TullyBBurnalot
-
Posts
2,631 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Posts posted by TullyBBurnalot
-
-
4 minutes ago, Agent_Che said:
But there is no reason to try against that? Maybe it will work? Maybe the players will like it? Its not that big of an issue to let medborgs complete organ surgeries and implantations. As I said I need to be able to do MY job fully because I cannot do anything else.
Because borgs as designed right now are the "end goal", so to speak.
They were designed, intentionally, to be like this.
"But maybe people will like it" is not in any way a valid, or even good, justification to start branching off and ignoring the few parts of server direction we have on lockdown. Ideas stand on their own merits, on hypotheticals, and as it has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, borgs are working as designed and working as intended, with strong points and weak points.
You keep trying to make an argument for equivalent exchange. That is literally the least of our concerns.
-
2 hours ago, Agent_Che said:
Why was the decision made, that server should move that way?
RE: The Github regarding most decisions regarding Cyborgs so far.
2 hours ago, Agent_Che said:Can we hear a justification with evidence for that decision?
We can't offer you a signed declaration stating "This is what we want to do".
What we can offer you is the history of the GitHub up until this point and the opinion of long-term players.
This is how we've been running server direction. There's not really any reason for us to suddenly 180 and start going the other way.
-
3 hours ago, Dinarzad said:
That's one mindset, but the alternative mindset is that, a Cyborg gives up their free will, they are totally subservient to the AI and in some cases the Crew, and also give up all their flexibility and use of hands. They have the tools they have and that is it. In exchange for giving up your free will and flexibility you become a specialized machine that excels in it's chosen field.
Working As Intended/Designed (TM).
3 hours ago, Dinarzad said:A Cyborg is inflexible. If it is not in their modules they can't perform that function. They can't elect to ignore their boss or exist as an individual if the AI says jump you don't get to ask it "Why" you get to fucking jump.
See above.
3 hours ago, Dinarzad said:So the response is why should someone who sacrifices all their free will, choice and flexibility to be a specialized machine in a specific field NOT dominate the aspects of those jobs?
There's a bit of a misunderstanding here.
Cyborgs are specialized in a particular field. This does not mean they are excelling at this field, it simply means they are designed to only work in that field. They have been optimized to do that work.
I've seen a lot of misunderstanding in this thread about the role of Cyborgs, especially coming from "More Power" advocates. This is not a random PR that someone made that made Cyborgs what they are; this is a concerted effort of server direction. Some servers give Cyborgs more power than Paradise, others give them less, we give them this.
This is a core concept of our server direction. It's one of those a priori things that you honestly have little recourse but to assume that's how it works, sort of how we allow everyone to know about Antagonists if they so desire. It's just how things work, as they were designed to work that way.
2 hours ago, shazbot194 said:However, as the round progresses, they are very quickly outmatched by the crew in everything.
This is demonstrably false. Every single thing the crew can outmatch a borg at, they can do so at the start of the round. If anything, only tools and implements change, and even that is at the whims of Mining, Research and (for more dangerous stuff) Command.
Sure, Security Officers can be equipped with X-Ray Vision implants, or be given Anti-Drop or have shields and guns, but that still requires other people to do their jobs, whilst Cyborgs are under no constraint, having their equipment on them at all times.
Hell, you might even say Cyborgs are in a great position, being immune to theft of their tools and equipment.
2 hours ago, shazbot194 said:A medical borg cannot do some needed surgeries all on their own and cannot make use of most chems available outside of offering the person a pill to take themselves nor can they make super useful chems outside of charcoal and spaceicilin, which if you need that much of the latter, something went major went wrong and other means
mightwill almost always be a better fix.Working as Intended/Designed (TM).
A lot of people seem to be operating under the impression that Cyborgs should automatically just be as good, or better than, humans, when that has not been the intended design direction of Paradise in... pretty much as long as I can remember.
2 hours ago, shazbot194 said:ecurity borgs cannot use any lethals, at all minus the harmbaton, but this puts them into range of their direct counter, a flash whereas officers get AEGs, xray guns with xray implants, Adrenalin, shotguns, auto rifles, massed laser guns ect
Which, as I pointed out, they still require either IC authorization + a reason to use this stuff, and/or having someone else unrelated to them do their jobs. By comparison, a Security Cyborg is a self-contained machine that don't need no
manScientist in RnD.2 hours ago, shazbot194 said:Service borgs get the shortest end of the stick as they almost directly need a person to help them to make some of the basic drinks.
Service Cyborgs also dispense trays and plates, and come with a guitar.
They're general entertainers and servicemen, not bartenders.
2 hours ago, shazbot194 said:I honestly do not see one aspect of any borg that dominates it's field for long, with one exception, and its the mining borg which matches miners mining ability when upgraded, but is still heavily limited whereas miners are not.
- Any Cyborg VS Shadowlings;
- Security Cyborgs VS anyone relying on slips/stuns;
- Medical Cyborgs handling basic Brute/Burn/Toxin/Oxyloss (Hypospray spam VS a human having to either drag them to cryo or get medication);
- Janiborg VS Janitor. Seriously, this particular battle is stacked hilariously in favor of the janiborg. Plus, lube;
- Engineering Cyborg VS anyone without an RCD
When spending so much time looking for if a Cyborg is completely excelling at their field, one often overlooks the many (more) minor advantages they possess.
