FesterMA

[SlapShot]

"Oh! I see I have quite a following! Hello Slapshot! "

Please ... just watch and making sure that the BS .. errr ... I mean embelishments don't get out of hand.

"Well of course, "a lot" is relative to the number of people who participated. There were about 32 valid replies. Of those considered valid, 5 was the number most voted (about 25% of the valid votes) - "I never go to furball central". But you're free to interpret the poll as you wish. I said at the time I had no axe to grind. In fact I don't know why you brought it up... "

I didn't bring up your poll ... you did. The poll is so flawed that it should never be used as a reference ... unless of course someone were to want to add smoke and mirrors to a thread.

[sax]

Originally posted by beet1e
Oh!  I see I have quite a following!  

No other reason to continually post

[Wadke]

Beet ever think that 2/3 might mean Numbers 2 and 3?

[BUG_EAF322]

This map is maybe worser than the pizza, And looks the guys that been whining about it. I met yesterday in a big milkrunning horde yesterday over the south part of bish land.

about 3 guys defending against 30+

i now and than killed 2 before i was being bounced by the rook horde.

my fault but don't say the map is better and milkrunn in hordes.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by mars01
Well Beet,

I wasnt trying to get smart with you, I do find is amazing tho, in one breath you cry about everyone flying in the furball area, then in the other you say no one chose to fly in the furball area.

Mars - that observation was made on a different map, the OZK map. Because of all the islands on that map, there was always a CV engagement to be found outside furball central. Hence a lot of people (and I was one of them) never needed to enter furball central. Maybe that's why more people voted 5 than any other vote in that poll.

Morpheus - LOL!

Steve - "Ya, it's the maps faults you don't land more kills." So why do people whine about the pizza map? Is it the map's fault they can't land kills or can't find fights? I do fine with it. Oh wait, maybe it's because of night/twilight.

Slapshot - it's embellishment. "The poll is so flawed that it should never be used as a reference" Geez, can't a guy just ask a few playmates how they played the OZK map without someone saying "your question was flawed" or maybe "that was four questions" ??  As I said at the time, that poll was to satisfy my idle curiosity. Sorry if the answers given do not fit your agenda. Deal with it.

Wadke! "Beet ever think that 2/3 might mean Numbers 2 and 3?" Wadke, ever think that a numeric integer in the range 1-5 does not include answers like 2/3, 2.5 or 3.5?

Did anyone actually watch that film? I watched it again this morning and, to borrow a Mars01 euphemism, I nearly pissed my pants laughing.

[lazs2]

wadke.. he doesn't like polls that he doesn't control the results before he starts.   If someone explained why they liked the furballs their ballot was thrown out... if they explained why they liked to avoid the furballs (even if it was because of connect issues) their vote counted as "I hate furballs" and agree with beetle"   Allmost all the ballots thrown out... more than two thirds BTW were ones that would not have agreed with his precponcieved results... Also..  at least during prime time... poll or no, what people wanted to do was obvious.

lazs

[beet1e]

Lazs,

I never took you for a liar, so I ascribe the inaccuracy of the above to your failing memory as you move deeper into senility.

[mars01]

Mars - that observation was made on a different map, the OZK map. Because of all the islands on that map, there was always a CV engagement to be found outside furball central. Hence a lot of people (and I was one of them) never needed to enter furball central. Maybe that's why more people voted 5 than any other vote in that poll.

Not to beleaguer this point, but I agree the poll has nothing to do with anything.  It was a fun thing to see what people would say but that was about it.  I think what actually happens in the MA reins supreme and from your post it seems that you are frustrated that more people don't fly where the fields are farther apart and that most people will go where the fields are close and the fights are.  

It was this way on OZ and is this way on Fester.  The other maps don't have many if any, close fields so people are forced to do more flying around than fighting.  


Bug no offense, but what the hell are you saying?  Your not BGB using a shade account are you?  

