You were accusing me, so it would seem to have some bearing. Also, programming is different from mechanical factory work, because you have to think about how to do stuff, it is more like arguing, not at all like doing the same thing 3 times per minute.

Good point, maybe that's why they downrated them, maybe they think "too long to bother with, probably wrong as usual". See, false conclusions are fun, in reality mostly your short readable posts got lowrated. (feel free to find a long downrated one in those 20 pages, I am too lazy to but beware that I will just say that post must have been especially wrong)

I didn't "simply" dismiss anything there, I told you why your theory is crazy. And I can't believe you are still defending it, even though you yourself have established that it only takes 5 to 10 accounts, not 100. Which I think I told you about 15 times before. (feel free to count and prove my random number wrong for fun)

So this is the "not semantics" part, right? Everyone knows what is meant when it is said that "only a crazy person would do it". You can technically prove the contrary, but it doesn't make it less crazy.


Yes that is so weird, or maybe most normal people don't live on this forum and only look here every other day.

Why would you come up with that? You must have really put alot of thought in how to downrep someone. Wonder if you doing it to me??!?! Waah. Yes that was me making a false paranoid conclusion, I don't think you are doing it to me. Stop being so paranoid. It is just happening that way because most people don't look in here every 2 hours like you and me.

And? So? Therefore...

Of course not, you are a calculator, it is technically impossible for you to be wrong.

Yes it is the time, it takes more than 30 minutes to do it with taking precautions. Pretty sure we already established that, now who's not reading stuff. Yes it is pointless, that would be why only crazy people would do it. Oh and also it only takes 5 to 10 accounts, that would be especially why not even crazy people would make 100, kinda feel like I have said this somewhere before.

No, you have to take a new proxy for each account or it would be immediately visible and possibly reversed rendering all your efforts useless
.
Hello false conclusion, see above paragraph.

Yes you are not talking about your popularity at all. And why would you assume this gets downrated? Because you know you are making pointless arguments about an uninteresting topic? I am,too. Or because you are simply wrong? Doubt it. Or are you just saying that to prevent it from being downrated? I don't think it will be downrated, because nobody will read it. And by nobody I semantically don't mean the technical nobody, I mean the colloquial nobody like "nobody reads newspapers anymore".

No, you have earned your trust (rightfully so) by giving away free stuff. Even I like you for that, bribes work. But I try to not let my deep affection for you cloud the way I perceive the issue.

Does this work?

EDIT: Huh. Apparently, I can't post my full reply. I'll have to try again later.

The suspense!

In other news, my request for the timestamp data has been passed on to the webdev team.

Had them same problem, in my post it was a wrong quote syntax, somehow some of the dashes in some close quote tags were missing. Instead of telling me that it just kept submitting the post. Aren't you glad I am ignoring less this time?

Thanks for the suggestion, but it didn't help. All the tags are in the right places and closed correctly.

Sorry my terminology was incorrect, by dash I meant the this: "/". I just tested it, you can succesfully botch a post by removing this sign from the closing tag. So if you make a quote like this:

(quote_274) blah blah blah wrong wrong wrong wrong :D (quote)

The "/" is missing in the final tag, it will just say post processing and never finish. But I have no idea how these signs disappear.

It's okay, I knew what you meant.

Breaking this post into chunks to see if I can get it to post!

Not sure why I even bothered doing this, seeing as you just outright told me that you were going to immediately dismiss the evidence I provide without even looking at it, even if it is the evidence you requested.

Disclaimers:
1) I've limited this to just posts I made in discussion with jamotide. This is because some posts that were/are low-rated were neither part of an argument and clearly nothing to do with being right or wrong (for example, the post where I refused to discuss with jamotide any further is currently low-rated).
2) It is also obvious that someone has, since I last looked at the discussion, uprated at least one of my posts, removing the low-rating marker. I don't have access to a list of posts that have ever become low-rated.
3) Due to the posts still being subject the ratings, the following data is only "as of now".

Of the 32 posts I am regarding, 9 are currently low-rated.

Without a definition of "short, readable", I have just used groups of 100 words. This provides a breakdown of:

001-100 (6)
101-200 (1)
401-500 (1)
501-600 (1)

This means that 66% of my currently low-rated posts in that topic are 100 words or less. This can arguably be regarded as "most" as it is 2/3 majority. However, I was told to find "a long downrated one" and found at least 2.

