AAFitz wrote:in your 16 years of education, did you ever learn that taking a poll the way you did without a random sample of a population tells you absolutely nothing
if you try to pin the average personality of this site based on the people in these forums, your data will be so skewed so as not to be informative of anything....there are lets say 8000 active players...how many post in here...
the average player in here, does not use this forum, except occasionally, and my guess is the percentage that post frequently does not break 5-10%
and of those, the more eccentric players are probably doing the posting which means they will not be representative of the main body of the population anyways
the average player does not have time for such things, so thier opinions are complete absent from any poll and therefore any poll cannot be accurate to represent the CC community....
the only thing any poll can ever show about this site is what the percentage of some of the people that frequent the forum think about a subject
without a random sample, you can never assume what the people in here think by any poll taken, because the sample size is so small, and so not representative of the general population, that it is completely impossible for it to describe the general population
The same can be said of the other websites i have frequented, but it is what i have to work with. I can't make people respond to my post. I tried to make the post inflammatory enough to get a maximum amount of responses, and I wanted to continue another week or two, but wicked has warned me twice now, and I tried to tell her I was conducting research, but I was still warned, so on this site, i had to end all this earlier than I had planned. The data I have collected isn't definitive, but it does seem to indicate that a high percentage of people on this WARGAMES website have particularly aggressive, and hateful thoughts. Far more than on other websites. I'll bet my data is more accuarate than the data used to show Bush has a 36% approval rating. How do they know that?? There are over 200 million people in this country of voting age, and I doubt they got the opinions of even 1% of those 200 million. I'll bet i have gotten a higher percentage of responses from CC members, than the government got from the American public for their approval ratings. I'm sure if I had told people what i was doing, I would have gotten more responses, but they would have been biased. I wanted to invoke real raw emotion in people to get genuine results. It got to a point, that no matter what i posted, people would respond with hatred, and venom. Some post never meant to be inflammatory at all, recieved such treatment. They made me laugh. cause they weren't even part of my research. Once you learn to hate somebody, it doesn't matter what they say or do, they are wrong for it.
the polls on bush are taken from a random sample of the population and does have a standard deviation...it is not 100% accurate
they are not taken from an internet site asking people for their opinions...the reason being, on average the most biased people would answer...also...people are 27 times more likely to complain about a product they dislike than post about a positive experience....this translates to volunteer polls....the sheer act of asking for volunteers to come to you renders it useless, except to tell what percentage of the volunteers think....you cannot extrapilate it to the general population because it is not representative of the general population....
it only tells you what the percentage of people who would respond to an inflamitory poll might think....since the average population would not waste their time with it, their opinions are for the most part completely absent from your poll
do not tell your professor that your poll is as accurate as the polls about bush or he may very well laugh directly at you....how you were even able to type that out i have no idea...
Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:I don't buy it. Do you know how many times I have seen threads like this?
I call bullshit.
Please, provide documentation in image format, otherwise you're a hack. Post the following, so that the more objective folks here can determine if you're being honest or not:
-Diplomas for each discipline, with you in the picture
-A phone number to your professor who is sponsoring this study
-All syllabi you may currently have in your possession, with you in the picture
-Bills from said colleges (you should have these as a tax and banking matter)
Again, I don't think you're telling a word of truth.
We also require:
-your full address
-credit card details
-3 recent bank statements
-your mothers maiden name
-your ATM PIN code
Wow, you've wasted how much time on this report? Just to show that when you act like an asshole, people will treat you like an asshole? Amazing results. Really. I'll call Pulitzer for you.
Jamie wrote:The data I have collected isn't definitive, but it does seem to indicate that a high percentage of people on this WARGAMES website have particularly aggressive, and hateful thoughts. Far more than on other websites.
So your "research" concludes that a website hosting a strategic online board game service that has as much to do with the violence of war as chess (used to teach war strategy) tends to cause people to act aggressively or hatefully?
Thats a pathetic waste. And any professor, no, any HUMAN with common sense would call you a dumbfuck and kick you in the face.
Guiscard wrote:Just out of interest, which particular college do you attend and who are your professors?
I have degrees from Kansas University, Missouri University, UMKC, and am currently attanding CMSU. The professor for the class in question is Professor Ryan.
I have been doing a little research into Jaimes claims. Apparently, Dr. Ryan is a Neuropsychologist. Do you know what this means? He'd have little to do with a social study on the Internet, especially when your alleged school already has a few Professors that already teach socialpsychology. (that's two links mind you)
Upon further research, one can easily see that Jamie would not be doing a project of this controversy (it totally neglects any rational method of sampling a group of subjects) or magnitude without the Professor approving it, which should show up in the schools database.
Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:I don't buy it. Do you know how many times I have seen threads like this?
I call bullshit.
Please, provide documentation in image format, otherwise you're a hack. Post the following, so that the more objective folks here can determine if you're being honest or not:
-Diplomas for each discipline, with you in the picture
-A phone number to your professor who is sponsoring this study
-All syllabi you may currently have in your possession, with you in the picture
-Bills from said colleges (you should have these as a tax and banking matter)
Again, I don't think you're telling a word of truth.
We also require:
-your full address
-credit card details
-3 recent bank statements
-your mothers maiden name
-your ATM PIN code
On a side note, even if you are telling the truth (although it's a snowballs chance in hell), I do not give you permission to use me or any representation of me in your study.
wicked wrote:Wow, you've wasted how much time on this report? Just to show that when you act like an asshole, people will treat you like an asshole? Amazing results. Really. I'll call Pulitzer for you.
actually the White House called him, because they are sure he can run a poll and get a 95% approval rating for him, and actually say its accurate
Guiscard wrote:Just out of interest, which particular college do you attend and who are your professors?
I have degrees from Kansas University, Missouri University, UMKC, and am currently attanding CMSU. The professor for the class in question is Professor Ryan.
I have been doing a little research into Jaimes claims. Apparently, Dr. Ryan is a Neuropsychologist. Do you know what this means? He'd have little to do with a social study on the Internet, especially when your alleged school already has a few Professors that already teach socialpsychology. (that's two links mind you)
Upon further research, one can easily see that Jamie would not be doing a project of this controversy (it totally neglects any rational method of sampling a group of subjects) or magnitude without the Professor approving it, which should show up in the schools database.
It doesn't.
I think you got some 'splainin to do.
Caught!
And by the way, if you've got so many degrees - why are you working as a debt collecter? (on your profile!)
P.S. If you're going to make up Uni's you've been to, why not make it Harvard, Yale, Oxford and Cambridge?
by the way, you skewed your results by making us all believe you were a closeminded idiot (which to me and obviously others hasn't yet been proven otherwise) and then therefore likely to write something along the lines of getting rid of niggers. If your test is to see the reactions of wargames players towards a prompt, then you should have been an impartial observer not a biased f*ck. Also notice, I did not write f*ck f-ck. I used an asterisk, which most people do. Asterisks imply bad words. Hyphens imply missing letters.
reverend_kyle wrote:Some people go to far in order to make people look stupid over the interwebs.. I just sort of nod my head and go.. ok..sure..ok..whatever.
This goes beyond making him look stupid (he already does a good job, I don't think it's possible to make his act any better), this has legal ramifications as well.
I will not consent to any results he may have gained from me if he truly is involved in some sort of study.
