These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Plex prices

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#181 - 2014-06-30 08:40:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Ramona McCandless
polly papercut wrote:

You guys are looking rather stupid


What an intelligent counterpoint to a statement you believe I made (and didnt)

If you are going to be ticked off simply because you feel people disagree with you, there is no purpose in attempting to debate with you.

Therefore, is there a purpose to your point on this subject?

If you only accept comments from those who agree with you, then there is no need for the comment in the first place.

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
polly papercut
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#182 - 2014-06-30 08:42:19 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:
I thought the burden of proof was on the person who presents a theory to prove it correct or disprove it themselves

Right and you guys are suggesting no other accounts have been canceled due to plex pricing. I have proven that some have and now have laws of probability on my side.

It is your job to prove that no other accounts have been canceled due to plex prices. As of right now you have nothing
Rowells
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#183 - 2014-06-30 08:44:02 UTC
polly papercut wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Quote:
You have provided no proofs that I am wrong

True, I did that by lying on the pole.
As Ramona correctly pointed out, the burden if proof still lies with you.


I have already proven that accounts have been canceled due to plex prices.
My self and some RL friends have canceled accounts because of it.
Now due to the laws of probability that would suggest there are more people who have canceled because of plex prices.

You guys are looking rather stupid to sit and assume we are the only ones to do so.
And I also took into account the lying on the poll in an other post.
You are suggesting that there are no more people to have canceled accounts because of plex prices.

There for the burden of proof is right solid on your shoulders.
I would say quit while your ahead of you are not ahead . So either quit or come up with some proof that no one else has canceled because of plex price.
I enjoy making terrible arguments. Therefore, probability states there must be others who do as well.

Oh hey!
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#184 - 2014-06-30 08:44:11 UTC
That's not what we are discussing though, we are discussing the validity of the pole.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#185 - 2014-06-30 08:44:17 UTC
polly papercut wrote:
Ramona McCandless wrote:
I thought the burden of proof was on the person who presents a theory to prove it correct or disprove it themselves

Right and you guys are suggesting no other accounts have been canceled due to plex pricing. I have proven that some have and now have laws of probability on my side.
It is your job to prove that no other accounts have been canceled due to plex prices. As of right now you have nothing



I havent suggested anything

I havent seen any proof either way

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
polly papercut
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#186 - 2014-06-30 08:46:27 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:
, there is no purpose in attempting to debate with you.
.

You can attempt all you want I have shown numerous times that some accounts have been canceled because of plex pricing. I also have shown why the burden of proof is now in your court.

Laws of probability are pretty strong that is why indeed a law not a hypothesis of probability
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#187 - 2014-06-30 08:48:46 UTC
polly papercut wrote:
Ramona McCandless wrote:
I thought the burden of proof was on the person who presents a theory to prove it correct or disprove it themselves

Right and you guys are suggesting no other accounts have been canceled due to plex pricing. I have proven that some have and now have laws of probability on my side.

It is your job to prove that no other accounts have been canceled due to plex prices. As of right now you have nothing

No we are not, we were singular in concern about a meritless pole being used in a discussion .

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#188 - 2014-06-30 08:48:59 UTC
polly papercut wrote:
Ramona McCandless wrote:
, there is no purpose in attempting to debate with you.
.

You can attempt all you want I have shown numerous times that some accounts have been canceled because of plex pricing. I also have shown why the burden of proof is now in your court.

Laws of probability are pretty strong that is why indeed a law not a hypothesis of probability


As I said, I have not seen proof either way. Your editing my replies to remove where I suggest you should be less emotionally reactive to other's opinions on your posts does you no favours.

If you wish to align more people to your point of view, you should be less confrontational and reactionary.

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#189 - 2014-06-30 08:50:12 UTC
And why do we care about accounts cancelled? Less miners more rocks for me!

Invalid signature format
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#190 - 2014-06-30 08:54:46 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:

If you wish to align more people to your point of view, you should be less confrontational and reactionary.


I'll further this and point out that the very people to have been arguing with are the ones who would like to see proper data on the subject as opposed to some irrelevant percentage of something to be beaten about the head with.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
polly papercut
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#191 - 2014-06-30 09:00:16 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:
polly papercut wrote:
Ramona McCandless wrote:
I thought the burden of proof was on the person who presents a theory to prove it correct or disprove it themselves

Right and you guys are suggesting no other accounts have been canceled due to plex pricing. I have proven that some have and now have laws of probability on my side.
It is your job to prove that no other accounts have been canceled due to plex prices. As of right now you have nothing



I havent suggested anything

I havent seen any proof either way


http://s12.postimg.org/lch0satzx/eve_proof.jpg that is one account there. That is more proof than I have seen for the argument that no other accounts have been canceled.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#192 - 2014-06-30 09:03:46 UTC
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#193 - 2014-06-30 09:04:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Ramona McCandless
polly papercut wrote:


http://s12.postimg.org/lch0satzx/eve_proof.jpg that is one account there. That is more proof than I have seen for the argument that no other accounts have been canceled.