If I know my statistics (which as I've mentioned, I don't :P), this is a "naive" view of the data. If I made more short, readable posts than long ones, then it may simply be more likely any given low-rated one will be a short one due to the population bias. The bias of "a long post is more likely to contain something that earns a down-rating" is a possible factor, but of unknown magnitude and is thus ignored (aside from this disclaimer, obviously).

I believe that the best way to make this data more informative is to also include the non-low-rating posts and look at how the low-ratings are in proportion to their group.

001-100 gives 6 in 19 (32%)
101-200 gives 1 in 5 (15%)
201-300 gives 0 in 1 (0%)
301-400 gives 0 in 1(0%)
401-500 gives 1 in 3 (34%)
501-600 gives 1 in 3 (34%)

This means that the "short, readable" posts have about same low-rating percentage as the long posts (~33%).

If you split it into 2 groups (i.e. short, readable and long) at one of those boundaries, you can get it to vary by a fair amount by moving the boundary (due to the small sample size..).

100 = 32% vs 23%
200 = 29% vs 25%
300 = 28% and 29%
400 = 27% vs 33%
500 = 26% vs 33%

In case it matters, my average post length in the sample set is 158 words.

So, the claim that "in reality mostly your short readable posts got lowrated" is (tenuously) supported by an initial count (7 vs 2), but taking into account sample bias, I believe has just been proven false.

Of course, if anyone has any questions, comments, requests, suggestions or criticisms, please share them. I am willing to extract and publish word count and low-rating data for that entire topic if requested for people to analyse (or send the quick dataset I made for this analysis), but please bear in mind that someone could now go in and purposely low-rate all the short posts and uprate all the long ones to "make me wrong". The joys of a non-static data set :P

As for the rest of your post:

You mentioned the 5 accounts thing 9 times and 5 of those weren't even directed at me. You're a little bit off.

The argument wasn't about the craziness of the theory, it was about the possibility of it being done. You were using "crazy" as a reason for rejection of evidence.

When asked if you would admit to being wrong that "no-one would do it" if I did it, you (eventually..) responded with:

(Forum can't handle me making the entire text a link). Emphasis mine.

By your own words, your sole point, your whole argument was... "it's crazy".

Because that is how Ubivis was attacked. I have put a lot of thought into it. And? The best way to figure out how something may be attacked is to think how to attack it.

You don't think I'm doing it to you because there is no reason to believe anyone is doing it to you, let alone me. That is why such a belief would be paranoid.. you lack any evidence to even suspect something, let alone that I may be behind it.

When I looked at the RepLog data, you had lost 2 rep versus my 12. I was the second highest rep loss. Everyone knows who was first. The person below me was 1 loss behind me and was also arguing with you. The person after them had lost about 3, if I recall correctly. That's a pretty steep drop off...

When I lose more rep in one topic while arguing with you than I have in 3 years of heated arguments combined that's evidence to suspect something is going on.
When I didn't lose anywhere near as much rep arguing the same point with someone else, that is evidence that something is going on and that you may be involved.
When I only seem to lose rep within an hour of you postingbut not losing rep when you're no, that is evidence that something is going on, you are involved and it is you that is doing it.

I may be wrong about what is going on and who is doing it (someone might even be framing you..), but I'm not paranoid as I have reasons that something is going on and why I suspect it is you.

As you said, I have put a lot more thought into this than you have and I'm supposedly the "wizard" out of the two of us (5 seconds per character for you to sign up, by the way[1]). When I say "you only need one", I know what I am talking about.

[1] At 5 seconds per character, you short simple post #275 would take 30 minutes to compose. You're either lying or withholding information, like you signed up using a phone.

You use a proxy to stop your true account from being identified along with the other accounts. The "attack" accounts are disposable. It doesn't matter if GOG identify them all by their single shared IP and remove them all.. you can just make more. A whole bunch of signups at one time from a single IP would be immediately visible if someone was watching, but no-one is. It doesn't matter if the weapons end up in the hands of the authorities, as long as they can't trace them back to you.

I thought it would be downrated because it would only take 5 people to read the "I would create 100 accounts to downrep someone" and ignore the qualifying statements around it.

I certainly didn't say it to stop it being downrated because that only works when someone is trying to get downrated!