Cyborgs are not meant to be upgrades over humans. They're supposed to be more specialized "sidesteps".
2 hours ago, shazbot194 said:I am not saying they should be as good as crew in all areas, but they should be able to at least match the crew in some and not be outpaced fully 20 minutes into a round
Hyperbolic sentence is hyperbolic. You're assuming that Science will, always, in 20 minutes, complete research and equip the crew to such a degree that Cyborgs become useless.
Basic observation reveals this isn't true in a vast majority, if not totality, of cases. And even WITH the crew on full swing, you still have Cyborgs excelling in certain areas, such as:
- Immunity to pretty much every single chemical;
- Immunity to lack of oxygen;
- Immune to stuns apart from flashes (which even then are limited in being acquired and require quick timing in melee);
- Immune to theft, literally always carry around a small cabinet's worth of tools with them regardless of how active the Greytide is;
- For Medical Cyborgs, the ability to perform (relatively) safe surgery anywhere, anywhen, by using a roller bed and the grab bag of tools always at their disposal (see above point);
- For Security Cyborgs, an immense amount of disabler rounds and baton charge when compared to a Security Officer;
- For Engineering Cyborgs, still an RCD
I could go on and on. The list of things that a cyborg has as a convenience over human crewmembers is one that, for whatever reason, is being completely overlooked in this thread over a belief that they should somehow still be "better".
-
This is going to be a long one...
I'm going to preface this by saying: we, as a Server Staff, reserve the right to nudge players towards a behavior we see as being more appropriate for the environment we're trying to create here. This ultimately means a nudge towards higher RP standards, though not TOO much of a nudge.
Alright, now that the preamble is out of the way...
5 minutes ago, TermedClepe2 said:I really like to utilize masses of constructs
And this is where the derailing begins. This is something that's been brought to our attention a lot recently regarding cultist playstyle: an emphasis on murder and destruction over secrecy and conversion, with the end result being a handful of competent cult players wreak havoc while the cult itself ends up losing, which is obviously not the intended point of the gamemode.
The cult has a ton of items and mechanics designed around being subversive and stealthy. It feels lackluster for one's go-to strategy to be rampant murder and construct construction. You're basically missing out on most of the cult mechanics at that point.
Not to mention, constant murderbone and construct armies get old, fast. After a while, they cease being fun for anyone except the people getting to click sprites for Brute Damage.
8 minutes ago, TermedClepe2 said:I did it several times now, usually screwing something up and losing regardless of an army, but that is besides the point and more on me making dumb mistakes like sharding the sacrifice target instead of dragging them
Unlike Nuclear Operatives, the cult is not geared towards "going loud", not unless you have GIGANTIC numerical superiority and/or stacked the best players against the worst ones.
This is the end result on treating everything like a nail. You don't just have a hammer, you know?
9 minutes ago, TermedClepe2 said:What I do most of the time is give the round a good 1 hour without going loud while building a cult base, after that I set out to make an army of constructs to complete the objectives.
This... again, feels lackluster. You mean to say you lock yourself out off-base, amass power and items, all the while producing a base Security has little to no chance of actually getting into, then just go loud and start indiscriminately killing everyone?
That's not what cult was designed for, in the slightest. It almost feels like wasted potential at this potential if this is what you always do.
10 minutes ago, TermedClepe2 said:It's really straightforward, keeps people in round in the form of constructs and there are multiple cult abilities and structures supporting this playstyle.
Yup.
Except, as noted, repeated murderboning gets old, fast, and people get tired of it, also fast. It may be fun for you, but after a certain point, you're detracting from the fun of everyone else, and that's where the Staff has to jump in.
12 minutes ago, TermedClepe2 said:Last time I did it I got messaged by an admin being told to "tone it down" and "never do it again" because dead chat was displeased about the construct army, to the point they said they could predict my actions every time I'm a cultist, as if being predictable was the issue.
Except it is an issue.
You've developed such a reputation for repeated, predictable, murderous behavior that Deadchat can now accurately predict what you're going to do with astounding accuracy.
This is a problem. Things should be fresh, chaotic, unpredictable. Hell, one of the biggest reasons we re-listed was because rounds were becoming incredibly stale and predictable. What you're doing here is akin to minmaxing, and doesn't really place anyone's fun but your own in any important spotlight.
The purpose of Antagonists is to make the round interesting. Not just "win". Seems to me that your priorities veer towards the latter.
14 minutes ago, TermedClepe2 said:Now the question is, to what extent can cult kill the crew if the intent is mass construct animation?
That's not really the question. The point is, that Administrator told you to quit the whole "mass construct" shtick. It was brought up on Staff Chat and literally everyone involved in the conversation agreed.
15 minutes ago, TermedClepe2 said:My argument here is that cult should be allowed to operate similarly to nuke ops in terms of murdering crew, assuming the intent is to convert the crew in some form and not just hiding the corpses away for the heck of it
Huuuum, no.
The purpose of Nuclear Operatives is to literally nuke the station. For that, they are armed with kinetic weapons, shields, armored hardsuits, bombs, literal nerve gas, and a host of other highly destructive tools meant only to, pardon my French, wreck shit.
