no, no, no.
They conclude exactly nothing
But maybe you are not aware that “the absence of proof is not the proof of the absence”.
1 Like
Golden. 
Ehhh I think you’re being a lil dishonest here. They concluded the study and went about their happy lil icelandic lives content with their findings. Man this fact must eat away at you and your narrative.
Anyway, I’m done for now. Got what I wanted from this lil feller.
Gonna go giggle to myself and smoke my morning blunt now.
1 Like
Comes form someone who does not know that a correlation is not a causation … lol
All your affirmations, that CCP proved anything, are BS.
The conclusion of the study is “we were not able to find a correlation”. That’s all. Not being able to find a correlation is not the same thing as proving the absence of causation.
You claiming otherwise is a plain lie.
The universe is unknowable.
All the evidence supports this.
Okay, okay…and? There is one lil extra bit you are dishonestly omitting.
I’ll help you out: “…in fact, the one correlation we did observe, though perhaps not statistically very meaningful, but still present and evident in the data, was…”
I’ll let you finish here, Anderson. You know what they found and what they concluded. 
I just LOVE making you anti-content types chew on this cold hard fact.
CCP looked into this, and found everything to be working as intended. Man, this undeniable fact sure is a thorn in your side, huh? No matter what tap-dancing you do, what dishonest tactics you employ, you just can’t get away from the cold, hard, publically-verifiable facts of this matter.
You end up saying absolutely goofy stuff in public, like this:
Yeah, okay Anderson. CCP held a study addressing a concern over the sustainability of their business model, but concluded exactly nothing.
Makes a lot of sense, bro. 'Preciate your input.
One last reminder that CCP agrees with us and NOT you.
The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.
It is possible that some of those new players were retained exactly because they hated ganking. Anti-ganker motivations for participation in Eve are strongly associated with the existence of bad guys.
If CCP ever banned high-sec ganking, the anti-gankers would naturally transition to some other group of bad guys, probably the scammers. If the anti-gankers ever managed to get rid of all the bad guys… they would probably get bored and quit.
Getting bored and quitting is exactly what new players do. High-sec gankers like to claim that they retain new players because ganking is exciting and fun - it could also be that the new players stay on because they want to get revenge.
It is silly for the anti-gankers to deny this reality. If this is what is going on, then the solution is to provide a better mechanic for player-driven revenge, rather than some half-baked “ban ganking” argument.
You are not proving anything here. That’s not the conclusion of the study, because it’s something different. The study was about a correlation, that they did not find. This concludes the study. You are dishonest when you claim something else is actually part of it.
Now they found possibly interesting data in that study, that could be used for another study. It does not mean that this data is actually useful, but that there is something that could be worked. Anything else is just lies from you.
You literally have zero understanding of how research works. It’s usual in every research article to open possibilities for more work. Does not mean those possibilities will actually have anything interesting.
CCP did not conclude anything about what you claimed. On the opposite, they explicitly stated that you are wrong.
Lies.
CCP made a study, trying to find a correlation, and could not find it. That concludes the study.
Anything more is just complete lies from you.
Nowhere did CCP claim the relation they were searching for did not exist. Their exact claim is “we could not find it” . Though this is as close as you can be in that case, your rewording makes you claim complete BS. Because what you are claiming, is factually wrong. Because your interpretation of what CCP found, is intrinsically wrong, as CCP actually explained. And of course the “working as intended” part is a complete BS from your part.
1 Like
I don’t think new players get ganked that often, unless they buy PLEX they most likely won’t have anything worth ganking. I’m sure in most cases revenge will not be on their mind.
It’s slow game mechanics and the attitudes of players that are more likely to put new players off.
1 Like
- Anderson Geten 2019
How can you say something this silly on a public forum and not be embarassed?
How can you lie so blatlantly on this forum and still not be banned ?
Their conclusion was exactly “we could not find that correlation”. Which does not mean it exists, nor that it does not exist. And that’s all that concludes the study.
You need to go to school, you missed the basic logic lessons. Or you don’t know how to read, I am not sure. You you are just a plain liar, more likely.
Because CCP exactly said that you are wrong, and still you make them say something different. You are a complete obvious liar.
2 Likes
Well, first of all, that doesn’t even make sense, you don’t get banned from forums for lying. What are you even…? Anyway…
Lie about what, again? I grant you like every objection you make. That’s all documented here. You constantly rewording the findings and me happily granting you whatever carebear rewording you wish.
What you’re struggling with here, the thing you can’t get away from, is the cold hard, undeniable, objectively verifiable, historically documented facts of the matter.
Furthermore, I find that to be quite hilarious to watch.
I have no idea why you seem to think that anyone who does anti-ganking wants to ban ganking.
I for one wanted a mechanic change in terms of bumping which in my opinion made it too easy, I was told I wanted to end ganking. At this point in time after the change to the mechanic with a three minute timer people are still ganking, this is a change in a mechanic that ended no impact interdiction in hisec.
So when I see ganking still happening due to a change I wanted which the gankers said was me wanting to end ganking I have to laugh.
1 Like
CCP explicitly, exactly said that you are wrong. And still you distort their saying to make them say you are right. That’s a plain lie.
Example of lie is when you claim they conclude something from the study, while their exact conclusion is “we could not find such a correlation”. What you say is in total opposition with what CCP said. It’s jut an obvious lie, I mean CCP said black and you say “CCP said white”.
Another lie is exactly when you say
You are lying by claiming that, because you like one interpretation more, then you can disregard anyt other interpretation. That’s literally the definition of lying : “I like it more, thus it must be true”. You don’t care if it’s right or not, you only care if it fits your opinion. You are also lying by claiming that only those two interpretations can make any sense. What you are saying is, just, a massive amount of BS.
I am not rewording, YOU are. The conclusion of the study was “we could not find that correlation”. Everything else that you claim is the conclusion, because you reword what CCP said, is just another lie.
Which is, CCP said you are wrong. And your interpretation is wrong. Therefore, when claiming what you say makes sense, or that it’s from CCP, you are lying.
What you’re struggling with here, the thing you can’t get away from, is the cold hard, undeniable, objectively verifiable, historically documented fact of the matter : you are lying.
3 Likes
Yeah, can’t imagine…
Not like anyone around here has a long-standing history of butthurt posting about ganking for pages and pages and pages, years and years.
Nope, nobody like that. No sir.
Do you happen to see me calling for any other changes at this exact point in time, crickets chirping there mate.
Ganking at this point in time is balanced, and people are still ganking, though as you last ganked on 29th May I would define you as one of the low effort types who gave up because of the three minute timer. WOW is that way mate!
1 Like
I’ve quoted this nonsense for a reason.
For some time now, Drac has been indirectly replying to posts by myself and others, all the while claiming that he has us all blocked. This was comically transparent, as Drac is terrible at it and simply could not help himself. A true Drama-queen.
Anyways, standby for some lie about how he recently decided to unblock me, even though everyone will see through it and laugh at him.
from the one saying CCP claimed the opposite of what they claimed … your opinion is BS.
1 Like
As if people care.
I still have you blocked, but thought it would be amusing to see your post at this point seeing as Anderson Geten was ripping you a new one. Do you know that it is possible to view blocked people posts if you chose to do so?
A number of posters that I had blocked are no longer blocked, as their block has expired, did you know about that? So far I have not been bothered to set that back up again for most of them.
Your one I did renew because most of your posts are rubbish, like this one getting all exited at my use of the block function and the fact that I actually decided to look at two of your posts.
PS I am not going to look at the next one.
1 Like
Drac, ol’ buddy. You are fooling no one. 
You have no one blocked. Too much of a drama-queen.