thehallows

Ah that's right, you can get the basic "Arcane" cape with females at level 1. However, with male toons you can get the whole list of cape styles from gothic to scarf to dragon to tattered as long as you pick "high collared." With females, you can only get the one. So it's unclear what pre-cape mission female toons are going to get with the new pack unless they get around to fixing that bug (since I assume it's not WAI).

Booster pack capes are still not available pre-cape mission for female toons.

<Kidding>Devs hate Europeans and villains and females.</Kidding>

If that is not your claim, then great, we have no reason to be arguing. But then why are you so upset about someone pointing out that such a conclusion cannot be drawn from your experiment? Why do you write long post after long post about how unfair it is to say so? Why are you constantly telling me to prove the contrary? Why is this thread sarcastically titled the way it is? Why do you go on to tell me about how you intended this thread to be directed at those who claim flipping is affecting the market? If that's not your claim, why didn't you just say "Yep, just like you say, this doesn't prove anything about whether flipping affects the market," and our conversation would have ended as soon as it started?

I base it on scientific method. If you believe it is only "opinion" that scientific method is the ideal method for testing a hypothesis, then I'm certainly game to hear about any flaws you have discovered with the scientific method. I'm not sure what kind of data you want from me. You're actually challenging me to give you data to prove that an experiment should have scientific methodology in order to gather empirical evidence?
I believe you. But why are you telling me this? If you're so passionate about it, then focus your energy on telling that to the people who claim that flippers do negatively affect the market.
The definition of troll is not "Someone who disagrees with Misaligned." If I'm uninformed about something, I don't see how that is relevant. I doubt there is some information that, if I was aware of it, would prevent me from pointing out flawed methodology in experimentation. Unless that piece of information is some thread I missed where somebody says they will kill a cute fluffy bunny every time someone points out flawed methodlogy in experimentation. But I am really not going to feel bad because you have an argument with someone and I pointed something out that weakened your argument.

It's silly when people say that someone can't criticize a film/song/painting/interpretive dance/underwater ice sculpture unless they have done one themselves. It's ginormously silly when someone says that a person can't point out a flaw in an experiment unless they have done one themselves. I can't imagine where science would be if everyone followed that rule.

This is an odd thing to say when I made it clear that I require good data before I will form a conclusion. Instead of bringing me into your argument, why don't you demand some good data from your opponents?

Also, please don't call me sir. If I happen to grow boy parts in the night and you are made aware of it before I am, then I hope you will find a nicer way to let me know.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least. That is science, and quite frankly I think it's one of the best things about science. If I made an experiment and someone found something in the data that I missed, I would be overjoyed. Sadly, I don't have a bunch of subjects, nor do I have the knowledge of statistics necessary to do such an experiment myself. There are also plenty of experiments in the real world I would love to undergo if I only had the resources, but c'est la vie.

That certainly helps the claim. The other two points still stand. The first point stands too, only less so.

Welcome to soft science. You won't ever have a perfect control group. However, you mitigate these problems by picking a large enough amount of items, picking the items randomly, and certainly don't tell anyone outside the experiment about which items are affected. Ideally, the experiment would be as blind as possible, so even the anti-flippers would not know which items are being anti-flipped and which are in the control group, except the ones they are anti-flipping themselves.



I would personally love to see how such an experiment would turn out.

Why 37? I thought recipes were more valuable at levels divisible by five.

Poor vendors. Where are they going to get their purples from?

Yeah, I was thinking that too. But I'm not a forum star, so I don't see why anyone would trust me since I haven't built up a reputation to protect.