TC:NOVA Wipe Poll Results

[Bulbous]

Originally Posted by khamsinvera

66.36% said YES to a wipe

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!!!

[Vlada]

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!!!

Actually Kyle said it should be more than 66%, but since that thread went bye, bye...

[Kainzo]

Originally Posted by Vlada

Actually it was just more than 66%, but since that thread went bye, bye...

Actually, I was on a call at work and refreshed my page before the call, it was just under 66.5% - as I still have the page open with 1980 votes or so.

[Joshino]

Originally Posted by Vlada

Actually it was just more than 66%, but since that thread went bye, bye...

It was around 70%

There was 47% roughly for blue frogs.
24% roughly for straight wipe.

[Kainzo]

Originally Posted by Joshino

It was around 70%

There was 47% roughly for blue frogs.
24% roughly for straight wipe.

Math! - the bane of life!

http://img689.imageshack.us/i/pollam...foreclose.png/

[Joshino]

Originally Posted by Kainzo

Math! - the bane of life!

http://img689.imageshack.us/i/pollam...foreclose.png/

not really, I was basing it on the last time I saw it.

Also yes I've seen that image and its 66.95%

[Rincon]

Originally Posted by Vlada

Actually Kyle said it should be more than 66%, but since that thread went bye, bye...

Why was Kyle such an active part of the "vote NO" voice anyway? I personally saw several system messages from him, obviously phrased in a way that supported the no vote, and now the roumour of the week being passed around is that he was involved in creating new account to vote no with?

Along with my opinion of getting someone with online community management experience involved, I would also HIGHLY recommend a firm separation of church and state when it comes to people involved in administrating/developing the game, and the player-base. Far bigger games than SWGemu have been destroyed because of bias and involvement from the administrative game. You guys having bias towards players, guilds, opinions, ect will do nothing but alienate the other side and encourage them to move on to something else.

[Vlada]

Originally Posted by Rincon

Why was Kyle such an active part of the "vote NO" voice anyway? I personally saw several system messages from him, obviously phrased in a way that supported the no vote, and now the roumour of the week being passed around is that he was involved in creating new account to vote no with?

Nooooo, my post had nothing to do with Kyle, i responded to someone spreading misinformation. Someone claimed that it was 66.66% needed for the wipe to go through, and since i couldn't quote Kyle (thread was deleted) i just posted that.

This has nothing to do with anyone personal. This is all a abut the SWGEmu team as whole, about their professionalism or lack of it.

[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?