Level 55+ for scout roll, yay or nay?

[fortior]

Originally Posted by remen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

1. Explain how you know this please?

Yeah, no, this is not how it works. You have to show that the characteristics of the polled people are sufficiently similar to the characteristics of the population you're trying to infer something about.

You can't, because there's a reason prolific forum posters are called forumquesters. Ingame /OOC is simply too neurotypical for the P99 forums to be an accurate representation of the P99 ingame population.

[kaev]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Let's count the multi account users shall we?

7thGate, anarch, Bakuryu13, bodenn, Buriedpast, bv2fg, Chucck, Core, Crawdad, Crom, d-tron, Doujou, DromalPhrenia, dyonak, Emmin, EQmerch, Feanoir, Femm, feniin, Flinky9234, fortior, garfo, HedleyKow, Hibbs, huron99, icedwards, jakerees, Jimjam, JohnT88, Just facts, kaev, Katran, Kindadar, Konfetti, Korpskugga, Lewkeng, loramin, Lunk, Mead, mefdinkins, Metham, MiRo2, misterbonkers, Narcol, Nexii, Officer, Olarin, Phenyl, Phenyo, Psyqo, publicexpo, Qtip, Shodo, Silmeria, Tiggles Mother, tolinwiz, Twochain, Vallaen, vandalin, wagorf, William_Munny15, yarmond1, yooperdave23, zodium

f-u and f-off.

I have one forum account and one p99 play account, all my toons on a single account just like the overwhelming majority of players back in the day. Boxing happened, but it was far from routine back pre-Luclin.

[MiRo2]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Let's count the multi account users shall we?

7thGate, anarch, Bakuryu13, bodenn, Buriedpast, bv2fg, Chucck, Core, Crawdad, Crom, d-tron, Doujou, DromalPhrenia, dyonak, Emmin, EQmerch, Feanoir, Femm, feniin, Flinky9234, fortior, garfo, HedleyKow, Hibbs, huron99, icedwards, jakerees, Jimjam, JohnT88, Just facts, kaev, Katran, Kindadar, Konfetti, Korpskugga, Lewkeng, loramin, Lunk, Mead, mefdinkins, Metham, MiRo2, misterbonkers, Narcol, Nexii, Officer, Olarin, Phenyl, Phenyo, Psyqo, publicexpo, Qtip, Shodo, Silmeria, Tiggles Mother, tolinwiz, Twochain, Vallaen, vandalin, wagorf, William_Munny15, yarmond1, yooperdave23, zodium

Really curious to see who you think I am. For the record I play mainly on red, but I do have a 52 wizard on blue I wouldn't mind getting a scout robe on.

[Baler]

Originally Posted by MiRo2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Really curious to see who you think I am. For the record I play mainly on red, but I do have a 52 wizard on blue I wouldn't mind getting a scout robe on.

I know who you are. Don't get bent out of shape because I posted how you voted in a public poll.
And don't let the 2014 fool you [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

a 52 wizard is the among the last classes in the game to get a roll. Back in kunark sure okay. In velious however. Just no.
Warriors, monks and rogues out dps wizards in velious. Which you may know and be trying to use as bait. maybe,.

[Senescant]

It’s several years into velious. Telling someone they can’t roll because they’re not level whatever or not the right class is beyond dumb.

[remen]

Originally Posted by fortior [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah, no, this is not how it works. You have to show that the characteristics of the polled people are sufficiently similar to the characteristics of the population you're trying to infer something about.

Actually, yeah, it is how it works. While voluntary non-probability samples aren't the ideal, they aren't invalid to draw inferences from. It has a lower generalizability than the type of sample you described, but that doesn't invalidate it. It is often impractical or impossible to draw a perfectly representative sample of a population, and a significant amount of research is done via polling methods that use alternate methods such as an open poll.

The only bias I can see in play here is that the poll is more likely to attract players that participate in the scout roll, which is actually a good thing since the population we are concerned with is players that participate in the roll, not 100% of the players on p99.

You can't, because there's a reason prolific forum posters are called forumquesters. Ingame /OOC is simply too neurotypical for the P99 forums to be an accurate representation of the P99 ingame population.

Thank you for your subjective, speculative opinion on the correlation between players who participate in the forums and players who participate in the game. I say the p99 forums are an accurate representation of the p99 in game population, so there!!!

Also, I would strongly disagree that in game /OOC is anything close to neurotypical.

[wagorf]

Originally Posted by remen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ugh, I knew there would be some dumb response about how "only" 130 people voted in the poll and "only" 70 voted to change.