As for the hordes, they are a product of the numbers not the maps.  Every map has it's hordes, but at least with the bases closer together you can continually up and hit the horde multiple times in a timely manor, where as on other maps you have one chance to hit the horde since the bases are too far apart.  If you get there in time, like you said you get a few then the ineveitable happens, you get ganged.  

Since the bases are a sector or more apart most are not going to fly that long just to get ganged again.  So no, people don't fight the horde on the other maps.  On Fester and Oz the horde sometimes has the ability to turn into a great furball because people are willing to make the shortened flight in to higher risk situations.

Lets face it, closer bases means more jumping off points to defend and faster times to the fight, which means more people fighting and less people hiding.

[SlapShot]

Geesh ... I think that maybe you ought to be taking the Ginko Biloba and not Lazs.

Let me remind you what you said ...

"I did a poll on the OZK map. A lot of those who answered said they remained in the outer area and NEVER entered the furball melee. So it seems I'm not entirely alone."

The wording of ... "A lot" ... is the smoke and mirrors. Those that read this post, who never saw your "idle curiosity" poll thread, would be inclined to believe that the majority of those polled didn't enter the furball area ... ergo ... more people don't like to furball compared to those that do, which is not true.

If you poll was to "satisfy my idle curiosity", then leave it at that ... it's not material enough to reference and use to try to prove a point.

[beet1e]

Slapshot - I can tell you're an IBMer, coming out with stuff like this! Thanks for the memory - LOL  Does IBM still ship pisspot utilities like IEBGENER and IEFBR14, and charge the customer for them? Hehe, if the pilot of a light aircraft unsure of his position were to fly past your office window and ask you where he was, you'd probably lean out and say "you're in the cockpit of a light aircraft". He'd then know exactly where he was, as only an IBMer could come out with something so utterly useless!

Originally posted by SlapShot
The wording of ... "A lot" ... is the smoke and mirrors. Those that read this post, who never saw your "idle curiosity" poll thread, would be inclined to believe that the majority of those polled didn't enter the furball area ... ergo ... more people don't like to furball compared to those that do, which is not true.

If you poll was to "satisfy my idle curiosity", then leave it at that ... it's not material enough to reference and use to try to prove a point.

Slapshot, you are being obtuse. Clearly, quantities of expression like "a lot" are relative to the potential quantity under discussion. For example, if the local blood bank was down to its last two litres of blood, it would be a state of emergency, and they could rightly say that they do not have a lot left. Conversely, If you were to be traumatised in an accident (perish the thought) and lost two litres of blood, it could be said that "he's in a bad way - he's lost a lot of blood".

It's quite simple really. No need to get all IBMesque about it.

But since you mention it, yes I do remember what I said. And the fact is that 8 out of 26 voted answer 5. So a single answer representing 20% of the possible valid answers got more than 30% of the votes. Given that only ONE person voted for answer 1, I'd say that EIGHT votes for answer 5 was "a lot", ie 8 times as many - we've already established that quantities like "a lot" relate to the total possible, in this case 8 out of 26. Note - I did not say "a majority". Indeed, it's a large minority.

And where have I tried to use this to make any sort of point? All I said was that I was not alone in my flying pattern on OZK. Nothing more.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by beet1e
Mars - that observation was made on a different map, the OZK map. Because of all the islands on that map, there was always a CV engagement to be found outside furball central. Hence a lot of people (and I was one of them) never needed to enter furball central. Maybe that's why more people voted 5 than any other vote in that poll.

[/B]

Besides the fact that you can't generalize the poll even to AH forum subscribers, you draw erroneous conclusions on top of it.  By conveniently throwing out the 2/3 responses and the 3.5 responses, you've managed to swing the results such that 5 represents the mode.  However, if you distribute one 2/3 response to 2 and the other to 3, and if you score the 3.5 as either a 3 or 4, then the 5 no longer remains the most common response.  In fact, according to what I counted, either 3 or 4 becomes the mode based on how you scored the 3.5 response.

