forums.rs

Forums

Wilderness and Free Trade Vote Thread is locked

Quick find code: 254-255-49-62042278

of 2094
Anima Jonesy
Aug Member 2008

Anima Jonesy

Posts: 1,380 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Ah, shall *his be a Thank You for dragging me into yet another insult?
Interesting what you said, but you have only added proof to the *act that you are one-sided. You have shown invalid proof to demonstrate the reasoning to why the Free Trade and Old Wilderness vote was flawed. However, I gave a prime example twice as well explaining on why the vote is not flawed as well as what you have demonstrated to be bias.
However, the fact that you still have not proven one thing and still have thrown insults at me, I'm going to assume that the person I'm arguing with isn't worth the time. Until you learn respect, stop throwing out insults, and learn the difference between assumption and probability/ratios/percentages, then I've grown tired of the bickering just as you have grown tired of your pointless contradictory yet wild untrue stories that you refuse to cease creating.

21-Jan-2011 01:23:04

Phthartic

Phthartic

Posts: 1,730 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
While the attempt to imitate my writing style is a slight improvement, it doesn't alter your flawed arguments.
Do you really want to waste time with a chronology of who insulted who first? I have nothing against you, it's your multiple ridiculous claims I am targeting.
1) You claim that our assertion that the vote was rigged is "speculation", yet the evidence, which I'm sure you still haven't bothered to read, documented by me starting on page 774 shows that MANY people on the "yes" side admitted multiple voting and I couldn't find (in like 2200 posts) a single "no" voter admitting to it, and several that said they wouldn't consider doing it.
2)You claim drop trading isn't cheating. Quote from the rules:
"You may create more than one account, but if you do, you may not log in more than one account at any time, and they must not interact with each other in any way. This includes 'drop trading' or any other method of item transfer."
3)Let me just spell it out once instead of beating around the bush: All of your examples and calculations are based on your ASSUMPTION that "yes" voters and "no" voters cheated at similar (actually you claim identical) rates. Since you checked my profile you have easy access to the overwhelming evidence that this is false. I say again, if everyone cheated on voting at equal rates, there would be no reason to ban it in real life.
Keep working your numbers and you will learn that AT SOME unknowable ratio of opponent and proponent cheating the proposal would have lost if the voting was fair.
As an extreme example, if every "yes" voter voted a thousand times and every "no" voter voted once, will you at least admit in that case "yes" would have won by cheating? If we can at least agree on that, then the only question is WHAT the two cheating rates actually were. Do I claim zero opponents multiple voted? Of course not. But the evidence and the nature of the two factions proves way more supporters did.

21-Jan-2011 02:11:38 - Last edited on 21-Jan-2011 02:14:16 by Phthartic

[#LHG9INIEP]

[#LHG9INIEP]

Posts: 169 Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
id just like to point out to those fighting about whether this vote was unfair or not that runehq the Very popular runescape fan site (which holds all those guides on quests, skill calculators etc. which if you think about it caters more to those who skill, quest making your point that it is mostly pkers with multiple accounts who vote yes void.)hosted there own version of this vote. The vote options and % are as follow:
reinstate both; 59%
reinstate neither; 5%
just the wilderness; 6%
just free trade; 29%
no opinion; 1%
It speaks for itself.As this site doesnt have much appeal to pkers who do you think mostly visits it?
Also saying that this vote was so small it doesnt matter will be stupid. rune hq is a massively popular site and is the most well known among the fan/help sites.

21-Jan-2011 03:20:12

Anima Jonesy
Aug Member 2008

Anima Jonesy

Posts: 1,380 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Haha, imitate? Go back to my first post and say that to me again. However, if you wouldn't mind by going back to my first post and then read yours to respond to mine, you'll notice you failed to answer the major point while insulting me.
My friend, if you were to just open your eyes for only a minute, you will realize, but I think my words fall upon deaf ears. I cannot receive a simple response from you, everything has to be either a criticism or an insult. If you don't wish to make this a peaceful argument, then fine by me. Continue as you were, but I hope you will soon realize your own conceited attitude and failed rebuttal attempts. Maybe someone else might have a better chance to *rill some sense into you...
EDIT:
This is my final response. Please read the last two examples. If you're incapable of using proper logic, deduction, probability, and ratios, then I failed in persuading the narrow-minded. If you still don't understand, then I assume you'll start the response with an insult and I'll just ignore it like I should have ignored the first. Insults appears to be the only thing you are good at, despite the feeble attempt.

21-Jan-2011 03:23:32 - Last edited on 21-Jan-2011 03:27:58 by Anima Jonesy

Phthartic

Phthartic

Posts: 1,730 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Shall I just summarize your recent participation then?
"I claim to understand math and logic. I don't understand yours; therefore you're:
"dumb", you don't understand that 5/5 = 25/25, you're "conceited ffs," you make "wild accusations and lies," you "write awefully [sic]" and "respond poorly," you're "a smart ass," a "child," "Mr. Perfect," you lack "respect," you don't know the "difference between assumption and probability/ratios/percentages," you make "pointless contradictory yet wild untrue stories," you are "incapable of using proper logic, deduction, probability and ratios"
and I don't wanna talk to you anymore, cause you always insult me, and I can't respond to any of your points."
Have I got that about right?
Don't bother responding; I'm done too.

21-Jan-2011 04:41:33

Mystic Monad
May Member 2005

Mystic Monad

Posts: 12,305 Opal Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Anima Hanky,
Thanks for re-posting the calculations giving a worst-case scenario on yes voters voting on multiple accounts, and no voters voting only once.
I really think those arguing against that logic are grasping at straws. "Push it up to 13 or 14 votes per yes voter, and the vote would go the other way!" But that strains credulity.
The fact that an offsite poll agrees fairly closely with the figures in Jagex's poll without the ability to multi-vote just makes it all the more farfetched that Jagex's poll could be *that* far off.
Meanwhile, I have not seen a single piece of credible evidence that there is actually a majority against bringing back free trade and the old wildy.
Some yes voters here and there saying that they voted on multiple accounts while some no voters here and there saying they only voted once at most means that there may have been more yes voters voting on multiple accounts than no voters.
But some yes voters have also posted that they voted only voted with one account. And I think it's reasonable to assume that some no voters only voted with one account.
I actually do find it credible that more yes than no voters voted on multiple accounts.
But to jump to the conclusion that the ratio was 14 or 15 to one--which would be required to swing the vote--goes beyond any reasonable evidence that has been posted here.
Bottom line: So far, though there's been a lot of speculation and cherry-picking of favorable statements on the forums, no credible *evidence* has been presented that a majority of players do not favor the return of free trade and the wildy.
Meanwhile, all the actual *evidence* points to free trade and the wildy having a large majority of supporters among players.

21-Jan-2011 09:52:02

Quick find code: 254-255-49-62042278 Back to Top