You're Cultists of Nar-Sie, handpicked by His Hand to spread His influence in the mortal realm and then tear apart a hole in reality to summon His demons, or even Himself. You're not a commando team, you're a cult. That entails a certain level of subtlety and subterfuge that's lacking in the "Kill Everyone, Build Constructs" approach.
17 minutes ago, TermedClepe2 said:I would like to know what your opinion is on this ooc limitation on cult actions, despite the fact the the objective completion causing the same - people dying / being made into constructs en masse.
Allow me to be completely honest here: you were warned because the Staff was getting tired of your antics. Now, admittedly, powergaming is very subjective and was specifically left out of the Server Rules due to how subjective it is. However, it is the belief of the Staff that your "strategy" has crossed one too many lines one too many times; hence the request.
Hell, the fact that deadchat is getting annoyed at a chance to murderbone freely should be enough of an indicator of how much people are getting tired of this.
You were warned because we felt your behavior was detracting from the overall enjoyment of the playerbase; the decision was made in the interest of preserving fun for the server as a whole, and making cult rounds far more enjoyable for everyone involved. In fact, allow me to quote our Server Rules:
QuoteRemember the goal of an Antagonist is to make the round exciting, fun, and dangerous, within limits. You should make an effort to add to the round, as opposed to simply completing your objectives and carrying on normally.
The intent seems clear here.
We're currently trying to figure out solutions to nudge Cult towards a direction we feel is more in line with its original intent: sneaky subterfuge. This is why we requested you tone down the whole mass army construction for the time being.
-
3
-
-
I'm seeing a lot of hyperbole in this thread.
The straightjacket is not used enough that this suddenly constitutes a massive gamechanger to how the Warden works.
And when it is used, it simply forces the Warden to actually babysit prisoners instead of just dropping them off and wishing for the best.
Y'all are severely overestimating how much this will actually impact gameplay.
-
I should point out, the resist timer for the straightjacket is 5 minutes.
Add to that the resist timer for handcuffs of about 2.5 minutes.
And to THAT a potential resist timer for being bucklecuffed to begin with at what, another minute?
This is hardly a bluff. If anything, it's a sadistic "Just TRY and resist and watch yourself fail". I mean honestly, if you can't check up on someone once every 8-10 minutes if you've resorted to straightjacketing them, you have bigger issues at play.
-
1
-
-
Alright, looks like I'm going to have to make a dick out of myself again...
45 minutes ago, ZN23X said:too much failure to consistently enforce server rules
Are you Ahelping these situations that require enforcing the Server Rules? Are you notifying the Administrators when you see someone do something that could be construed as skirting the edge of the Rules?
I don't want to start victim blaming here, but we are NOT omniscient. You cannot expect us to preemptively catch everything on our Admin Net (TM); that's why we even have an Ahelp system.
Again, I don't know how much of this you report, but this has been a complaint I consistently see levied from people who do not report these things; we can't really help you if you don't point us in the right direction, it's simply impossible.
If you have an example of when you Ahelped something and the Administrator legitimately did NOT enforce the Server Rules, then please, issue an Admin Complaint.
48 minutes ago, ZN23X said:Maybe I'm the only one and if I were to stop playing and move on to something else it wouldn't even be a noticeable loss, I'm more concerned about there being many like me who feel the same. I've noticed many of the players I enjoy playing with dissapeareing. That can't be an accident.
It is an often sad fact that systems change. This server is not an exception to this Rule.
Paradise now is not what it was a year ago, and not what it was a year before that. And before anyone gets snarky, no, it's not a downwards descent; it's more of a lateral one.
People's tastes change, they get bored, or frustrated, or they just want to do something different. The one thing I've seen the most is people getting increasingly burned out on the game, refusing to realize this, and instead blaming everything else. It's for that reason I encourage people who just take breaks every once in a while; it either sparks their interest again, or they go find something else to do.
This is a game. People shouldn't play it when it stops being fun.
51 minutes ago, ZN23X said:This behavior keeps being allowed, and lately it even feels like such behavior is promoted.
Source?
I don't know where you're getting this. How is the Staff promoting greytide behavior? If anything, we've been cracking down on it more and more, not the other way around.
Please refer to what I said before. You're assuming we're somehow letting this happen deliberately when, in fact, a vast majority of people just don't bother reporting this sort of stuff.
Seriously, Ahelp these things.
56 minutes ago, ZN23X said:I just wish I could enjoy this game as much as I used to.
That's not going to happen.
What you have here is you're getting tired and burned out on this game. It happens. I've seen it happen, more often than not, right in front of my eyes.
Do yourself a favor: please take a break. Maybe a few days, maybe a couple of weeks. But what I can tell you is, if you just keep going like this, forcing yourself to try and have fun, you're going to end up fucking yourself over and before you know it, you'll be doing nothing but spewing salt all over the public Discord channel and getting everyone annoyed at you.
I'm completely serious here: take a break. Don't force it.
-
3
-
-
28 minutes ago, Chronarch said:
I do agree that the server is getting less and less serious. I've noticed it often, working as a bartender. People will just jump counter without even asking for a drink more and more, and it just really bugs me, IC and OOC.
