No, this is false.
You should have also read the sentence just after : “correlation, if any” means there is no guarantee of probability.
If you have no probability, you can’t affirm “often”.
Hence, source ? Maybe you misunderstood me, my question was not about the possibility, but about the word “often”. That word is a very strong affirmation that needs to be sourced.
Then you are switching from a established case (CCP exhibited a correlation) to your personal interpretation , which is completely irrelevant in that case, affirming that your opinion is in line with CCP data. This is a lie.
I believe people without a scientific formation should not ever talk about scientific data.
This looks a lot like “This idea pleases me so I will find a way to have something close to this, even if it is wrong or completely unrelated”.
“Numbers mean what people make them say”. Especially when people have no idea what they are talking about. And people who know what this is about just don’t talk, because there is actually nothing to talk about. So only people who are wrong are talking, convincing each other mutually that they are correct.
Actually, I think people should get scientific education from the young age, just to understand that what they perceive is not truth unless they put a lot of efforts into analyzing it.
The matter is, when you explain stuff and everybody has a wrong idea about it.
Because everybody has its own ideas he wants to prove, thus the confirmation bias kicks in and the stuff you showed becomes distorted and people start using it for what it is not.
Then they start fantasying about it. Just look at all the “quantum psychology” or other pseudo-sciences that just erupt from people inability to understand science.
your “in fact” is a mark of opposition between two ideas, thus you oppose something for which you affirm “there is no evidence”(and this is correct) to a correlation extracted by CCP.
The correlation from CCP is not in opposition to the idea.
I don’t bash you. I bash an idea when I think it is wrong.
Plus, so far I didn’t answer to a post of yours. Maybe you think I have a dent against CODE., in that case let me assure you that is wrong. CODE. as miner killers is very good content in EVE, as I think.
If it is not the case, next time please specify who this “us” is.
And no, no other people is doing this level of dishonesty.
They don’t do like you (implying you is IMA). They don’t distort data to make them say something they want to say - or I didn’t notice it.
Let’s be clear. I actually appreciate black pedro, because though I don’t agree with him, he puts efforts into respecting other people and behaves like a mature person.
And then, I don’t know you. You are just pixels on a forum board. Sure you are polluting said forum, but would bashing you improve that forum ? I don’t think so. So I just reply to the fallacies you are affirming - when you are. If I wanted to bash you I would have some settings up to be notified when you are posting something, bu actually I just don’t care.
I’m not sure if it is my bad English skill or if you just write in a very unclear way. But I seriousl y don’t understand what you try to say here.
Do you think that CCPs data does not falsify the premises that suicide ganking is a problem for players in their first 15 days?
Or do you just have a problem with the part where I say “in fact the data indicates that people who get suicide ganked within their first 15 days are more likely to subscribe.”
It’s totally obvious once you accept that “A correlation is not a causation”.
CCP did not extract any causation from their data.
Meaning, you can’t use that data to prove anything. It can be used as a hint, but NEVER as a proof.
Again, this study has as much scientific interest as studying the correlation between the usage of drugs and the catching of new disease : It someone is taking drugs, it is more likely he has a weak organism or has already a disease(hence weakened organism), which in turn means he is more probable to catch another disease (against which the drugs wont have an effect). Of course you will find a correlation between the two events. And yet people like you affirm taking drugs will make you catch a new disease.
The problem is just you using this data as a basis for anything factual.
My brother tried eve and for some reason liked the cormorant. He flew around randomly in lowsec and got into a couple of fights that he narrowly survived and one he almost won as the guy warped off. His char was like a week old. He liked the combat and the lawlessness of eve. But what he hated was the difficulty of social interaction. He did not understand why he needed to make an avatar at all as you never use it, that was his gripe. So he didnt sub. He plays Mechwarrior online and Planetside2 so its not a fear of pvp that can drive some from eve.
I offered to sub him and he still said no… I cried myself to sleep for days…
I accept that and I know that this is not prove of anything.
I said the data indicates that suicide ganking is helping player retention, which it clearly does. That does not mean that it is actually the cause, I never said that.
On the other hand, and this is more important, the claim “suicide ganking is hurting player retention” is clearly falsified as the data shows the complete opposite of what one would expect if the claim was true.
You just don’t get it. You can’t affirm ANTYHING from CCP data.
It looks like you are too unable to accept this : the data does not show, invalidates, or indicates anything.
Read my example on drugs and diseases to understand why. CCP data just revealed a correlation between taking drugs and catching a disease afterwards.
It’s really always the same with you. It takes about 10min for you to get angry and insulting. What is your problem man, can’t you discuss in a normal fashion?
The problem is that you don’t read what I say. Every sentence I write has its meaning, and yet you skip random part. Thus you just understand a small part of what I say and reply to it as if you had understood it.
To me it looks like you are intellectually unable to understand what I say because of the complexity, but feel like you are entitled to answer because you read a small random part which you don’t like.
The data extracted by ccp shows a correlation between A and B. It does not show/indicate/prove/exhibit anything else than a correlation, it does not invalidate anything but the affirmation “there is no possible correlation between A and B”
The only correct way to use this data, is as a basis to get more data. eg “study #1 has exhibited a correlation between A and B, we want to investigate the possibility of a causation between A and B”, so that you can get more money to fund your research.
That said, you are right this was a bad move, sorry I edited it before you replied because you are right I should not do that.
Still you are not making any effort in understanding why your argument is wrong.
I told you the way you are using this data is wrong. yet you keep repeating it.
