Dude that’s exactly the opposite of what I’m saying. The day 1 pilots are all newbies, the 12 month olds are newbies, the 10 year old pilots are newbies, their grandmother’s are newbies, so are their grandkids. Even moreso, the day 2 pilots are also all newbies, so are the newbies, and so are the actual veterans.
I managed to pry the post from the cold dead hands of the Megathread.
We have a problem Lucas. That analysis of his, even assuming all day 1 pilots are newbies, and assuming everyone under a year old is a newbie, still results in 70% of people that are gank victims being non-newbie. And 1 year is a long time playing a video game. That’s a lot of conservative assumptions that help us. Unfortunately, that’s not enough, and that’s a problem for us. We can’t keep claiming “a majority of gank victims are newbies” or “an overwhelming problem is newbie ganking” with these numbers.
It’s worse to have these bad numbers. We would rather there be no numbers at all. Worse still, people might be lulled into making conclusions that are different than us because of these numbers!
That’s why we should instead change tack. We could claim that the numbers are bunk, that the analysis is flawed and come up with 5 or so reasons why no one should listen to those numbers that don’t support our crusade.
But instead I think what we should do is simply ignore it. Never mention Scipio’s analysis showing newbie toons are 30% or less of gank victims. And pretend it doesn’t exist. So I’m going to do that starting now. From now on, I won’t ever talk about how that analysis shows newbie ganking is a minority problem and is a problem for our worldview. You should also join me in not ever acknowledging that study exists. You know, the one that shows newbie ganking is a minority problem. Mum’s the word. Let’s never speak of the study that shows newbie ganking is a minority problem again.
That way when we keep making our claims, we can just keep being honest and say everyone is just spewing an opinion, except us, being objective factual paragons.