Point of order: this always happened. It's been a staple for as long as I can remember, and I've been playing since mid-late 2014.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Canadian_Bac0n said:
Still, I don't see why it would hurt.
For the exact reasons Flattest pointed out. Having fat sprites for everyone means that not only do you need a new set of sprites for every species, you also need a whole new set of sprites for every single jump, and every new jumpsuit requires double the amount of spritework.
The sheer amount of back catalog required for this is immense, and it would put a very large burden on any new spriters. Not really something we'd fancy doing.
-
Well, it's been nearly a month, so we'll be resolving this.
It has never been policy to consider individual backstories and RP reasons behind names, even after the recent Rules Revision. Administrators have always had some leeway to determine what is, and is not, acceptable in terms of "seriousness", especially after the Revision placed more importance on improving immersion and the RP Atmosphere.
Ultimately, there is not one solid answer here, and it depends on the context of the game and the server. As it stands, not having a last name does not mesh well with the overall context, where humans have, by default, at least a first and a last name. There is no wrongdoing on anyone's part asking you to come up with a last name, as individual backstories are not considered on a case-by-case basis.
Hopefully, this answers your questions.
Filing to Resolved.
-
1
-
-
Alright, what do we have for today... oh, great. Samples.
Sample VS Population
Put simply, a population represents the sum total of individuals/things that you want to study, be it people, mice, political movements, stars or pudding. Essentially, it is the global group that you want to make projections/predictions for.
Of course, because of the logistical impossibility of running studies on what might very well be millions or billions of people, you need to find a way to more feasibly extrapolate results.
Enter the sample. The sample is, quite simply, a segment of the population that you are actually studying, essentially a slice of the cake. Any results that you obtain in this sample will then be generalized/extrapolated to the population at large. And this is where we get into...
Step Two: Sample Size
This is the next step in determining the validity of a study's results. Before any sampling method is chosen, one needs to consider what the size of the sample is. Unless you're going for a complete sample (see below), you're going to have to define the size of the sample you'll want to use. And a good rule of thumb is:
"Less is more, except for sample size"
What this means is that, while you should try to keep your investigation simple and straightforward, you should always try and achieve the biggest possible sample size, as the bigger the sample, the more representative it becomes. Smaller samples also come with a gigantic host of problems when the number-crunching begins, as even a small difference can be immensely magnified.
For example, let's imagine Sample A, with 10 people, and Sample B, with 10000 people. The goal of the study is to determine the incidence of Disease X. Through sheer random luck, one person in Sample A has Disease X. This would indicate 10% of the sample (and population) has that same Disease X. Whereas, in Sample B, that singular person would represent 0,01% of the sample.
Size matters, after all.
There isn't a real consensus on what the "bar" is for the minimum size of any sample, with the accepted consensus simply being to get as big a sample as you can work with. The theoretical lowest possible limit would be a sample of 30, and that's already pushing it, even with a 100% representative sample.
In scientific studies, sample size is marked as "N". So a sample size of, say, 657 hamsters would be marked as "N=657". As such, always beware of a small value of N, as the lower you go, the less representative you become of your population, and the more you have small, insignificant effects be magnified artificially.
To provide an example, remember the Wakefield study? It had a sample of 12 people, which made it laughably unrepresentative of even the autistic population. To it's credit, it "merely" heavily suggested a link, as opposed to outright claiming it was absolutely there.
In essence, if you see a low N, always beware of any "definitive" conclusions that aren't clearly marked as "more research required".
But wait, you may be thinking, how can a piece of something represent the full something? Glad you asked.
Samples: Representative or Not
In order for the results obtained in a sample to be generalized to a population, this sample needs to be representative of the population at large. To pick up on the cake metaphor, this essentially means that if you want to determine how tasty a chocolate/vanilla cake is, you need to pick a slice that has both flavors, not simply chocolate, not simply vanilla. In other words, the sample must account for the randomness, variety and idiosyncrasies of the population it is representing.
There are several sampling methods to accomplish this, as you can read here, not to mention a host of potential sampling biases that can compromise your sampling, available here in a simplified form.
As a quick rule of thumb, you should always beware of studies that don't tell you how they acquired their sample, as it essentially leaves you blind to what method they used and how vulnerable they were to any biases or outright manipulation. If they do show you how the sample was acquired, always beware of convenience sampling, as it can very easily call into question the validity of the results. To provide an example, imagine a study of a "new" homeopathic "medication" having its sample be entirely populated by individuals who already regularly use homeopathic "medication", because they're the most convenient and easy to get. You've set yourself up for immense amounts of skewed results from the start, as that sample will be much more inclined to believe in the effectiveness of said medication than others, magnifying the already prevalent placebo effect.
So, quick rule of thumb is:
"The bigger, and more randomized, the sample, the better"
-
1
-
-
Yes. As do I. As noted, this complaint is without merit, and you did not bring any further evidence of misbehavior on Spacemanspark's part. Further arguing the duration of the ban will get you nowhere. You can sit this one out.
Filing to Resolved.
-
Yes it will, write it down.
-
For today's lesson, we'll go a bit more into why exactly peer-reviewing important for a study, the dangers of publication bias, and the first step in ascertaining whether or not said study is based on shaky foundations.
