These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

SAME level 4 agents
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#41 - 2012-03-20 21:48:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
What a load of crap. You've been constantly trying to prove I'm incorrect with every single post you make in this thread.
No. I've constantly tried to make you provide evidence to support your claim and said that, in absence of any such evidence, the null hypothesis is left unchallenged.

Quote:
More lies, where is this so called rule written that says the burden of proof is on me?
Onus probandi. It's only been in place for the last 3,000 years or so. You make the claim that there is a connection — you prove it. In the absence of proof, I'm free to say that we have no proof (because it's your responsibility to provide it, and you haven't). You are providing me with all the evidence I need to keep saying that it's random by not showing that there is indeed a connection between mission offers and various independent variables. While you're at it, maybe you should look up the word “lie” as well.

Should you provide such evidence, we come to the next step, when I would have to provide counter-evidence or show flaws in your proposed mechanic if I want to maintain that the null hypothesis still holds true… but why would I want that at that point?

Quote:
You are trolling due to constantly writing long drawn out posted replies ranting about how I'm wrong and yet you can't provide any evidence whatsoever to support your claim.
…evidence that I don't have to provide since I'm simply arguing that we have nothing to challenge the null hypothesis. It takes a while to explain to you what you need to do since, apparently, the simple explanations aren't sufficient. Explaining to you what your argument is lacking is not trolling — it's education. Just because you don't like these explanations doesn't make it trolling.

stoicfaux wrote:
Personally, I'm insulted by Tippia's continuance of this "debate."

Tippia, are you implying that the rest of us are too stupid to know that DeMichael Crimson's arguments are weak-sauce? That we need to be continually reminded about anecdotal evidence, unsupported/unverifiable/potentially-out-of-date sources, or about such concepts as "proving a negative" or the burden of proof?
No such implication, insinuation, or insult is intended — it's all aimed at DMC, since he's struggling with these very fundamental concepts.

Speaking of which… DMC, might I suggest an introductory course in rhetorics and argumentation analysis? They would really help you.
Cyniac
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2012-03-20 22:17:58 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Onus probandi. It's only been in place for the last 3,000 years or so. You make the claim that there is a connection — you prove it.


This principle is correct - however it is not unreasonable to ask before starting to gather the information to prove or disprove something to ascertain what kind of information is needed.

What kind of proof would you find to be conclusive (or at least indicative) on how agents work?


I personally think that there are two factors which need to be looked into:


1) Does the relative standing to an agent affect the type of missions which the agent grants?

2) Does the mission running history of an agent affect the type of missions which the agent grants? (Specifically the missions which are successfully completed or those which are rejected - in practice both effects can be looked at simultaneously at least initially).

Here is how I think it ought to be tested.


Take two toons which have never run any missions.

Send them to the same agent.

Start having them run missions - only does faction missions and declines pirate missions. The other only does pirate missions and declines faction missions.

Record the missions which are being offered vs the standings of the character. See what happens.

Simple right? If you see differences in the missions being offered then that is probably indicative of an underlying mechanism. Once standings get high enough (say 9.0 or above) deliberately bomb the standings with that agent and repeat to see the kind of missions being offered.

However having written all that down it makes me tired just to go about it right now but hey it's a project.
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#43 - 2012-03-21 04:24:45 UTC  |  Edited by: DeMichael Crimson
Tippia wrote:
more ranting
Do you or anyone else have any Statistical Evidence or an Official Statement from CCP for verification of this so called 'Null Hypothesis'? It doesn't matter how many characters you get to post here on your behalf, it's all hearsay until someone provides positive evidence to back up your statement. I already posted links providing support to my statement yet you obviously can't provide any links at all to support your viewpoint. Probably because there isn't any available.

stoicfaux wrote:
Personally, I'm insulted by Tippia's continuance of this "debate."

Tippia, are you implying that the rest of us are too stupid to know that DeMichael Crimson's arguments are weak-sauce?

Yet nobody has provided any substantial evidence to dispute my statement.

stoicfaux wrote:
That we need to be continually reminded about anecdotal evidence, unsupported/unverifiable/potentially-out-of-date sources,

I'd rather go with Anecdotal Evidence than Hearsay Evidence. Hearsay Evidence is nothing more than unsubstantiated rumors that are unverified. As for the links I posted being out-of-date, check the date at the bottom of their page.

stoicfaux wrote:
or about such concepts as "proving a negative" or the burden of proof?

First of all, Tippia was the one who started this with her statement that agent mission offers are totally random with nothing affecting them so the 'Burden Of Proof' actually falls on Tippia. Since this isn't a Legal Proceeding I don't have to show any proof. However I did provide links to back up my statement yet no one else has posted any proof to negate those links.


Bottom line: CCP is the only one who can resolve this issue and when they do reply to the petition with a statement regarding this subject, then someone can claim they are correct. Until that time, I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this thread unless someone can post undisputed evidence in support of one side or the other.

'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#44 - 2012-03-21 08:42:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Do you or anyone else have any Statistical Evidence or an Official Statement from CCP for verification of this so called 'Null Hypothesis'?
The null hypothesis is what the null hypothesis always is: that there is no connection between anything. It is not there to be verified — it's there to be falsified (by you).

Quote:
Yet nobody has provided any substantial evidence to dispute my statement.
No-one has to until you provide any substantial evidence to dispute it. Until you provide something to support it, it's false by default.

Quote:
I'd rather go with Anecdotal Evidence than Hearsay Evidence.
And I'd rather go with actual evidence. So how about you cough some up?

Quote:
First of all, Tippia was the one who started this with her statement that agent mission offers are totally random with nothing affecting them so the 'Burden Of Proof' actually falls on Tippia. Since this isn't a Legal Proceeding I don't have to show any proof. However I did provide links to back up my statement yet no one else has posted any proof to negate those links.
I started by stating the null hypothesis — no connection. The burden of proof for this is nil since it is… well… the null hypothesis. Its role is to be falsified (still by you). You most certainly have to show proof if you want to argue against this default state — not because this is or isn't some kind of legal proceeding but because you're making causal claims with nothing to show in support. The links you provided didn't contain any such proof — just more unfounded and unproven claims (which they even admitted). They are exactly the “hearsay evidence” you've just said you would rather not use.

Quote:
Bottom line: CCP is the only one who can resolve this issue
No. You can also resolve this issue, but for some reason you choose not to — just like every other time this has come up — and instead keep espousing your faith as solid fact, calling people who point out that you have nothing to stand on trolls.
Lexmana
#45 - 2012-03-21 10:29:52 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:

First of all, Tippia was the one who started this with her statement that agent mission offers are totally random with nothing affecting them so the 'Burden Of Proof' actually falls on Tippia.


You really should take a statistics course at Republic University. Assuming something is random is what you do until you have evidence to support the contrary.

Anyway, people make poor decisions every day by over-interpreting random data. Even scientists do that. Randomness is a hard thing to cope with for humans since we are not programmed to do so. We are programmed to find patterns and we will find them every where.

But here is what you can do (if you don't want to take the statistics course). Just switch agentand now your brain will start looking for evidence that you were indeed right, that the mission distribution has indeed changed. You will feel better since you did something to improve your situation but most likely you will just continue to run the same distribution of missions again and again and again ...
Previous page123