Ullikummis

[ QUOTE ]

It's really from indian gift exchanges - which were practiced in Japan, and other cultures as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't that be an Ainu giver?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I had one, but ate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was just a cookie that you wrote on with icing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was suspiciously yummy for a website...

I had one, but ate it.

Please sign up Deus Ex-Machina (Level 30 EB/EMP defender) for team 1.

*5 stars MadScientists Arena Effort*

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One thing I DO miss, however, is that there used to be a time when the rules were applied with thought behind them, not just because the forum rules says so. Sometimes we were allowed to push and bend the rules if it was obvious it was in good spirits and helpful to fostering productive discussion, whereas other times trolls and idiots had their threads pulled for even passing violations of minor rules because they were making a mess of things. In fact, I used to tell people that they shouldn't worry about accidentally infringing on the rules as long as their heart is in the right place and they don't make a giant huge mess of things. Whether that was due to the generally lower severity of moderation or due to personal style (and it's not just Cuppa, as Lighthouse was pretty good about these things, too) I cannot say, but this no longer seems to be the case.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree very strongly, except about Lighthouse.

I miss the days when the rules weren't used as a cudgel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you know that you cannot put a moderator on ignore.

Not that I tried...

This happens to me occasionaly.
If you manually reposition the henchman closer to the door, he will attack.

I think it's beause you are in the same boat I am.
You have so many that your focus is on the badges you don't have. So, this change in fact is good for you. There are fewer badges you don't have.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK having looked over Heaven's Agent's review of the arc, and seeing what ludicrous things he's docking stars for, I'm absolutely convinced he's just a troll - nobody can actually be this petty and overanalytical and be serious about it.

Some highlights include (paraphrased, and this is only a handful of them):

"Arc did not go in depth to explain every nuance of Red Shift's time travel plugging all possible interpretations of it against possible plot holes by over analysis of the arc"

[/ QUOTE ]


After I read this, I couldn't believe a word you said.

You start off by saying that you may paraphrase BUT everything you attribute to Heaven is in QUOTES. Quotes mean that something ISN'T paraphrased.

So I don't believe you when you say Heaven "griefed" this arc because it didn't meet EVERY NUANCE and ALL POSSIBLE INTERPERTATIONS ... and OVER ANALYSIS ...

I believe those are your words, not his, that you're placing in HIS quotes.

And if you can't believe the messenger, you can't believe the message.

The fact that you and your SG all played and loved an arc doesn't mean that everyone else will - or should. The intensity of your anger at Heaven for what is, basically, his opinion leads me to believe that you are NOT some disinterested party defending a stranger's MArc.

Don't know what your hidden agenda is, but I don't believe a word you say.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is old news. We've figured out that HA is not a griefer but rather just weird.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually don't think he's weird at all.

EDIT: And woot, post 10000.

[/ QUOTE ]

*gives secret Forum Cartel Handshake, which is no handshake, since there is no forum cartel!*

I'll miss you Text, even though you never gave me a cookie...that's how awesome you are... *sniff*

And she certainly wasn't eaten by any Himalayan nobleman...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're no longer 'angry' -- now you're a 'farmer'?

[/ QUOTE ]

OH NOES! The Doublethinkpolice caught him!

What year is it again?

[/ QUOTE ]

We are at war with Champions Online.
We have always been at war with Champions Online.
Everquest is our ally.
Everquest has always been our ally.

In my heart, I still have the Virtual Victor badge.
No patch is so large as to overwrite what is in there.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Trip mines are nice for ambushes in the second mission.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not when they spawn where you don't expect them to.

Like right on top of you.

*cry*

[/ QUOTE ]

*pat pat, give cookie and juice box*



[/ QUOTE ]

My last words when it happened during that second mission were, and I quote:

"GAH!!"



[/ QUOTE ]

The milker became the milkee?

Fire imps

err, I mean, all but fire imps. Ulli can actually only read word "cookie" consistantly...

[ QUOTE ]
i15:stay on target

[/ QUOTE ]

I15: It's no good, I can't maneuver!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One Reich to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them?

[/ QUOTE ]

You heard it here, Dark Bondage powerset

[/ QUOTE ]

Long as I get to pick my own safe word.

[/ QUOTE ]

I told you, your safe word is: "Yes, Ulli, I will make a thousand cookies for you."

NOW GO ASSUME POSITON #7!

One Reich to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them?

[ QUOTE ]
I got all my original numbers farming a regular mission. Does anyone know if Dev Choice or Hall of Fame missions give out the same rewards?

[/ QUOTE ]

I had gotten a purple drop on a dev choice arc in test, back in open beta. So, they do drop purples.