As always, remember to ask any questions you may have down below at the end of the presentation.
On Peer Review:
Put simply, a peer reviewed study/paper is one that was evaluated by members of the author's field of study: their peers. This can range anywhere from a group of economists evaluating your projections for national deficit (looking at you, GREECE), to a group of researchers evaluating your study on the effects of caffeine on the growth of hair.
In the context of a scientific study, especially one that is heavily reliant on statistics, peer review is of utmost importance as it is (or should be) conducted by third-party experts. This means that you are gathering all your data, handing it over to a group of peers that are experts in your field, and having them corroborate (or not) your findings. When handling statistical databases, this is crucial, as it all but erases the risk of forged results and fabricated conclusions; there are several methods to identify whether or not a database has forged results, all of them thankfully handled via software.
In essence, sending a paper in for peer review is functionally similar to delivering your thesis to an evaluation committee; they're there to dissect it to its base components and make sure that not only is its theoretical backing solid, but the methodology leads to valid results. It is because of this that major, respectable scientific publications require any submitted studies to go through a process of peer review. This lends validity and credibility to the study and, by process of association, the publication itself.
Of course, this will never save you from someone who is incredibly determined to fake results to push an agenda. The greatest example of this in modern times is the Wakefield study that "proved" a link between vaccines and autism. This was published in The Lancet, a peer-reviewed publication that later claimed they were deceived by the researcher due to data manipulation, outright forgery of results, and undeclared conflicts of interest. This is why it is important to check methodology and not simply rely on the study being peer-reviewed as a mark of authenticity.
When peer review is not required, however, the risk of faulty methodology and dodgy results is maximized. An example of this is pretty much any study referencing homeopathy. When subjected to rigorous peer review processes in legitimate publications, homeopathic medications consistently fail to produce any results that are significantly different from a placebo, whereas in non-peer reviewed publications, they suddenly develop magic water memory powers.
On Publication Bias:
Simply put, publication bias occurs when a given publisher has a tendency to report studies that are "successful" over studies that aren't. In essence, it is when a publisher's decision to publish a study hinges more on whether or not said study confirms a preconceived hypothesis than it does on proper, valid methodology and legitimate results.
To pick on the homeopathy example from just now, this systematic review will show you that Alternative Medicine (TM) publications tend to produce significantly less negative results for alternative medication than other, more "mainstream" publications. This happens because said Alternative Medicine (TM) publications are not interested in publishing legitimate methodology; they're interested in selling you an idea, and "successful" studies that "prove" that things "work" are far more useful for that than studies that disprove the effectiveness of what is, essentially, woo.
Seriously, don't trust homeopathy. It will kill you if you actually need medication. See an actual doctor and get actual medicine.
Regardless, publication bias is a very real, and very dangerous threat to the validity of studies, since it is always a lot more interesting to publish studies that prove a positive than studies that confirm a negative. It is for this reason that one should always take into consideration what stakes a given publication has on a given race. To use the same example, Alternative Medicine (TM) publications often take a very overt approach towards supporting Alternative Medicine (TM): It is no surprise, then, that they will publish studies that "prove" its effectiveness over studies that don't.
Always seek the best in your publishers. Don't let Confirmation Bias get to you and always check multiple sources.
First Step: Theoretical Background
Very little things exist on a vacuum, and modern science is very much built on the shoulders of giants. A vital component of every study is its theoretical background; in essence, what the authors based themselves on in order to conduct said study. This is a critical component of every study because it tells you where the authors came from: did they come up with the idea out of thin air? Did they base themselves on previous studies, or existing literature?
This is very important, as it gives you an idea of starting biases. In the best of scenarios, any given author must look at legitimate, fact-checked literature if they want to provide a solid foundation for their study, and not just a random newspaper clipping they totally saw once. This, of course, can open a rabbit hole, since good theoretical background will often include tens or dozens of citations and sources itself, which means you'll need to go check their validity as well.
In order to save you the headache, however, one must always see if what the theoretical background is saying coincides with accepted scientific consensus. No, this isn't echo chamber behavior; if you want your theoretical background to be legitimate, it needs to be built on what is, at the time, considered legitimate science. If your methodology is solid and it ends up contradicting scientific consensus, then you can start trailblazing. Until then, stick to the path before trying to branch off.
-
1
-
-
Because I'm
so great at maintaining long-term projectsmy intellect knows no boundsI'm bored and want to do a service to the community, I thought I'd start a little "thing" in this sparsely-used subforum.The format is simple. I present a topic, explain it, and you post any questions you may have so I can answer them. Moving on.
There are a few reasons I picked this topic:
a) Statistics is a vital component of all research, regardless of what field we're looking at. Methodology is what determines the validity of a study, and it is statistics that tells us how important something actually is when the bigger picture is considered (via the fantastic concepts of p significance and effect size);
b) Statistics is actually quite simple to understand. Calculations are complex, but mostly handled via software anyway, so one need only be familiar with terminology and methodological standards to get a good read out of any statistical analysis, barring technical jargon pertaining to any particular field;
c) The mass media does not do statistics justice. The sentence "A recent study has shown..." has become statistically unreliable [citation needed], especially since the general public is not educated on statistical/scientific methodology [citation needed];
d) I had to suffer through 350 hours of this bullshit and you're going to suffer for it.
