HeinousOne Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) Citadel isn't growing as fast as everyone else... Not really surprising though. Let's see if people's war-boners can outlast their impatience. I don't even know how you could get that conclusion from what I said. Have fun playing with the rest of the people who stumble in here, though. So basically your indirect statement is that the quote above yours in this post is absolutely false correct? Drat. You caught us.Sorry. We really are better than you. Yes, we realize you guys seem to need to be able to say that and show that. We get it, it means alot to you. Covering it up with an attempt to show the rest of the world that percentage wise they are doing better then Citadel just seems a bit condescending. I realize you aren't going to think that......you are Citadel. Edited October 16, 2009 by HeinousOne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Taylor Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 So basically your indirect statement is that the quote above yours in this post is absolutely false correct? Without actual references I have no idea what part of this discussion you are attempting to talk about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 Without actual references I have no idea what part of this discussion you are attempting to talk about. Ok....see the quote of Wildthing above the quote of yours in the post that you quoted? That is your reference. You have an idea of what I am talking about, I guess you just do not wish to address it. You know, it really isn't That big of a deal that you would have to conveniently overlook that quote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ertyy Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 Yes, we realize you guys seem to need to be able to say that and show that. We get it, it means alot to you. Covering it up with an attempt to show the rest of the world that percentage wise they are doing better then Citadel just seems a bit condescending. I realize you aren't going to think that......you are Citadel. Why don't you go write up a CB. If anyone else in your alliance has as much unadulterated paranoia as you, I'm sure you guys are getting ready for the Cit onslaught. No need to keep the world waiting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vhalen Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) What is the point of showing that? I mean honestly? Does it matter if your percentage gain is higher when your actual gain is twice as small? I realize Essenia did not say anything of the sort that Wildthing stated but if someone was to read WildThings statement and attribute it to what Essenia was showing without taking a closer look at the numbers then someone might get the wrong impression entirely.So mind answering that question too? Percentage gain seems like a vaguely silly metric to me, since the blocs with the highest initial percentages are going to show the "worst" growth, as the metric favors smaller initial numbers. To show an "unbiased" look, and perhaps an interesting comparison, I'd recommend a different presentation, which incorporates both percentage and total numbers, and draws attention to the numbers instead of the names, so you can highlight highs and lows in both, like so: Nations over 100k NS Citadel: (57) 65 = +8 = +14% SF: (7) 11 = +4 = +57% Poseidon: (8) 9 = +1 = +12.5% FB: (8) 9 = +1 = +12.5% CnG: (6) 9 =+3 = +50% Edit: Included underlining because it looks nicer that way. Edited October 16, 2009 by Vhalen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) Why don't you go write up a CB. If anyone else in your alliance has as much unadulterated paranoia as you, I'm sure you guys are getting ready for the Cit onslaught. No need to keep the world waiting. Uh oh, so anyone commenting on a post or thread started by a Citadel member now needs to just go make a CB against you guys? This has nothing to do with paranoia. It was a response post to the OP and you didnt like it. Why would we think Citadel is gonna onslaught us? You care about your stats far too much. Percentage gain seems like a vaguely silly metric to me, since the blocs with the highest initial percentages are going to show the "worst" growth, as the metric favors smaller initial numbers. To show an "unbiased" look, and perhaps an interesting comparison, I'd recommend a different presentation, which incorporates both percentage and total numbers, and draws attention to the numbers instead of the names, so you can highlight highs and lows in both, like so:Nations over 100k NS Citadel: (57) 65 = +8 = +14% SF: (7) 11 = +4 = +57% Poseidon: (8) 9 = +1 = +12.5% FB: (8) 9 = +1 = +12.5% CnG: (6) 9 =+3 = +50% See, this is what I am talking about. Someone that realizes what I was pointing out and is continuing on with the conversation of such instead of just attacking me. Thank you Vhalen for showing an example of decency. Edited October 16, 2009 by HeinousOne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Taylor Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) Ok....see the quote of Wildthing above the quote of yours in the post that you quoted? That is your reference. You have an idea of what I am talking about, I guess you just do not wish to address it. You know, it really isn't That big of a deal that you would have to conveniently overlook that quote. Wow, dude, there has been a ton of activity on this in a relatively short period of time. No need to be a jerk, I was trying to follow what you were talking about so we didn't have a miss-communication. I guess rudeness was a bigger risk. Anyways, I read WildThing's statement as referring to percentage growth not absolute growth the first time; in that case it's true, we're growing slower than the other blocs. If you're going to read his statement as referring to absolute growth rather than percentage growth, then yes he was incorrect. Nothing is stopping you from commenting on the form of these stats and suggesting a different method of measure; nothing is stopping you from then using that method of measure to present these stats. But please don't treat me like a jerk when I'm just trying to disagree with your assumption that this is damage control stats thread of some sort. edit: I like Vhalen's presentation of the data, and it seems like a fair compromise between the different measures of growth. Edited October 16, 2009 by Eden Taylor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 