You assume a lot about me. The problem originally wasn’t an ego one (“what does iO KoVaL think about the data”) but the fact that you initially rejected the objective call for data at all. You know, the WHOLE exchange we had only 30 posts in and I just requoted for you.
And here we are 160 posts later!
In contrast, I don’t assume much about you, and you never exceed them.
You got me, i don’t demand data for obviously trolly and readily falsifiable statements that anyone’s grandma can look up by finding a single counterfactual example.
What I am telling you, however, is what I did:
You made a claim with a hard to verify piece of evidence. I asked for a citation, even showed you how I have coded up and did something similar. You treated me like 
for it.
Now you’re here some time later with the shoe on the other foot trying to look the good guy for actually doing that. And – as you admitted! – wholly for your own ego, not for the fact it needs a citation to begin with. I feel obligated to return you the you gave me and peg you down a notch for just being an unpleasant and irrational person.
He asked you to back your statement with proof. You refused. The onus is on you bro.
Hence why you’re intellectually dishonest and a liar 
Yeah well, the vast majority of people in general are awful
Given that most people don’t start the game with multiple alts, whereas older players may have numerous ‘noob’ accounts, the ratio of genuine noobs to false ones may actually be much lower than one might expect. It’s entirely possible that only half the ‘noobs’ playing at any one time are genuinely new. I myself have two Alphas that are under a month old.
So just assuming that anyone with a recent start date is genuinely a noob is going to considerably distort the resultant data.
Any data should also incorporate where the gank occurred. If the person was mining in a 0.5 system then they have, of their own volition, left the protection of the starter and agent systems.
You startin’?
I mean I’d love to go to England one day. Figgy pudding and all that.
But no, I just know who his alt is
Ok, but know this
England is not the be all and end all of things British.
Also if you are alluding to Drac, he quit being British when he went to live in France.
That’s a strawman. Altara says systems with a sec status equal to .5, not all systems outside of CCP’s list of explicitly protected systems. These two things are very different. Also, she doesn’t say it makes data invalid. She just said that data collection should include the location of a gank under the presumption that it may be significant, which seems a pretty reasonable ask of someone trying to present a complete set of information for people to analyze. Arguing over the conclusions you can draw from that location data is a separate matter, but it is easier to disregard or question a data set for information that is missing as opposed to one that includes superfluous detail.
It is a strawman unless CCP protects all systems with a sec status of .6 and above. No context is necessary to see the difference between what was said and what was mocked.
What does using the “like” function on a forum site have to do with objectivity? 
Even if I mashed the “like” button more, less, or none of it all, none of it changes the fact that you, I, and bob’s uncle all have subjective opinions and biases that make none of us objective.
People do not become some paragon of objectivity just because they “like” exactly 50% of “one team” and 50% of “another team” – or no likes at all. That’s still a subjective opinion called centrism that has no special quality other than being a median point-- or lack of data entirely.
It’s all a distraction from the core point: you brushed off a guy genuinely making a non-■■■■■■■■ (as he shared his very own “hey I did similar”) call for objective data like he’s a mindless drone, and cannot stomach the idea of humanizing him by apologizing, or admitting it was originally good advice, or anything else other than “but your likes look wrong to me” and “well ignoring you, most people would think this way”.
You’re a very displeasurable person.
Edit: I have now liked 16 of your posts, you should soon be in my profile as my most-liked person. 
Hope this helps.
Aw dammit
You mean data ( which you can check for yourself ) such as only 2 noobs in Ventures have been killed in 0.7 space or above in the whole of today so far ( 15.5 hours for me ). That is actual data from today…not 2015.
( 125 or so Ventures have been destroyed so far today…mainly in lowsec and null )
I raised the issue of the security status of the system for one very good reason. If a person…even a noob…chooses to go to a lower security system then they are choosing to have more risk. Thus you cannot simply lump all noob ‘highsec ganks’ together as Lucas would have us do.
This data would also tell us whether noobs are wandering out of protected areas, and to what extent. There is a question as to what % of noobs are even aware that there are protected systems…and if a high number are unaware then informing them better would be the single biggest step CCP could take to reduce noobs being ganked…and would not require any mechanics changes at all.
And also the inverse.
If what alleged noobs have said on the forums is to be believed (ancedotal evidence, I am aware) they were not informed or were ingnorant of the fact that they could be randomly shot dead in the street in the first place, somehow.
Copernican principle. Today is just an average day…nothing special. In fact the data is actually the same most days…as one would expect it to be…so a single day example is perfectly valid.
I’m not the one desperately trying to make an argument with data from frikin 2015 !
No…the true irony is that you deliberately missed out this bit, also from 2015…
From CCP Rise … “We have tried and tried to validate the myth that griefing has a pronounced affect on new players - we have failed. The strongest indicators for a new player staying with EVE are associated with social activity: joining corps, using market and contract systems, pvping, etc. Isolating players away from the actual sandbox seems very contrary to what we would like to accomplish.”
A pretty well known quote.
I think asking to include the location is reasonable and that asking for that does not mean the same thing as trying to invalidate the entire proposed project to gather that data and any conclusion that can be derived from it. I also don’t see what you said about someone in .5 having willfully left protected space as equivalent to saying only people in protected space count as new, but I am very precise and literal in my interpretations.
For my part, I don’t consider anyone as ‘new’ in the sense of being owed special protection status once they’ve mastered the basic controls and are making their own decisions instead of following tutorial instructions, but I recognize that different people are wont to draw the line between new and seasoned in different places and analyze accordingly. As long as I have an idea of how a person feels about it I can still enjoy and profit from listening to their point of view. This is probably why I get annoyed when people exaggerate and strawman in an argument. It’s not worth my time to read people debating positions nobody actually believes in. I have never learned anything from that.
That was never the point. It was to counter the fact that Lucas doesn’t want such distinction…so he can then simply refer to ‘ganked in highsec’ with no-one having any idea whether that is mostly in 0.5 or 1.0 or in between. Lucas doesn’t want the data to refer to anywhere being less safe in the first place. Its nothing to do with defining ‘noobs’…its more that Lucas knows a generic ‘ganked in highsec’ will inflate his figures with zero regard to system status. See…I’m looking at why Lucas doesn’t want a sec status division of data.
Sorry, just for the record, is location info going to be part of the final draft?