For Part 1, I shall provide a few simple rules that will allow you to filter out 99% of bullshit being spewed by the mass media. From outright fabrications to subtle spinning, these are simple rules you can follow to ensure you get the truth, or the closest approximation. Actual explanation of statistical topics will follow in future threads.
For the sake of convenience, any news piece, report, study, or whatever conveys information will be shorthanded as "article".
Rule 1) Ignore all headlines. They're all clickbait. Read the actual article.
Rule 2) Avoid the Genetic Fallacy. Even a completely disreputable source can produce something of worth, provided they follow the rest of the rules here. Never write anything off just because of who wrote it, even if it takes you 5 seconds to identify biases that completely discredit what's being said. This is exactly what propagandists want you to do: earmark all mass media as inherently untrustworthy, so you'll begin to doubt what they say by default. Don't do that. That's how anti-intellectualism spreads. Read the actual fucking article.
Rule 3) Always check sources. This cannot be overstated. All claims require evidence, and sources are that evidence. If the article you are consulting does not provide a source, it does not automatically mean they are lying, but it does raise a million red flags. This can be done in several ways:
- A direct link to the source, if electronic;
- Describing the source in such a way that it can easily be tracked with minor research, such as publication dates and publishers, ISSN number or DOI;
- Actually transcribing the source in its entirety. While easy to do with, say, an interview via an embedded video, this becomes quite hard with long studies, which makes the first two options a lot better
Rule 4) Match the source to the claim. All claims require evidence, and this evidence must, by definition, be relevant to the claim. What this means is that, for example, if an article makes a claim about a quote during an interview, then they should source a recording of that interview. Likewise, if they're making a claim about a study, they should link that study. When handling quotes and reports, always be wary of primary reporters, since they're the ones putting the news out there. Ultimately, it falls down on how credible the source is, and whether or not the quoted individual protested that they were quote mined or misrepresented. Similarly, any article making a claim about a study and then not providing a source can be duly ignored until such a time as they present a source.
Rule 5) Check the validity of the source. All claims require evidence, and this evidence must be valid. Its validity is VERY difficult to judge if it's an actual study, which will be covered in later threads. For now, however, here are a few simple rules:
- If the source is a recording for a quote, always make sure to get the full context. This means you're not seeing the quote in a vacuum, even if you have to wade through 5 minutes of irrelevant discussion. Always be wary of sources that only provide the exact quote, and not what preceded it or followed it;
- If the source is a transcript, ascertain how the transcript was made and how it was obtained. You will never be safe from outright fabrications, but those tend to go challenged if they blatantly misrepresent what was actually said. Do note, most respectable outlets will not fabricate material from nothing, merely twist it around, so, as with recordings, always get a full context of the quote. Reading through 5 pages is better than being bamboozled;
- If the source is an article/study, check if it's peer-reviewed. This is actually mandatory for most respectable scientific publications, because you are essentially giving your fellow scientific peers all your available data and letting them have a go at your conclusions. This is why you'll find the most outlandish claims in non-peer-reviewed publications, as they'll simply allow you to publish anything remotely "scientific" without having anyone else double-check it. A study can still stand on itself even if not peer-reviewed, it's just that the process lends it far more credibility;
- Related to the above, and regardless if it's peer-reviewed or not, always check the methodology of a study/article before anything else. While a shaky theoretical backing tends to lend itself to shaky methodology (looking at you, homeopathy), it is by no means an obligatory relationship. Horrible "theories" can still have solid methodology
Follow these simple rules, and suddenly, most of all that "MUH BIAS" can be safely filtered out, and real information can flow.
As always, make sure to ask any questions you may have down below.
-
1
-
No response from the OP in over a business week.
Filing.
-
Oh boy, do I get to vent now?