Wow, dude, there has been a ton of activity on this in a relatively short period of time. No need to be a jerk, I was trying to follow what you were talking about so we didn't have a miss-communication. I guess rudeness was a bigger risk.Anyways, I read WildThing's statement as referring to percentage growth not absolute growth the first time; in that case it's true, we're growing slower than the other blocs. If you're going to read his statement as referring to absolute growth rather than percentage growth, then yes he was incorrect. Nothing is stopping you from commenting on the form of these stats and suggesting a different method of measure; nothing is stopping you from then using that method of measure to present these stats. But please don't treat me like a jerk when I'm just trying to disagree with your assumption that this is damage control stats thread of some sort. Alright, my apologies. Not trying to be rude either. Was kind of jumped though so my defenses were up. Here you are saying that Citadel is growing slower then other blocs? Serious? Why? Because of the percentages? No...that doesnt show you are growing slower. Actual nation growth numbers would show that and that is what my initial post was about. The actual growth numbers show your growth is much larger then the other listed blocs and that the percentage and coloring could cloud that truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildThing Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 To be honest I actually did want to incite discussion with my post and I was kinda disheartened no one took the bait originally. My intent was to convince you guys to postpone any form of war with us for as long as possible by convincing you we were growing slower than you (which is actually true) and in the mean time I planned on dividing and conquering you all. No but seriously I was actually poking and I'm surprised it took so long for someone to bite. Glad you finally did Heinous, I enjoy arguments and conflict and it seems stats are the only subject we've got to argue about these days cause we're pretty much all saints apart from Xiphosis apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 in b4 HeinousOne uses this to bash Cit-, Oh, damn it, too late. So, let me guess. If the OP had made this post and said, "Look, Citadel made more gains than everyone else," you would have blasted Citadel for our statistical self-congratulations. If the OP had made this post and said, "Look, Citadel isn't gaining as much as everyone else," you would have blasted Citadel in the manner you're doing now. No matter what, you are able to get your Citadel rant out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 To be honest I actually did want to incite discussion with my post and I was kinda disheartened no one took the bait originally. My intent was to convince you guys to postpone any form of war with us for as long as possible by convincing you we were growing slower than you (which is actually true) and in the mean time I planned on dividing and conquering you all.No but seriously I was actually poking and I'm surprised it took so long for someone to bite. Glad you finally did Heinous, I enjoy arguments and conflict and it seems stats are the only subject we've got to argue about these days cause we're pretty much all saints apart from Xiphosis apparently. Well, you can always count on me to save the day. Despite your attempt, you still state that you are growing slower which was just proven to be completely false. Percentage gain does not show actual gain. In actual gain you are growing faster then anyone else in these categories. I have to admit I am a bit baffled by the multiple attempts to argue otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 in b4 HeinousOne uses this to bash Cit-,Oh, damn it, too late. So, let me guess. If the OP had made this post and said, "Look, Citadel made more gains than everyone else," you would have blasted Citadel for our statistical self-congratulations. If the OP had made this post and said, "Look, Citadel isn't gaining as much as everyone else," you would have blasted Citadel in the manner you're doing now. No matter what, you are able to get your Citadel rant out. No...in the original I blasted Citadel for stating how it was making more gains then everyone else. I am blasting him for using the same stats to now try and show how you guys are not growing as fast as others when it was already proven that you are growing faster then everyone else by these very same stats. I like how you portray that as a Citadel rant. I would call it the truth, but hey different languages do exist thus different words can indeed have the same meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) No...in the original I blasted Citadel for stating how it was making more gains then everyone else. I am blasting him for using the same stats to now try and show how you guys are not growing as fast as others when it was already proven that you are growing faster then everyone else by these very same stats. So no matter what, you get to blast Citadel. If the door is open, you want it closed. If the door is closed, you want it open. I can't say much for you. Edited October 16, 2009 by Aeternos Astramora Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildThing Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 You got me again.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) So no matter what, you get to blast Citadel. If the door is open, you want it closed. If the door is closed, you want it open.I can't say much for you. No...it just so happens that he gave two opportunities. If this had been the exact same posting as the last one there wouldn't have been much to say but it was presented in a much different fashion thus it gave another opportunity for discussion. Why are you not blasting Wildthing for purposefully making a false statement in order to incite a debate or argument? Is it not possible that I am very similiar to him and seek the same thing? Oh....he is on your side and is free from your insults right? You can't say much for me....except that I am not the one resorting to insults here. You wouldn't say that though would you? You got me again.. No I didn't. Edited October 16, 2009 by HeinousOne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Taylor Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 Alright, my apologies. Not trying to be rude