What would be a pretty bad mistake is to have no idea what a normal sample size in polling is, and try to draw your own conclusions without a basic knowledge of statistics. Using your estimate of 133 people being 5% of the server, that is actually a big enough sample to draw meaningful conclusions. We can say with 95% confidence that somewhere between 44%-60% (52% +/- 8%) of all the players on the server are in favor of a change based on the results of this poll. Facts are fun!

you're the dumbfuck

if you randomly draw 133 from the server, sure. Taking 133 who visits the forum AND clicks into this thread AND votes does not represent shit nor can be considered a valid sample from the population

you are the one without basic knowledge of statistics...dumbass

[Canelek]

Oh noes, my 10th alt didn't win the roll.

[zodium]

Originally Posted by remen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ugh, I knew there would be some dumb response about how "only" 130 people voted in the poll and "only" 70 voted to change.

What would be a pretty bad mistake is to have no idea what a normal sample size in polling is, and try to draw your own conclusions without a basic knowledge of statistics. Using your estimate of 133 people being 5% of the server, that is actually a big enough sample to draw meaningful conclusions. We can say with 95% confidence that somewhere between 44%-60% (52% +/- 8%) of all the players on the server are in favor of a change based on the results of this poll. Facts are fun!

Fun fact: Drawing a sound inferential conclusion is an exercise in mind boggling difficulty. Like, you just won't believe how hard it is! Wow! It is, certainly, far too hard to bother going through for a P99 poll. No one qualified to do it would even try.

Now, savagely criticizing a gross misapplication of statistics? That is a different story. Here are a few minor problems with your attempt:

1. As even a first year statistics student would know, that is an on-its-face incorrect interpretation of your computed result. It's such a textbook mistake, the answer given appears as a standard lure in every first-year MCT question bank for statistics exams. Without, at least, a technically correct interpretation, we can never hope for our conclusion to be sound. Grade: C.
2. Your confidence interval, as computed, contains both possible outcomes. This implies the sample size is, in fact, too low to soundly infer a conclusion. Considering your tone, this is at best a very embarrassing error. Grade: F.
3. This is not something anyone who isn't like a statistician or methodologist are supposed to know, I guess, but bears stating to put into perspective how difficult sound inference is: a sound frequentist interpretation can't ever be inferred from this poll, because a stopping rule was not specified in advance. Any conclusion may theoretically be obtained, simply by arbitrarily choosing when to stop collecting data. Applying a Bayesian credible interval technique instead may technically resolve this, but at current sample sizes and proportions is uh, extremely unlikely to produce a result that is both sound and unequivocal in support of either possible outcome. Also, post-hoc/"fishing expedition" analyses ipso facto imply dramatically reduced validity.

Just take the poll on its face, friends. Don't grasp at statistical straws. As the old saying goes,

Originally Posted by Ronald Fisher

To consult the statistician after an experiment is finished is often merely to ask him to conduct a post mortem examination. He can perhaps say what the experiment died of.

In conclusion: Slay monsters, not statistics! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Canelek]

Originally Posted by zodium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Fun fact: Drawing a sound inferential conclusion is an exercise in mind boggling difficulty. Like, you just won't believe how hard it is! Wow! It is, certainly, far too hard to bother going through for a P99 poll. No one qualified to do it would even try.

Now, savagely criticizing a gross misapplication of statistics? That is a different story. Here are a few minor problems with your attempt:

1. As even a first year statistics student would know, that is an on-its-face incorrect interpretation of your computed result. It's such a textbook mistake, the answer given appears as a standard lure in every first-year MCT question bank for statistics exams. Without, at least, a technically correct interpretation, we can never hope for our conclusion to be sound. Grade: C.
2. Your confidence interval, as computed, contains both possible outcomes. This implies the sample size is, in fact, too low to soundly infer a conclusion. Considering your tone, this is at best a very embarrassing error. Grade: F.
3. This is not something anyone who isn't like a statistician or methodologist are supposed to know, I guess, but bears stating to put into perspective how difficult sound inference is: a sound frequentist interpretation can't ever be inferred from this poll, because a stopping rule was not specified in advance. Any conclusion may theoretically be obtained, simply by arbitrarily choosing when to stop collecting data. Applying a Bayesian credible interval technique instead may technically resolve this, but at current sample sizes and proportions is uh, extremely unlikely to produce a result that is both sound and unequivocal in support of either possible outcome. Also, post-hoc/"fishing expedition" analyses ipso facto imply dramatically reduced validity.

Just take the poll on its face, friends. Don't grasp at statistical straws. As the old saying goes,



In conclusion: Slay monsters, not statistics! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well shit. Well done.