1) Any Adminhelp that includes no details. The meme-worthy "Was that legit?", or any variation thereof, happens so much that it's already stopped triggering aneurysms. For the love of all that is good and holy, we don't know what you're talking about, please include some details so we don't have to spend time tracking them down ourselves;
2) A special kind of fax I see coming from IAAs and no one else: the "sentence fax". You know what I'm talking about. Faxes that basically list a crime someone did, with witnesses and everything, being sent to Central Command. What exactly do you want me to do? Spawn in and brig the person? You have Security on the radio, please use them, because we literally cannot help you;
3) Related to the above, "department grading" faxes. Specifically, players who somehow act like sending a fax like that warrants any sort of action. At best, you'll get a pre-written "Good Job" fax template (which was the whole point of adding that template to begin with). They don't add anything we don't already know, have no impact on the round, and really just serve to kill time for whoever writes them. If you're doing it for the fun and expect nothing to really come out of it (and I know plenty of people who do just that), then great! Just don't expect the Admins to do anything with it;
4) Related to point 2, any fax that requests demotion. You have demotion procedures on the wiki for every single job, up to and including demotion procedures for the Captain. If you can't get people to agree with you and have to go over their heads to Central Command, odds are you're not in the right. Or, if you are, the station is beyond saving at that point;
5) Related to the above, any time anyone uses Central Command as a stick to wield, threatening to fax them to throw their weight around, sending frivolous complaints, that sort of thing. Central Command is your boss. Treat them like your personal weapon and you'll find yourself on the wrong end of a BSA shell;
6) Any time anyone uses Pray to provide random commentary about stuff that happens to them, often like they're just using an IRC. Yes, this happens. Thank goodness we can smite people;
7) Related to the above again, any time anyone uses Pray to beg for random stuff. You're praying to the gods, not using an IC hotline to beg for crap from the Admins. The more you ask, the less you'll get. Or we'll wait until you're in a REALLY bad spot, then spawn a cookie, just to fuck with you;
8) On a more serious note, whenever anyone doesn't Adminhelp because "nothing gets done about it". This is an incredibly dangerous and wrong perspective to have, especially when it comes to situations like bad Security or abusive Command. Just because people don't drop SSD from a Ban does not mean things are not handled, and the amount of legitimate whining I see from people who admit to never Ahelp is grating. If you don't Ahelp someone breaking the Server Rules, you don't get to complain about it;
9) On a slightly lighter note, people who don't Adminhelp because they assume the Admins will get to it. I appreciate the sentiment, but we're not actually omniscient god-beings, that's why we have the Adminhelp system in the first place;
10) There's a special kind of player. A kind who Adminhelps about a problem, then will not stop Adminhelping about it, in an increasingly hostile manner. Every new BWOINK comes with a new dose of salt as you watch this person, who may have had a point in the first place, slowly turn into a raging cuntbag as they demand blood and start screaming at you for not telling them what you're doing, even as you're straightening it out with the person who actually broke a Rule. You'll tell them the situation was handled, and they flip their shit and demand to know what happened. They'll rage to the heavens if the other person wasn't banned. They'll act like you're somehow a fascist for not doing what they want. Don't be this person. Even if you were legitimately victimized, you'll get a note, and a ticket into everyone's shitlist. And you don't want to be on our shitlist;
11) Players who, rather than maliciously breaking the Rules, are legitimately just incapable of following them. Be it due to their age, maturity or, yes, intelligence, these really kill me. I feel bad whenever I have to ban/otherwise punish one of them, because I can tell it's not malicious. And yet, it negatively affects the rest of the server. You know they don't really understand, you know they're trying and failing, and it just makes the whole thing worse. It breaks my heart whenever it happens, and I'm not being sarcastic here. It really does;
12) Any single time anyone tries Rules Lawyering an Admin. You try that. It never works;
12.5) Any single time anyone tries Rules Lawyering SOP with me. Bitch, I WROTE IT;
13) Any time a Shitcuritan tries to argue Space Law. Buddy, you fucked up. Trying to argue Space Law with an Admin is just going to make it worse for you;
14) Gimmick Heads of Staff. Like the Amish Captain. You're in Command. Act like an adult. If you want to do a gimmick, play civilian;
15) The various "I ded pls nerf" threads and/or PRs. It's sad. And transparent. Don't do it, for your sake;
16) Greytiders who expertly toe the line in regards to what is, and isn't, actually breaking the Rules. So much so that in the Rules Revision I made sure to word the Rules in such a way that gives us legitimacy to tell you to stop and/or ban you if we feel like you're being too much of a cunt. Yes, I hate you that much. Yes, everyone else does too. Go away;
17) Any time the Head of Personnel opens clown slots for the keks (barring deliberate sabotage by Traitor HoPs). I will slap you multiple times, leave a Note on you, and if you do it again you're getting demoted and/or jobbanned. The slot opening mechanic is meant to benefit the station, not give you a cheap chuckle;
18) Faxes with no formatting. My soul hurts every time I get a 500 word block of continuous text;
19) Related to 17, clowns that act like their ID gives them a reason to be a greytiding chucklefuck. Lemme tell ya, buddy, you're not gonna like what comes next;
20) Any time someone who breaks the Server Rules tells me they read them. In fact, this warrants an entire goddamn paragraph. I've lost count of the amount of times the following conversation took place:
- Me: "Hey, why did you <insert action that breaks the Server Rules>"
- Them: "<insert flimsy excuse>"
- Me: "Have you read our Server Rules?"
- Them: "Yes"
- Me: "Then why did you break one?"
- Them: "Which one?/What Rule?/I didn't break any Rules"
Here's why this is bad: you just broke a Server Rule. I'm talking with you because of it. When I ask you if you read the Server Rules, after you've done something that clearly breaks them, and you answer "Yes", there are only two options here:
a) You just lied to me about reading the Server Rules. This is bad;
b) You read the Server Rules, and broke them anyway. This is also bad.
There is literally NO WIN for you here. You can't wiggle out of this.
Honestly, this cannot be stressed enough: if you fucked up, the easiest way to get clemency is to admit it and act reasonably. I've also lost count of the amount of times I contact someone for breaking the Server Rules, and they get off with a warning because they acted like a decent human being, apologized to me (and often offered to apologize to any involved parties) and took the time to realize why what they did was wrong.
Be THAT guy. Don't be the first guy.
-
4
-
Greetings.
Let me take this point for point.