In addition, you've failed to include responses that came after you declared the poll "closed" which would have altered the results.  Why is it not surprising that you closed the poll once you felt you had enough votes to declare "5" the victor?

When I looked at the data, the average became 3.6 with a standard deviation of 1.13 -- meaning that, basically, 75% of the responses fall within the range 2.5 and 4.7.  In addition, 73.3% of the respondents spent at least some time furballing on the central island, and 46.7% spent at least half their time or more there.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by beet1e
Slapshot - I can tell you're an IBMer, coming out with stuff like this! Thanks for the memory - LOL  Does IBM still ship pisspot utilities like IEBGENER and IEFBR14, and charge the customer for them? Hehe, if the pilot of a light aircraft unsure of his position were to fly past your office window and ask you where he was, you'd probably lean out and say "you're in the cockpit of a light aircraft". He'd then know exactly where he was, as only an IBMer could come out with something so utterly useless!  Slapshot, you are being obtuse. Clearly, quantities of expression like "a lot" are relative to the potential quantity under discussion. For example, if the local blood bank was down to its last two litres of blood, it would be a state of emergency, and they could rightly say that they do not have a lot left. Conversely, If you were to be traumatised in an accident (perish the thought) and lost two litres of blood, it could be said that "he's in a bad way - he's lost a lot of blood".

It's quite simple really. No need to get all IBMesque about it.

But since you mention it, yes I do remember what I said. And the fact is that 8 out of 26 voted answer 5. So a single answer representing 20% of the possible valid answers got more than 30% of the votes. Given that only ONE person voted for answer 1, I'd say that EIGHT votes for answer 5 was "a lot", ie 8 times as many - we've already established that quantities like "a lot" relate to the total possible, in this case 8 out of 26. Note - I did not say "a majority". Indeed, it's a large minority.

And where have I tried to use this to make any sort of point? All I said was that I was not alone in my flying pattern on OZK. Nothing more.

Why am I not surpised that you must always bring down a discussion to the personal attack level.

I happen to enjoy working for IBM. There are an extrodinary amount of brilliant people that work for this company and do some brilliant work, myself included (not brilliant, just proud of my work). You have no real clue as to what I really do and my accomplishemts, so leave the personal stuff out our discussions. I shared personal information with you on a friendly level and never had I expected you to use it as some sort of jab to air globally. This is the second time that you have done this. It's called trust ... and you just lost mine.

I am not being obtuse. Your anecdotal evidence of trying to describe "A lot" definately has more supportive data which would lead one to understand the meaning of "A lot" in context, but your statement ...

"I did a poll on the OZK map. A lot of those who answered said they remained in the outer area and NEVER entered the furball melee. So it seems I'm not entirely alone."

... lacks supportive data for one to interpret what beet1e's definition of "A lot" means in context to the statement, hence the "Smoke and Mirrors".

Nice one Levi .. it just goes to show how much BS polls are. It's all in what angle you are looking to "work" the numbers.

[beet1e]

DMF, as I said at the time of the poll, it was not meant to be scientific - a straw poll, if you will. There were a couple of 2/3 responses. It's not my fault if people can't follow instructions and vote with a numeric integer in the range 1-5. The vast majority understood, and did just that. Why should I bother to determine whether 2/3 means 2.1 or 2.9? I'd have done the same thing if someone answered 4/5.

As for the 2.5 and 3.5 votes (one each) these cancelled eachother out when calculating the mean average, as each vote deviated from the median (3) by the same amount (0.5)
 

Why is it not surprising that you closed the poll once you felt you had enough votes to declare "5" the victor?

The poll was not about "winners" and "losers". I had no idea what the results would be. My intention was to leave the poll open for 24 hours to allow a complete global "day" for voting because of votes coming in from around the world. On that basis, perhaps I should have disallowed Spitter's 4 vote, because that came more than 24 hours after initial posting but before I calculated the average. There was a 2 vote long after the poll closed, and thence followed the usual flamefest.