either. Was kind of jumped though so my defenses were up.Here you are saying that Citadel is growing slower then other blocs? Serious? Why? Because of the percentages? No...that doesnt show you are growing slower. Actual nation growth numbers would show that and that is what my initial post was about. The actual growth numbers show your growth is much larger then the other listed blocs and that the percentage and coloring could cloud that truth. By growing slower I mean(t) rate of growth. Though to be honest we will need several more months of data, I interpreted that the lower percentage of total growth would likely mean a deceleration of growth; as compared to a larger percentage of total growth likely meaning an acceleration of growth. This has to do with what Vhalen said regarding a percentage growth meter favoring smaller initial numbers, though, as well as me knowing that NS growth plateaus at a point which will allow for a continued deceleration of growth. We can argue over what I said, but what I meant was what I meant. As for the numbers and percentages being misleading, I do not think that that was the intention; and now, with this discussion having taken place if the OP does not adjust itself accordingly it is because he's a bit stubborn. I suggest if you continue to have a problem with the presentation of the numbers that you take the initiative to create a more accurately depicted thread so that a proper discussion of the stats themselves can take place. If you would prefer for this to be about the response to these stats and their horrendously presented nature, then do nothing but what you have been. I'm sure others will be happy to give you more examples of massive misinterpretations of the data, since no one reads anything but the most recent post usually anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 No...it just so happens that he gave two opportunities. If this had been the exact same posting as the last one there wouldn't have been much to say but it was presented in a much different fashion thus it gave another opportunity for discussion. Do you actually have a link to that? Why are you not blasting Wildthing for purposefully making a false statement in order to incite a debate or argument? Is it not possible that I am very similiar to him and seek the same thing? Oh....he is on your side and is free from your insults right? Or I'm already talking to him in the Argent private channel. Anyway, I am bed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) Do you actually have a link to that?Or I'm already talking to him in the Argent private channel. Anyway, I am bed. Aww dont be mean to him! I like Wildthing. Wait a minute....did I just doom him? By growing slower I mean(t) rate of growth. Though to be honest we will need several more months of data, I interpreted that the lower percentage of total growth would likely mean a deceleration of growth; as compared to a larger percentage of total growth likely meaning an acceleration of growth. This has to do with what Vhalen said regarding a percentage growth meter favoring smaller initial numbers, though, as well as me knowing that NS growth plateaus at a point which will allow for a continued deceleration of growth.We can argue over what I said, but what I meant was what I meant. As for the numbers and percentages being misleading, I do not think that that was the intention; and now, with this discussion having taken place if the OP does not adjust itself accordingly it is because he's a bit stubborn. I suggest if you continue to have a problem with the presentation of the numbers that you take the initiative to create a more accurately depicted thread so that a proper discussion of the stats themselves can take place. If you would prefer for this to be about the response to these stats and their horrendously presented nature, then do nothing but what you have been. I'm sure others will be happy to give you more examples of massive misinterpretations of the data, since no one reads anything but the most recent post usually anyways. All my post was, was basically an addendum to the OP. Yes there was a question at the end directed towards a comment made by a Citadel member. That has already been discussed and is pretty much over so really its just a discussion about the numbers and the way they are presented. Its really not a Citadel bash thread. You guys don't need to be so defensive about it. To your own personal credit you really havn't been. Edited October 16, 2009 by HeinousOne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildThing Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) I'm not even on IRC right now.. Funny the things people say on the OWF though. Its really not a Citadel bash thread. You guys don't need to be so defensive about it. To your own personal credit you really havn't been. Give us time, I'm rallying the troops as we speak. Edited October 16, 2009 by WildThing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Taylor Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 All my post was, was basically an addendum to the OP. Yes there was a question at the end directed towards a comment made by a Citadel member. That has already been discussed and is pretty much over so really its just a discussion about the numbers and the way they are presented. Its really not a Citadel bash thread. You guys don't need to be so defensive about it. To your own personal credit you really havn't been. Well, you know what they say: You can't lump us all into the same castle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 I'm not even on IRC right now.. Funny the things people say on the OWF though.Give us time, I'm rallying the troops as we speak. Despite what some people say, HO does sleep on occasion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Stukov II Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 This has got to be the dumbest debate I have ever seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vhalen Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 This has got to be the dumbest debate I have ever seen. You haven't been looking very hard, then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 This has got to be the dumbest debate I have ever seen. Oh no, another TOP guy making such a comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 This is seriously the dumbest debate I've ever seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.