13 hours ago, Endlesstrash said:politely asked he be given another chance
We do not lift any bans in-game, barring Jobbans applied to Command players that leave, then rejoin mid-round due to extraneous circumstances. Barring that very niche situation, every other ban goes through an appeal on the forums.
13 hours ago, Endlesstrash said:Assuming he's some sort of pedophile because he used a meme.
I... do not really see any assumption of paedophilia here, unless you're referring to the first bit of the sentence, and even then, it can still be seen as an attack on your friend's taste.
In addition, lolicon is not a meme, it's a legitimate, uh... literary genre, let's go with that. One that is, for the most part, mired in legal grey areas in many parts of the world.
14 hours ago, Endlesstrash said:This entire game is a meme. Have you seen OOC in between rounds, or the names of every other clown or civilian?
As noted, lolicon is not a meme, and is in fact something that falls well beyond what we can consider to be acceptable on the server in terms of erotic content. It is, in no way, comparable to clown names.
14 hours ago, Endlesstrash said:I don't know, maybe the admins are exposed to so much ERP they always assume the worst.
We have a no tolerance policy for any erotic content, regardless of intent. If it's anything other than hugging and maybe kissing, it's right out. House rules.
14 hours ago, Endlesstrash said:He could have simply stated that my friend broke the rules and they had a no tolerance policy, but even that wouldn't justify a permanent IP ban. Instead, this admin used his own hatred towards a particular meme to justify a permaban and spew vitriol on someone asking to reverse it.
Once again, lolicon is most often associated with erotic material and Scrub had every right to apply a Permaban to someone who so blatantly decided to ignore both that Rule, and the one about serious naming.
That said, a few key-points:
a) Everything in that quote beyond "On a real note" is absolutely spot-on. I cannot, and will not, fault Scrub for it, since it's basically server policy;
b) The initial "need new friends" commentary was unnecessary, and Scrub has been informed of such. They will be clearing things up with you post-haste, as it appears not to have been their intention to be taken seriously.
Please respond to this thread if you have anything else to add.
-
1
-
-
Greetings.
First off, please remember to use the template for any future complaints and appeals. Makes it much easier for us to sift through information and gives you directions on what's important to include or not.
Secondly, after sifting through the logs, it seems the player in question simply took the items off a previously killed mob. Simple mobs do still drop items, and this player killed one of these Syndicate mobs, stripped it of its equipment, and then put it on.
There is no foul play or use of Admin powers here. Just simple looting.
Complaint is without merit. Filing.
-
Filing.
-
After speaking with Scrubmcnoob, the following was concluded:
1) While dragging off the Janitor's cart does constitute one of the classical SS13 "dick moves", it was still not a justification for the Janitor to beat anyone into soft critical;
2) This is not protected by the Server Rules, and therefore the Janitor is to blame for their reaction to this situation
As such, Scrub has been informed to warn the Janitor in regards to their behavior and add a Note to their account. In addition, they have been instructed of the limits to which greytide-like behavior is tolerated, and not to hesitate to warn both sides of any given situation if they both share some of the blame. In this situation, however, the Janitor was clearly more in the wrong.
Anything further the OP would like to bring up?
-
Matter is being investigated. Please hold.
-
Why is this not locked?
Filing.
-
No response in over 72 hours, filing to Resolved.
Medical cyborgs
in Suggestions
Posted
Or perhaps you simply don't like it. It's fine to admit this, everyone has their own tastes in video games; however, painting an intentional design decision as "wrong" because you don't like it isn't exactly the best way to go about having a civil conversation.
"We can always revert" is, again, not a reason for anything. I'm all for experimentation, but the ideas to be experimented with must be held on their own merit. See: this entire thread.
Except you're assuming there isn't player satisfaction.
This is clearly your opinion.
Stop making it the global opinion of people you do not speak for.
Should I point out this is how every server like this acts?
Allow me to introduce you to a fantastic metaphor. It's called the "Soup Shop Metaphor".
Essentially, imagine you go into a Soup Shop. This Soup Shop only sells soup, obviously. Now, once inside, you go the counter and ask for a pizza because you don't like soup, but you like pizza.
Now, your love of pizza is perfectly valid (and absolutely 100% objectively correct, as pizza is delicious), but that doesn't mean you can walk into a Soup Shop and demand pizza. The Soup Shop doesn't sell pizza. The Soup Shop only sells soup.
Because, and I know this is going to get everyone riled up again, this isn't a democracy. We don't necessarily pick what a majority of players at any one given time think it's best, especially since our playerbase is very fluid. Our regulars now are not the regulars we had, say, 4-5 months ago.
We have not decided this way was "the best", I don't know where you're getting this from. We decided on this way. This is how we want to run things. We're not making the claim that this is the awesomest bestest way available, it's just the way we went.
I'll point at the advantages myself and Twinmold have brought up and respectfully request that you stop ignoring them.
As Spark just pointed out, 2 Telecrystals is massively cheap.
We don't do binding polls. Never have, never will. This is a pointless idea.
Oh, guess you handled the advisory part.
...
Still no. You've been told by several people here why your ideas aren't as good as you're trying to make them out to be. Your response is to double down and say we should have a poll to see what people think.
We cannot have a discussion if you refuse to reach a middle ground.