The burden of the proof is on you.

Until you proved it, what you affirm is wrong.

especially since it’s as absurd as “killing ducks reinforce their immune system.” (people noted a correlation between number of ducks killed and number of ducks falling ill)

1 Like

Re the statistics, the key here is a concept called survival bias.

There’s this story about how in WWII they tried to make planes better by putting more armor to where they observed bullet holes after missions. That didn’t help; as many planes were downed as before. Then someone suggested better cover for the areas they never saw holes in, and bingo! More planes started to return from missions.

Because those places were the ones, when hit, downed the whole plane, and they never returned. The holes they actually saw at the base were in fact relatively harmless, and those areas did not need extra help.

Similarly, you cannot deduce what makes people leave by observing those who stay. Those with more pvp experience tend to stay longer - but that can very well be simply because the game downs everyone not interested in pvp from the get-go. It does not follow, if that is the case, that you can increase retaining rates by forcing pvp on uninterested parties.


So I prove you wrong with facts, and CCP-given data.

You say it’s false yet don’t come back with any data at all, only your plebian opinion as usual.

Come back when you can back your :poop:



that’s exactly what code monkeys are not able to understand.

Your proved nothing.
Just citing wrong sources. Citing an article that explains why the earth is a cheese pizza does not make the earth a cheese pizza. It just makes you look stupid. Not like we were not used to you making a fool of yourself, but… well just teaching you.

The data from CCP tells the opposite of what you affirm.

If you want to affirm that killing people increases retention, then you need to provide data that show it. So you need to stop trash talking and make a rigorous effort to bring those data. But be warned - CCP did not say they brought those data, so it’s likely to be out of your reach.

1 Like

I still haven’t seen you post said data

This is going to be fun :joy:


I assure you, James 315 understands the basics of “logics” far greater than you ever could with a hundred years of study.

Your lack of understanding is almost as lacking as your poor grammar and understanding of the English language. James is a wonderful writer and make things as easy to understand for the laymen (you) as possible. Maybe go and read the article a few more times till light filters through.

Or just stay a salty carebear who can’t handle the facts when they’re shoved in their face. :joy:


I assure you, this article is worth nothing at all in term of logics.

You could use it to wipe your ass, but it’s not even paper.
Just useful to laugh at the stupidity of its writter.

so : this article affirm there is a causation between killing people and making them keep playing. CCP affirmed there is a correlation between the two. So the author does not apply a basic rule orf statistics/logic, that is “correlation is not causation”. This means, that the author is an idiot.


I don’t need to . To show that you are wrong, I need two things : the article, which is obviously wrong, and you affirming it is correct. You gave me both, so you just proved you are wrong.
Of course you can also be ignorant to affirm it is correct. But I told you and other people told you too , that the article is based on the fallacy that “correlation is a causation”. So now you are no more ignorant, just a plain idiot.

1 Like

Not necessarily. Mixing up correlation with causation is very human thing, and if you read scientific papers actual professionals do it all the freaking time, despite being aware that it is a risk. :wink:

Miner, calm down…



Awwww, salty reports again :joy:?


not in scientific papers, unless they forget the “review by peers” rule.

Of course this is a common bias, but I’m pretty sure people made sure the author was aware of this bias. So here he’s been explained why he’s wrong, and he just doesn’t care. He rather be full of ■■■■ than accept his error.

And the matter is not if he is right or wrong. Nobody cares about this shitty article. The matter is that those people here propagate this bias. They “somehow” accept that in “good” circumstance, “correlation” can be a “causation”. which is totally wrong. And then they get used to this fallacy, and that’s how people become used to stupidity.
The “correlation can be causation” cancer is spread because people mix their feelings with logic, and think that they can “bend” logic to their feeling. There is room for feelings, there is room with logic ; but one is not the other.

1 Like

Still waiting for the proof

Unless you’d rather try and insult people who are right because you’ve been cornered :sweat_smile:


Oh you wish. Ideally not, of course, but reality…

You do not counter misinterpreted statistics by new data. You counter it by explaining why the interpretation is wrong.

Taht’s why you separate articles in papers that show data and in paper that analyze them. This way you can say nothing in the first, and say BS in the second, and you still have one article pass :stuck_out_tongue:


Well open your eyes, the proof is there, brought by yourself.

You two are embarrassing. A couple of dim people running around in circles trying to figure out a simple math problem when they’ve already been given the right answer. What is 2+2? (it’s not 57)

1 Like

coming from a couple of dim people affirming that 2+2=5 in circle, I don’t get how this idea would embarrass you.

1 Like


So by your own admittance, @Anderson_Geten , you believe the data provided by CCP, at a CCP Event, is wrong.

Thank you for proving once again it’s better to argue with a brick wall than with you :joy:
At least the wall is keen on listening and doesn’t throw insults around

1 Like