EVE General Discussion

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.

Are you acting, or do you not even understand what you write yourself? You were told why we don't have any reason to talk about a hi-sec majority, based on CCP data. Now you want to attack the data CCP released because it doesn't support the conclusions you wanted?

During the discussion about what data CCP has (At least, what they say they have and release in public - so the data we can actually do anything with) about players and accounts, Tippia explains why CCP labels this data with a 10% margin of error. That's not Tippias invention. It's CCP not having more accurate data.
You ask whether a few things should give a clear picture. Spoiler: If they did, CCP would already have that clear picture. So no, it doesn't. You then proclaim that issues a private company might have in procuring this data is the same that a law enforcement agency would have procuring this data. Now you're suggesting that to overcome a lack of data, CCP should turn the launcher into a Trojan, to enable CCP to discern whether you're one or more persons connected to a number of accounts?

It would not even solve all the problems, of course. I once had two functioning laptops, and played a different account on each (The set-up was different). A Trojan in my launcher could then reveal that I am two players. Connecting it to IP OTOH would make my then-roomie and I look like only one player, controlling a number of accounts. Or when I lived at a dorm, we were a handful of people on the same IP, controlling some 10-15 accounts between us, but while IP would show us to be one player, launcher or MAC addresses would show us to be more than the persons we were, and social interaction ingame would give a muddled picture. Emails would probably reveal as many players as there were accounts. Players based on creditcards would be off by at least one.
This is just a short walkthrough about the problems of determining how many accounts are connected to people. Any one assumption (IP, email, MAC, social interaction, CC) applied across us would yield a different and incorrect number of players behind the accounts.
CCP probably uses a more detailed analysis to arrive to their numbers, but they realise that they don't have an exact count and therefore they apply that margin of error.
We can use the numbers to work out rough estimates, qualified guesses, about player distribution (Rather than just the character distribution CCP knows and releases), as Tippia demonstrated before. These will have that same margin of error attached, but based on a very conservative assumption (1 trade alt per player), it was shown that the idea of a hi-sec majority that can sweep elections is only that: An idea.

We're back to the fundamental problem in your complaint: It's not based on facts. Is there a large hi-sec player majority that should have a proportional voice on the CSM? We have essentially no reason to think so. It's more likely around 50-50 or less, in non-HS' favour. Should HS voters vote for "HS agenda" candidates? There seems to be no compelling reason to do so. Is HS marginalised in terms of how much their vote is worth? Not at all. Is HS marginalised in terms of voter information? Well, possibly, since NS, LS and WH organisations are generally larger, their candidates have a larger starting basis. Then again, if it's a roughly 50-50 player split between HS and other sectors, that shouldn't matter too much, since the potential basis of HS is so much larger. Does CCP marginalise or empower any specific voting group? We have no reason to think so. Is there any voter fraud or gaming of the system? None has been shown, although a few times people misunderstands what STV is, and accuses use of STV voter/seats mechanics of fraud. Is the solution to a perceived imbalance between player locations and CSM members' locations to disenfranchise some groups? Only if you're against democratic elections. Might the apparent discrepancy between voters and candidates really be due to some voters simply never caring? Yes, that's a possiblity. Might it even be because voters in general don't share your notions of HS/NS, and vote for the "NS" candidates? Yes, that's also possible.

To reiterate: The problem of some groups not voting like you want them to, looks, quite frankly, to be an honest evaluation of your worth as a candidate. Furthermore, the discrepancy you claim is as of yet not substantiated, but if you're right, it makes your problem to reach voters even larger.
The problem isn't Goons or other null-sec alliances. The problem isn't likely to be found among hi-sec voters. To find the most plausible cause of the problem, look in a mirror.

Depends how you look at a non vote.

Some people say it's a wasted vote. People like myself that don't vote, don't vote because if you have a small number of parties and you don't feel any of those parties really represent you, then if you do vote, you are effectively saying you agree with them.

I look at a non vote as just a lack of confidence in or non representation of the parties that are standing.


Now being from the UK, if there was a vote to leave Europe, then that's one I would consider.

"My theory is fine. Go get me some better data!"

I was only really comparing the election process, not what they do after they're elected. Except in relation to possible broken election promises.

I don't think CCP would be mad if you sent them your solution, so that in the future they can have p<0.001 certainty they've got the right number of players.
I don't think it exists, because if so CCP would probably have made it, but feel free to mail it to them.

And then the rest of us can laugh at you when new, perfectly accurate, numbers come out and still show that you're full of it.

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.

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?

Then please do send this magical code to CCP, so we can get the p<0.001 number of players, and you can still be wrong, but this time you will acknowledge it because the data still proves you wrong?

Look, Jen, after a few years with experience in statistics, I actually realised that the "torture numbers to say anything" cliché that people have about statistics isn't accurate. Proving a faulty hypothesis with data can be really hard, and the worse your data are, the harder it gets to show anything. If you really want to be able to say anything, you can't just torture the numbers, you gotta make them up. Indoctrination, if you want an analogy to torture.
You're asking for new data because the old data didn't fit your view. But apart from this new data being magical, we also have no reason to think it will prove you right. But until we get this perfect, flawless data that authoritatively tells us the number of players, their average number of accounts and what kind of player that is, the numbers Tippia presented before is our best educated guess. You were wrong in suggesting that there is be an unrepresented majority of players in hi-sec. You were unfounded in suggesting that these players are kept from voting somehow. It is morally reprehensible to suggest disenfranchising some people just to have some alleged non-voters' vote be comparatively equal.

And until you send in your magical code and get data that still shows you wrong, this is all just a red herring from that.

The central point of this thread seems to be that you have no idea what you're talking about; no data to support your imagined state of affairs; no real concept of any kind of actual problem; and that you're just kvetching because you didn't get into the clubhouse.


Then you should either learn a bit more about what you're discussing or refund them their money.