TC:NOVA Wipe Poll Results

[safak]

Originally Posted by Bulbous

And did you not read how a 66.6% majority was needed for a wipe? This was a righteous decision.

GOOD JOB DEVS! Forget this nonsense, and roll on with the OR. Then will we wipe this sandbox and get on with the real work!!!

i KNEW the 66.6 was going to come into play.
want to see something interesting?

20 seconds before close
http://img689.imageshack.us/i/pollam...foreclose.png/

database error, 20 sec later back up pool closed
http://img191.imageshack.us/i/pollafterclose.png/


just enough votes, all thrown in 3rd option to get it under 66.6 (Which is a statistical imposiblitly btw)

[Yhor]

Welcome to SOE, the free edition.

Lying, cheating, and generally going back on your word are what drives it.

[galena]

Originally Posted by safak

i KNEW the 66.6 was going to come into play.
want to see something interesting?

20 seconds before close
http://img689.imageshack.us/i/pollam...foreclose.png/

database error, 20 sec later back up pool closed
http://img191.imageshack.us/i/pollafterclose.png/


just enough votes, all thrown in 3rd option to get it under 66.6 (Which is a statistical imposiblitly btw)

Please stop throwing words like statistically impossible out, especially since you a) appear to have little to no grasp of statistics and b) have not shown the "statistics" that show it is impossible.

[safak]

Originally Posted by galena

Please stop throwing words like statistically impossible out, especially since you a) appear to have little to no grasp of statistics and b) have not shown the "statistics" that show it is impossible.

<3 people who have no clue about a subject. hey if you make a post that is condescending, then it makes you sound right? sorry doesn't work all the time.

it IS a statistic impossiblity in a poll, for even a 50% choice get 20 votes in a row(in 20 seconds no less).

now when we are talking an option that previously was at 10% getting every single one of them, its not even a question. sorry. sound even meaner next post and you might trick us.

[galena]

Originally Posted by safak

<3 people who have no clue about a subject. hey if you make a post that is condescending, then it makes you sound right? sorry doesn't work all the time.

it IS a statistic impossiblity in a poll, for even a 50% choice get 20 votes in a row(in 20 seconds no less).

now when we are talking an option that previously was at 10% getting every single one of them, its not even a question. sorry. sound even meaner next post and you might trick us.

Just no, statistically impossible is not a statistical term. Run a statistical analysis that gives actual P values and i will talk with you about it. The term statistically impossible is completely misleading. While i think there is something fishy with how the votes changed, especially over a small amount of time. But that is my OPINION, not a statistical analysis.

Considering this is a forum based poll that was based off a vocal number of people WANTING a vote, it can be argued that a analysis of the incomplete votes would be inaccurate as the early voters may be more likely to be those in favor. But that is a whole different point all together. All i am asking is not to use an erroneous term like statistically impossible. If you must throw the term statistical into your arguments about this vote at least use statistically improbable instead of impossible.

*edit as i have seen safaks second reply to me*
Your analysis of the odds of people voting for options is fallacious as you are assuming that the distribution of the votes that have happened are the odds of it happening again. Also following that assumption leads to the idea that how votes are cast are random which they are not.

Like i said, something fishy was probably going on with people making extra accounts, but it does'nt really matter as the devs have chosen not to wipe not because of the result but because of people voting multiple times. Also the quick swing in votes just before it closed only pushed the voting below 66.6% not 66% which was the cutoff for the vote to pass as stated by the first post. Also as i stated before my edit, i just see statistically impossible as a false statement as even if i agreed with your methods for calculating the probability of 20 votes in a row for no, as you stated there is a probability of it happening and as such cannot be impossible. Impossible does not = improbable.

[safak]

Originally Posted by galena

Please stop throwing words like statistically impossible out, especially since you a) appear to have little to no grasp of statistics and b) have not shown the "statistics" that show it is impossible.

sorry galena i didn't have time to properly answer you at first. let me shed some light on you since you obviously have no clue about statistics and odds, but are pretty quick to say someone else doesn't.



the option that got the last 20 votes in a row was the 3rd one, 'no but ill keep playing' which put it at 15%.

15% odds, or 3/20 as we will use here in this explanation that you asked for.

so to get 2 in a row, you take 3/20 times 3/20. = 9/400. which is a little over 2% chance to get 2 votes in a row for a 15% option.

in this case there were 20 votes all put on it in a row.
to get 20 in a row, you take 3/20 times itself 20 times. i don't need to go that far and most calculators give it as impossible number anyway.
lets do 5 in a row
243/3200000= .0000759

so to get just 5 in a row for a 15% odd , there is less than 1/100th of one percent chance.
do you really still believe that 20 in a row is not a statistical impossibility? nothing fishy went on eh?

[waa]

Originally Posted by safak

i KNEW the 66.6 was going to come into play.
want to see something interesting?