What exactly do you expect me to reply to this?

Or rather, what would you prefer me to say?

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#194 - 2014-06-30 09:06:21 UTC
Nothing, at this point you can just laugh

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#195 - 2014-06-30 09:10:34 UTC
Meh, recently I paid year subs for my 2 accounts and last week I did the same for new alt so I think CCP's wallet is safe for now.

Invalid signature format
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#196 - 2014-06-30 09:24:34 UTC
polly papercut wrote:
Ramona McCandless wrote:
polly papercut wrote:
Ramona McCandless wrote:
I thought the burden of proof was on the person who presents a theory to prove it correct or disprove it themselves

Right and you guys are suggesting no other accounts have been canceled due to plex pricing. I have proven that some have and now have laws of probability on my side.
It is your job to prove that no other accounts have been canceled due to plex prices. As of right now you have nothing



I havent suggested anything

I havent seen any proof either way


http://s12.postimg.org/lch0satzx/eve_proof.jpg that is one account there. That is more proof than I have seen for the argument that no other accounts have been canceled.


No one's arguing that people haven't cancelled their accounts due to PLEX prices. What we're arguing against is that it's a problem. Because it isn't. Even if your entire population sample on that silly little poll of yours cancelled all their subs due to PLEX prices, it still wouldn't be a problem.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#197 - 2014-06-30 09:32:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
polly papercut wrote:
Until you come up with numbers of your own. I am still right.
No. Until you prove yourself right, you are wrong. The problem is that the only proof you have does not say what you want it to say, as has been demonstrated on multiple occasions by multiple people.

We have proven that your sample size is too small. We have proven that it is a biased, self-selected sample. We have proven that it is not an accurate tally of anything other than votes. You have not been able to respond or refute any of this other than by spewing all manner of fallacies all over the place.

Quote:
See how straw man works is I go about telling people that you made a statement about something for the straw man fallacy to work the person or people would have to be ignorant to your side of the argument.
No. What other people think is irrelevant. What matters is that you don't address what I say but instead invent a different argument, attribute it to me, and go after it instead. If you're going to complain about the use of a word, you need to learn what it means first. As long as you keep inventing arguments to respond to rather than to address what they actually say, you are using strawman argumentation.

Quote:
And the way Ad Hominem works is and you are extremely guilty of this one.
I make one statement you reply back well polly is a big stupid head there for my statement is invalid.
No. You make a statement. I, and everyone else, demonstrate that it is incorrect or fallacious, and that this suggests that you are not familiar with the subject at hand. This is not an ad hominem since the assessment of your person is based on your argument rather than the other way around. We are not saying that your argument is false because of some characteristic of yours; we are saying that your demonstrably false arguments suggests certain characteristics in you. There's a difference between the two, you know…

Quote:
You simply like to try to argue until such a time that you can come to be with actual numbers and PROVE to me that no other accounts have been canceled due to plex prices anything you say it meaningless.
This is a strawman argument. At no point has anyone suggested that no accounts have been cancelled due to PLEX prices — that's just something you made up so you could be right about something. What people have said is that your poll doesn't prove anything of any relevance due to its many many flaws. How and why this is has been proven over and over again, but you have only been able to respond by demonstrating a lack of understanding of the subject matter.

Quote:
It is a fallacy to claim that X exists unless you prove that there is no X
…and that is indeed what your argument boils down to and why I keep saying that you shouldn't rely so much on fallacies.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#198 - 2014-06-30 09:36:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
polly papercut wrote:
Right and you guys are suggesting no other accounts have been canceled due to plex pricing. I have proven that some have and now have laws of probability on my side.
No-one has suggested this, and your poll (nor anything else you've provided) does not prove this for the simple reason that it does not tally PLEX-related cancellations.

All we are suggesting is that your data is insignificant to the point of irrelevance and that it is full of inaccuracies. That and the other fundamental flaws in your poll means that probability isn't something you should attempt to appeal to at this moment, as was demonstrated (with numbers and all) earlier in the thread.
Eternity 1
Doomheim
#199 - 2014-06-30 09:47:32 UTC
Some people spend far too much time trying to prove people wrong on the internet.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#200 - 2014-06-30 09:50:10 UTC
Eternity 1 wrote:
Some people spend far too much time trying to prove people wrong on the internet.


He's managed to do that all on his own, what we're trying to do is get him to realise this.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.