When I looked at the data, the average became 3.6

OK, as opposed to my calculation of 3.69. Is it worth arguing about 0.09?

In addition, 73.3% of the respondents spent at least some time furballing on the central island, and 46.7% spent at least half their time or more there.

Indeed, and from your own figures it follows that 53.3% spent less than half their time at furball central and 26.7% didn't go there at all. But so what? It really doesn't matter. But it kind of sucks if the only way to make your stance is by reintroducing spoilt ballot papers.

Slapshot!!! Keep your hair on, matey! Haven't you heard that IBM joke before?

I happen to enjoy working for IBM. There are an extrodinary amount of brilliant people that work for this company and do some brilliant work, myself included (not brilliant, just proud of my work). You have no real clue as to what I really do and my accomplishemts, so leave the personal stuff out our discussions. I shared personal information with you on a friendly level and never had I expected you to use it as some sort of jab to air globally. This is the second time that you have done this. It's called trust ... and you just lost mine.

Yes they do employ some brilliant people - and I was one of them. I would not have made that joke but for the fact that you have been quite public in other threads that you work for IBM, so it's not as if I'm the one responsible for blowing your cover. You did it yourself.

Yeah, Levi's quite the statistician, I agree. After three paragraphs he's recalculated the mean average down from 3.69 to 3.60. Wow, that's almost 0.1 - and changes everything!

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by beet1e
DMF, as I said at the time of the poll, it was not meant to be scientific - a straw poll, if you will. There were a couple of 2/3 responses. It's not my fault if people can't follow instructions and vote with a numeric integer in the range 1-5. The vast majority understood, and did just that. Why should I bother to determine whether 2/3 means 2.1 or 2.9? I'd have done the same thing if someone answered 4/5.

[/B]

Now you've discovered why it is best to use seven possible responses in a continuous categorical variable rather than five.  The fact that several individuals found wiggle room "between" your categories means that you didn't provide enough categories to accurately describe gameplay.  The fault therefore lay partially with your survey design.  In reality, with such a low number of people responding, you should be happy to include as many responses as possible; perhaps you could have asked for clarifications before closing the polls.

As for the 2.5 and 3.5 votes (one each) these cancelled eachother out when calculating the mean average, as each vote deviated from the median (3) by the same amount (0.5)

[/B]

There were two 2/3 (2.5) votes, not one.  As such, they would not deviate the same amount.  The mean for one 2.5 response and one 3.5 response is 3.0; for two 2.5 responses and one 3.5 response it is ~2.8.

OK, as opposed to my calculation of 3.69. Is it worth arguing about 0.09?

[/B]

Yes, but the mean doesn't really tell the story here anyway.  More significantly, the mode changes from 5 to 3 when including the previously excluded responses.  The distribution of responses becomes almost half as left-skewed as well and begins to more closely approximate a normal distribution.

Indeed, and from your own figures it follows that 53.3% spent less than half their time at furball central and 26.7% didn't go there at all.

[/B]

True, a majority of the players spent less than half of their time at furball island.  However, your claims that "a lot" of players never flew there are incorrect or at least overstated.  By the same token, anybody who claims that the 16.7% who flew there more than 50% of the time is "a lot" is also incorrect.

But so what? It really doesn't matter. But it kind of sucks if the only way to make your stance is by reintroducing spoilt ballot papers.

[/b]

What is my stance exactly?  I'm providing a corrective to your analysis by including excluded data that changes the way we look at the results.  I'm not really favoring one position or another, and why should I?  However, you can't keep claiming that you recognize that these results mean nothing while constantly pointing to them as proving something to Slapshot or Mars.  If you're going to pretend like these results mean something, then use them correctly.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[sax]

Originally posted by beet1e
I would not have made that joke but for the fact that you have been quite public in other threads that you work for IBM, so it's not as if I'm the one responsible for blowing your cover. You did it yourself

You'd be the first to insult Slap tho.

I don't know anything about IBM other than Slap works there and yu don't.
Sounds like a smart run company to me.