*eats 15 cookies to deal with anticipation*

What about BicycleRepairMan?

<.<
>.>

They were...

Dear Caves,

You are an awesome place to store cookies.

Love and noms

Ulli

Kraken is not scary either. He looks too much like Grimace.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do stat's as a hobby, and as part of being a math teacher. If I have 20 ratings all 4's and 5's and I get one 1 rating, that 1 rating pushes me down to nearly a 4.0 rating. Now based on all the other data, I should haev something like a 4.5. In other words, the 'average' is not reflective of the data set.

In statisitcs there are formulas to determine outliers. They're not that complicated and we use them all the the time to get a good read on what numbers are telling us. Rather then letting one or two anomolus data points skew our measures of center we just toss out the data that is SOOOOO far from the norm as to be unlikely to be valid.

In other words, if 20 people give a 4 or a 5 and one person gives a 1, then it's probable, statistically speaking, that the single 1 star rating is not a valid data point.

Now if we have 10 5's and 10 1's, that's a TOTALLY different ball of wax, and in taht case, the standard deviation for the data will be substantially higher and suggest that the 1's ARE indeed valid data points. Part of the trick in stat's is that you don't toss the potentially invalid data totally, you just leave them out of the average until you have more data to either confirm that there is a downward trend, or to confirm that they are invalid.

In other words, you get 10 reviews. 9 5's and 1 1. The one is likely an outlier so the average is 5 (not counting the 1). Then you get 5 more reviews all 1. Now that implies that the 1 is in deed a valid data point, so you reinclude that 1 in the average, and then you recalculate.

It's not that hard and I've only had first year stats.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with statistics is a problem intrinsic in most computational mathematics: people tend to remember the formulas but often forget the contextual applicability. Statistics is one of the worst (or best, depending on your point of view) examples of this.

In this case, there is a subtle flaw in your reasoning (not picking on you specifically: its a flaw replicated in all posts of this nature). The flaw is that you're looking at the arcs as if they have an "intrinsic" value, and all of the individual ratings are attempts to "measure" that value. Under that context, its reasonable to consider whether some reviewers "just aren't very good at it." If 100 people rate an arc a 5, and one person rates it a zero, you could argue that "obviously" the Arc "is a five" and that one zero guy is just bad at reviewing.

However, that isn't really the case. Whether an arc is entertaining to someone or not is highly subjective. As a result, nearly all reviews are a composite score that combines the reviewer's opinion of the technical merits of the arc (which is at least somewhat objective) and its entertainment value (which is highly subjective and not always even possible to untangle from their opinion about its technical merits). There is no actual "intrinsic score" and as a result, the ratings values are an attempt to *create* a composite score across the entire playerbase (or at least the subset that plays arcs), not *measure* the score of the arc.

Suppose we have the hypothetical case that 90% of the entire playerbase universally loves challenge missions, and 10% of the entire playerbase absolutely hates them. A challenge mission might get 9 4s and 5s, and one 1. That one isn't "wrong" its representing that 10% of the player population. Claiming that the arc is really "basically a 4.5, excluding a minority that don't count" would be missing the point.

A single number cannot represent a wide range of circumstantial information. It can really only quantify a single magnitude. In this case, the proper representational number is to average all ten scores including the "outlier" as those scores properly represent the playerbase as a whole. Does that lose information in the process? Yes: as all composite scores and averages do. That's unavoidable.

Now, what happens when the scores *don't* represent the playerbase as a whole? Well, the answer to that question is: let me know when you have an example of a real-world case that can be unambiguously demonstrated to be non-representative, and I'll let you know. The problem is its very difficult to prove that a sample of the playerbase isn't a representative sample in the general case. It can be in specific cases (I can actually point to two in my own case) but even in those cases, the only things you can say are that its statistically likely that some data points are non-representative. There's no way to point to any individual one and make that claim, short of the reviewer themselves stating a clear statistically invalid bias directly.


On the subject of ratings: my opinion is still the same as my opinion in beta: while I think the rating system is problematic in a few areas, ultimately I think players should be allowed to rate by their own internal rating system, whatever that may be. Placing systematic requirements on raters - especially with any form of accountability - greatly reduces the chance for players to participate in the rating system, and in my opinion is counter to the intention of the rating system itself. The rating system is explicitly intended to be the part of the MA that is "for the masses" (as opposed to the authoring tools which are for "authors"). I think its reasonable to make suggestions to players on how to provide the most effective feedback, but I'd stop well short of telling people what constitutes each rating number.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ulli still wonder how arc with no cookies gets 5 stars...