which would be a very difficult task to prove, indeed. The probibility of all of those members being busy during the same period that RJ experienced a 5-day ban would be quite absurd. There's also another point to this, which I address, below.
Originally posted by Placidity
There are so many variables, the fact you have observed two events and simply assumed they are related and one is the cause of the other is ludicrous.
Incorrect. The fact that you want to single me out for indicating that RJ was directly related to the amount of traffic declining in the MVF is the ludicris part when:
A) traffic did decline.
B) traffic picked right back up to the levels they were before.
C) I was pointing out the how stupid the idea was that RJ's absence would greatly increase the amount of traffic in the MVF when we saw, clearly, that the opposite had already occured.
Now, you can say it was just "coincidence" but do you REALLY think it was just coincidence?
Also, why didn't you call out Omega Spawn, first and foremost, before calling me out on a simple numbers correlation?
Originally posted by Placidity
Also, I'm sensing incoming hostility from your tone and choice of words. Lets not turn it into that.
No hostility: just morbid curiosity as to your motives.
This:
"Also, why didn't you call out Omega Spawn, first and foremost, before calling me out on a simple numbers correlation?"
If you want to hold the high ground of being obective, you should have called Omega Spawn out, first, and used the same EXACT arguments you've used against me, against Omega Spawn.
But why didn't you? That's obvious: RJ and you are not the best of friends. 🙂
Let's directly address the point, though:
Explain the decrease in traffic during RJ's ban (if controlled for RJ's posts in the prior 5 day period) and the subsequent return to traffic when RJ started posting regularly again (again, control for his posts.)
If you reject that claim, measure yourself and tell me the results. I conducted this very quick measure weeks ago when it happened so it was much easier to measure, then. You may have a much more difficult time measuring this due to the "8 pages with 20 results" each issue. I do not have the numbers with me or memorized as it was just a "quick" measure of traffic: that's it. I wanted to see how much of an impact he made on the MVF because he said, himself, that he creates lots of traffic for the MVF and I was like "o rly?" and checked it out for myself. What you are wanting is a measure of, say, the last year of traffic and to find what a standard deviation for that last year of traffic is and then for me to produce a result that shows RJ's posts created something like: greater than 2 standard deviations" in posting traffic.
That would not be a valid measure because of several reasons:
It would be almost impossible for one person to create 2 standard deviations in traffic just by not posting for 5 days. Two SDs are also not "sure-fire" way of proving an impact. I'll explain that last statemen in a second.
You can say "variables" like everyone being on vacation or something, but that simply doesn't apply, especially if you find the standard deviation of traffic for the previous year.
Additionally, traffic could actually "naturally" experience greater than 2 standard deviations in normal traffic due to some conversations garnering more participation than others. How would you control, then, for those conversations especially because RJ was steeped in lots of conversations that were "hot-topics"? Wouldn't, then, measuring for a true impact from RJ be impossible? What was great about his absence was the continuation of conversations in those same threads even while he was gone but we could see exactly the impact he had on the volume in the MVF. I can't think of a better setup to do a measure of without having to get stupid crazy on measuring. IMO, it was the best way to see if what RJ said of himself, was true. Some posters just generate traffic and those are great posters to have around if your the site owner. RJ is one of those.
Edit -But above all, this:
Originally posted by dadudemon
Instead of getting fussy with me about using the word "control", shouldn't you be directing your posts directly at Omega Spawn for his very ill-conceived idea of posting volume in the MVF?
Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
LMAO my ill concieved data
people stating they don't like MVF forum because of RJ's trolling = ill concieved data¿? 😆show me where i presented ill concieved data
please please do 😆
Show me where I said ill-concieved data.
Additionally:
Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
😆 funny coming from the guy who cause the MVF to be so much less active than other forums 😬
Originally posted by dadudemon
The argument is you think that there's no correlation when there directly is one. You want to tag it as my trying to pass it off as a rigorous scientific study which I find ludicris.
I never said there was no correlation.
I said, I have not seen proof there is a correlation.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Incorrect. I have never claimed it was scientific only that I was slightly more careful than just counting.
Ok, we agree your statements are not scientific.
Originally posted by dadudemon
None of the above. Simple measure if activity was all that was done to see if RJ's posts had any impact of MVF traffic. This isn't a very complex system with hundreds of thousands of variables.
Probably not hundreds of thousands.
Certainly more than you're admitting.
And it is very complex to prove correlation, let alone causation which I've noticed you still have not touched upon.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You mean the ones that you want me to have measured but could not and will not ever measure?
I don't want you to measure anything, because as you say, it'll be silly to attempt it.
And because you can't possibly gather the required data and proof, your claims are not backed up. Thats pretty much my point.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Out of all posters in the MVF that had posted in the 5 days prior, 5 days during, and about 2 weeks later when RJ picked his posting habits back up, only RJ was banned. Does that change your thoughts on it, a little?
That doesn't change my thoughts no. Could you be right? Possibly, I never said your theory was wrong, but the way you arrived to your conclusion is very speculative (far from scientific), yet you've presented it as more than that.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Then you'd have to prove that all of those members were busy which would be a very difficult task to prove, indeed. The probibility of all of those members being busy during the same period that RJ experienced a 5-day ban would be quite absurd. There's also another point to this, which I address, below.
I don't have to prove anything. I never made any claims, only that yours are not backed by proof.
Being busy, or someone else being banned are only examples I thought of from the top of my head. There are many other possible variables. I'm sure you could think of some if you tried/wanted to.
Originally posted by dadudemonIncorrect. The fact that you want to single me out for indicating that RJ was directly related to the amount of traffic declining in the MVF is the ludicris part when:
A) traffic did decline.
B) traffic picked right back up to the levels they were before.
C) I was pointing out the how stupid the idea was that RJ's absence would greatly increase the amount of traffic in the MVF when we saw, clearly, that the opposite had already occured.Now, you can say it was just "coincidence" but do you REALLY think it was just coincidence?
I don't know if it is a coincidence. As I said, there could be many variables influencing what you have observed.
Sometimes things LOOK like they correlate but when you do run regression analysis on the data, 99% CI etc etc, you may find it is the relationship is weak. And even if you DO prove strong correlation (which I suspect you would not due to the ridiculously small sample size), that is still no basis to say that one event CAUSES the other.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, why didn't you call out Omega Spawn, first and foremost, before calling me out on a simple numbers correlation?
Because I like engaging in intelligent debates.
We both know that Omega Spawn is just trying to get to RJ (which RJ deserves 110% 😆 ).
Originally posted by dadudemon
But why didn't you? That's obvious: RJ and you are not the best of friends. 🙂
Um nothing to do with it. I didn't make any recent posts with animosity towards RJ in mind. Sure I get frustrated with his trolling sometimes, but its not something I take to heart. Each new thread I go in with a neutral attitude until he says silly things again.
Your read was way off this time. You should know I only debate with people I think are capable of doing it in an intelligent manner, except RJ of course, because he has special troll and baiting skills.
Originally posted by dadudemonLet's directly address the point, though:
[...too long...]
I'm not interested in explaining it, nor could I do it if I wanted to.
If you make a claim, then the onus is on you to defend against people poking holes in it, not the other way round.
Summary: Your 'theory' (I call it one, but I don't think it qualifies) COULD be right, but in the absence of proof, a theory is all it is.
About the point of traffic being good (for owners), well thats likely true, but thats another topic. The traffic might not be good for users though, if it was all just trolling/genuine points being ignored for many pages.
And please, make your posts shorter next time (not that I really want to debate this thing any more, its getting boring (not saying its you, but just the nature of it)), its hard trying to reply to everything... 🙁