20 seconds before close
http://img689.imageshack.us/i/pollam...foreclose.png/

database error, 20 sec later back up pool closed
http://img191.imageshack.us/i/pollafterclose.png/


just enough votes, all thrown in 3rd option to get it under 66.6 (Which is a statistical imposiblitly btw)

but doesnt 44.23 + 22.72 = 66.95 which > 66.6

Now were seeing why it went POOF huh?

[quadkidd02]

Now pay close attention to the numbers of the poll results...

No, and I won't play if you wipe till OR - Before:162/After:161 = -1
No, but I'll still play with the Blue Frogs - Before:207/After:206 = -1
No, but I'll still play regardless - Before:290/After:310 = +20
Yes - Before:453/After:452 = -1
Yes, but with Blue Frogs(See limitations) - Before:882/After:884 = +2

Hmm...the only way you can "lose" votes in vBulletin (for those who don't know, that's the bulletin board/forum software SWGEmu uses. check the copyright line at the bottom of the page) is for an admin to "modify" the poll.

I know this for a complete and un-biased fact. I have before and continue to run my own web server which hosts vBulletin, PhpBB, and other forum software.

The poll was tampered with, I know this for a fact. You can't change your vote on your own. That is beyond the user's "privileges."

"So if you don't know, now you know."

Originally Posted by safak

i KNEW the 66.6 was going to come into play.
want to see something interesting?

20 seconds before close
http://img689.imageshack.us/i/pollam...foreclose.png/

database error, 20 sec later back up pool closed
http://img191.imageshack.us/i/pollafterclose.png/


just enough votes, all thrown in 3rd option to get it under 66.6 (Which is a statistical imposiblitly btw)

[Lamune]

Originally Posted by quadkidd02

The poll was tampered with, I know this for a fact. You can't change your vote on your own. That is beyond the user's "privileges."

Kay.... so... hypothetically... if one *was* going to tamper with the results in "No's" favor with the sudden flood of votes... why the hell would they stage the final outcome to results that they'd still lose with?

Y'know another thing that can lose votes? Database errors. Kind of like the one right as the poll was closed.

(My Tinfoil Hats are still for sale, btw. I'm tellin' ya.. 90% resists to the brainwaves! 10-million! Special price to the next 10 posters only!)

[Lazerbrick]

Originally Posted by Lamune

Kay.... so... hypothetically... if one *was* going to tamper with the results in "No's" favor with the sudden flood of votes... why the hell would they stage the final outcome to results that they'd still lose with?

I think this sums up the staff....

[quadkidd02]

Originally Posted by Lamune

Kay.... so... hypothetically... if one *was* going to tamper with the results in "No's" favor with the sudden flood of votes... why the hell would they stage the final outcome to results that they'd still lose with?

Y'know another thing that can lose votes? Database errors. Kind of like the one right as the poll was closed.

(My Tinfoil Hats are still for sale, btw. I'm tellin' ya.. 90% resists to the brainwaves! 10-million! Special price to the next 10 posters only!)

I believe the term "ninja delete" was used not too long ago, props and +1 to whom did. I believe that is partially why it was ninja'd.

[Ekowraith]

Originally Posted by Lamune

Kay.... so... hypothetically... if one *was* going to tamper with the results in "No's" favor with the sudden flood of votes... why the hell would they stage the final outcome to results that they'd still lose with?

The staff changed the poll just enough to give the true majority 65% of the pre-rounding whole-number vote percentages, rather than 66% of the vote.

[quadkidd02]

Originally Posted by Ekowraith

The staff changed the poll just enough to give the true majority 65% of the pre-rounding whole-number vote percentages, rather than 66% of the vote.

66.95% before poll "closed," 66.36% after poll "closed."

It was > 66% before and after the poll "closed."

[Ekowraith]

Originally Posted by quadkidd02

66.95% before poll "closed," 66.36% after poll "closed."

It was > 66% before and after the poll "closed."

Yeah, I understand that. I was only talking about the whole numbers before rounding (an error to which the SWGEmu layman is potentially prone) and offering a potential motive for what was obviously meddling.

[Jengu-fet]

Originally Posted by safak

and thats just what i caught at the tail end. the numbers were going in ways that really isn't possible most of the day which is why i started watching it at the end. it would get 200 votes and remain steady, then 30 and the percentage would change dramaticaly..so bulks of votes at a time were obviously used more than once.

Originally Posted by Lamune

(Amusingly, did anyone else notice all the people voting 'no' insisting it was unfair to end the poll suddenly and how it had to run the full time, but were completely ready to close the thing as a "victory" the second the results dropped below 66%- thus closing off any additional votes? )

There is a possibility that one of the devs/mods tampered with the votes and another member of the team found out. This would explain the fluctuating % during the day and staying around 66%. It would also explain why the poll was closed + deleted (or moved to private forum) so suddenly when they previously said it would be up for 1-2 weeks.

Also this,

Originally Posted by Spun

Kyle still hasn't denied urging people in IRC to create accounts and vote NO, lol. I guess it's true.