Bakunin's Dream

OK, I aggregated all of Viluin's data (N=6593) and the total hit rate is 49.52% with a 95% confidence interval of (48.316%, 50.729%). So it looks like the the SDIs are working 50% of the time instead of 60% of the time. The fact that it works out to almost exactly 50% strongly suggests to me that issue really is that P(hit)=0.5 instead of 0.4 rather than there being an error in the data collection process (we wouldn't expect it to work out to a round number like 50% if it were just a case of bad data). As far as I can tell, the bottom line here is that SDIs really work 50% of the time, not 60%. Kind of funny how it took a giant war to give us the data set we needed to figure this out.

Viluin are you checking the SDI status of nations on the chosen AA as well as their opponents? It seems to me like the stats page lists every nuclear attack that an alliance is involved with, not just the ones that they launch or they receive. If you haven't been, this might explain why an alliance like Darkfall is off even though they all have SDIs since some of their opponents might not. Also, it really does matter that you filter out all the nations that don't have SDIs; I've played around with the numbers a little bit and a small downward shift in the hit rate can easily make the results non-significant for some of these alliances. It also might be the case that thwarted nuclear attacks don't always show up on the reports page for some reason. I think it would be far more likely for there to be a glitch in the code causing thwarted attacks to be under-reported than for something as simple as P(hit)=0.4 to be screwed up.

so I saw this and randomly did a chi-square test just for !@#$% and giggles. Darkfall's chi-squared was 5.36 which is significant at p=.02 with 1 degree of freedom and Umbrella's was 23.80 which is significant at p<.00001, also with 1 df. If you take both of them together you get a chi-squared of 29.14 which has a p-value on the order of 10^-8 so yeah something's up (for non-math geeks the p-value is the probability of the result occurring by chance alone). I'm ready to reject the null hypothesis that this is good, randomly sampled data of nations that all had SDIs giving a hit probability of .4 but that doesn't tell us what's actually going on. here are some possibilities: -not all nations sampled actually had SDIs -sampling error, i.e. hits were more likely to be recorded as data points than misses for some reason related to the methodology -selection bias, i.e. alliances being analyzed were selected in the first place for having unusual hit rates -i'm tired and i didn't do the chi-square test right -the probability of a nuke hitting given the defender having an SDI is not actually equal to 0.4 I'm leaning towards some combination of the first three or maybe just #4. Or some other reason I haven't thought of. But I kind of doubt that there would be something off with the SDI hit rate since it seems like it would be really hard to screw up the code for it.

Vladimir gets it right, laziness and ****ty attitudes killed the one thing CN ever had going for it. Without anything that looks like politics the game is basically Halo 3 but with technology from 25 years ago. This game is done and I'm glad I don't give a **** anymore because if I did I'd be really depressed.

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1295931359' post='2598448'] Because we'll be confiscating your pixels and technology during the course of this war, I'll buy the first round. [/quote] how many pixels for a shot of patron?

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1295930573' post='2598346'] Translation: "It was only fun when we were doing it." [/quote] no my point is more like "people used to have reasons for doing things." yes i get that your response to that is "but i didn't think your reasons for x y and z were good reasons." i don't care and i don't do owf pissing contests anymore so let's just nuke each other and then get drunk or something

thanks for all the replies, glad to see i'm still loved

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1295930096' post='2598283'] When you eliminate the pretense of nearly all but a precious few Pacifican wars, you get the same rationale. I don't see why its any further downhill now than it was then... [/quote] yeah whatever. think whatever you like but the only part of this game that was ever interesting is worthless now because people got lazy and let the politics degrade to the level of a kindergarten playground. but hey i don't do that anymore so enjoy, i'mma go nuke somebody now.

"Because we feel like it." Man this game has gone downhill.

This was funny.

Thank you. It is good to know who one's friends are.

It's great to hear that the MHA takes its agreements seriously.

Was talking about the "bowing to public pressure" comment. Or would you not make that same argument if we stopped perma-ZI'ing people tomorrow? I guess anyone who ever uses surrender terms is despicable and underhanded then. If you're arguing that the victorious alliance in a war should never require the defeated party to do anything you're not going to find much support. hahahaha GPW How so? It's no good to us if we get it wrong. If we are able to use good judgment (and I believe we are) it is both prudent and justified.

Well that's not "effectively banning someone from ever returning," is it? If you show no indication of changing or refuse to be respectful, it's possible to remain for months, but if you have a basic sense of what to do you really shouldn't find yourself in that situation.

No, it probably hurts them more. All I'm saying is that it's no good for us either.

You act like it's impossible to get off of a perma-ZI list.

Are you saying a viceroy is the only possible surrender term that can impose on an alliance's sovereignty? By definition all surrender terms do.

Note to Raga: this is what I was talking about earlier. You see, there are these things called "wars" and they often end with things called "surrender terms." We're not the only alliance to ever use them, you know. (In fact I seem to remember you or someone in a similar position calling for the disbandment of a certain blue alliance as a condition of surrender a long time ago.) You're talking about a single nation in a vacuum. What I ask myself is, what outcomes will result if we have a general policy that says such-and-such? You can always make the problem look small by focusing on isolated instances but that isn't the end of the story.

Perma-ZI means we're at war with you until we say we aren't at war with you anymore and making a new nation does not change this.

What do you mean? If they're being perma-ZI'd they're being perma-ZI'd. I'm just saying (since you asked) that if they were stupid enough to apply for NPO membership it would probably lead to us finding them out.

As I said, what it really comes down to is getting it right. If all you want to do is buy infra then we have no interest perma-ZI'ing you. If I could tell with 100% certainty who genuinely wants to surrender and who is just using it as a means to the same old ends life would be a lot easier for all parties involved. Indeed the fact that you can never be absolutely certain is a good reason to use restraint unless you're pretty damn sure (this is true of all forms of punishment but I could see an argument for being even more careful when considering something more severe). But it's no excuse for not using your best judgment.

I don't think that's a fact. The purpose of perma-ZI is to combat eternal enemies, not create them. If we do the latter to a greater extent than the former then we aren't doing a good job.

On membership applications, possibly. Even then you probably need to do a little more to make sure you know what's going on.

That would be unfortunate (for us and for them), but you're negating the premise, which is that they were listed because of this kind of behavior, not the other way around. Sorry about that. There's no one way.

I can make things up too