My trustworthiness as a debate opponent has nothing to do with how popular I am.
You don't earn trust by giving away free stuff because there is no trust involved in receiving the free things. It may have put me in the position to be given the opportunity to prove I am trustworthy but that's it.

I earned the trust I have when I was given $100+ of stuff to keep hold of and I didn't steal it. I earned the trust I have when given a game first in a trade, I didn't just run off with it. I earned the trust I have when someone told me they "absolutely trusted me", I told them not to (no-one should trust me more than I do).

It may even be true that the only reason I'm popular is because I give away games, but that has little to do with why I am trusted here. As demonstrated by the fact that there are people in this very topic who have said that they don't, even though they are just as likely to win and I haven't done anything to deserve mistrust, to my knowledge.

You don't like me, let alone have a "deep affection" for me.. you like that I give away free games. Nothing more.

For many reasons (mostly relating to your poor arguing form) I don't like you but the biggest one is you topping the "misrepresented me" reason by insulting a load of other people here by saying I bribed them to like me. It would appear that I have a much higher opinion of the people in this community than you do.

It wouldn't post because it was too long. Welcome to the limitless future!

* grabs popcorn and watches the newest episode of " The Green and the Orange " show . *

^ I thought all the popcorn went into the Shadowgrounds Survivor release thread?..

I'm kind of curious now. Suppose GOG were to deal with the problem not by cutting new accounts from the rep system, but by doing something that can make creation of alt accounts more difficult, like requesting verification, or more personal information. This would work not just against potential downrepping, but also against spammers (there are plenty of them posting on the Community Wishlist). However, I somehow doubt such changes would be popular...

new bucket

I'm fairly sure that they have mentioned somewhere (in an interview perhaps?) that creating accounts being so easy was a design decision.

I suppose the theory is "make it so simple, it'll never be the reason someone doesn't make an account and buy stuff".

Yes I am surprised you wasted your time with it,too! And to what end, somehow statistically prove that 2 downrated long posts are more than 7 short ones. Congratulations, at least you proved that even someone without knowledge in statistics can prove anything with statistics. Well done. And all for a minor not too relevant sentence in a huge multiquote fest, thats value for money.

Hardly surprising, that is why you keep drawing attention to particular posts, in the hopes of sycophants uprating them to sooth the pain done to your ego. (warning: Overdramatization, may not hold up to semantics)

Ok, point still stands. Might wanna say something substantial if you bother to address a claim. Or do I have to write estimate, overdramatization, exaggeration behind every number I didn't spend half an hour (warning: exaggeration) on to check?

It certainly was for you.

Nicely taken out of context, as usual. This was after I already admitted that I was technically wrong, because we then knew it only takes 5 to 10 accounts, not 100. Which made your 100 accounts theory even crazier.

It still is, not exactly sure what you think you just proved here.

And....that was a joke to illustrate how one can come up with paranoid theories, as I clearly wrote in the following sentences which you for some reason address seperately in the next quote.

You lack evidence,too. What you gathered is cicurmstantial at best. And even if it is completely accurate there is no reason to assume someone is out to get you. You just assume this because you can't face that many people simply disagreeing with you silently to avoid 50 pages (warning: number may be inaccurate) of discussion.

Yes something is definitely going on, you being wrong and trying to justify it desperately, that's all.

Yes I am involved obviously, maybe I am just better at pointing out your wrongness as that other person was. (yes I have a big ego,too, just not celestial body sized)

This would be what I meant by circumstantial at best and false conclusions.

Everyone has reasons for anything, the problem is usually evidence and reality.

Not even sure what you are trying to say here. I post faster than I signed up for my account so this proves I am lying about what, how I signed up?

I would have thought the ratings would be reversed once the fake accounts have been found out. But ok since you are the Wizard, I'll accept your authority on abuse accounts creation.

What? I am sure this made sense in your head, but the words you came up with don't.

Huh?

Agreed, and I think you proved this by now! (warning: snippy remark, may not hold up to investigation)

Ok so I can trust you to keep my hundred bucks, not sure how that affects your paranoid statements.


PS: I apologize for calling your giveaways bribes, that was very rude of me, at the time it just intended it to be a funny wordplay, but it is obviously a matter of great pride for you. So no, you did not bribe anyone, you just gathered affection for your generosity, and mine,too, even though you didn't believe me.

What the shit, guys?
Don't you have jobs or hobbies?