Posted August 22, 2013
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7Lrwe6wwig]Learn how to do 10 mind blowing things in a matter of minutes![/url]
sanscript
Ltd. DeepSeeker
Registered: Jul 2011
From Norway
xyem
Old-ish User
Registered: Sep 2010
From United Kingdom
Posted August 22, 2013
Whelp, another long post incoming!
Part 1/2
jamotide: 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. You've missed the point. Saying "most of your low-rated posts are short ones" means nothing, because most of my posts were short anyway. The "statistics" part were to show that my posts were equally likely to be low-rated, with length not being a significant factor.
jamotide: 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) Yes, I'm totally drawing attention to particular posts, in the hopes of sycophants uprating them to soothe the pain done to my celestial body sized ego.. instead of merely to highlight instances where I found a low-rating particularly amusing. I totally need other people to uprate my posts, even though I have bunch of RepTest accounts that I could use to remove all low-ratings in a matter of minutes.
Overdramatisation: may not hold up to any semblance of reality or sense.
xyem: You mentioned the 5 accounts thing 9 times and 5 of those weren't even directed at me. You're a little bit off. jamotide: 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? Your point doesn't stand because it is irrelevant. There is a reason someone might use a significantly higher number than 5 accounts to attack with. Telling me what I found out means nothing.
This is what I mean by "you latched on". You've taken information I revealed and used it in your argument against me when it is irrelevant. The minimum number of times you need to stab someone to kill them is 1. The minimum number of accounts you need to low-rate most posts is 5. There are reasons why you get "multiple stab wounds" in a murder and there are reasons why someone would use a lot more than 5 accounts to rate with.
xyem: The argument wasn't about the craziness of the theory, it was about the possibility of it being done. jamotide: It certainly was for you. I objected to your use of "crazy" as a reason why no-one would do it because you were defining it as crazy.
You: It's a crazy theory.
Me: Why?
You: It would take a crazy amount of time.
Me: 30 minutes is not a crazy amount of time.
You: Maybe you can do it in 30 minutes, but I couldn't do it.
The issue with that is your definition of "crazy amount of time" stems from your inability (or unwillingness) to do it that fast right now. If I showed you how to do it, you'd be able to do it as fast as me. Anyone could.
Besides, if you think that I am part of a tiny fraction of people who could figure out how to do it that fast, shouldn't I have a celestial sized ego for being so smart?
xyem: When asked if you would admit to being wrong that "no-one would do it" if I did it, you (eventually..) responded with: jamotide: 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. The last thing you do when you take something out of context is.. provide a link to the context. Why? Because then people can easily see you are misrepresenting the context! I provided a link to the context, anyone can check what I asked you to get that response.
You said:
Man you dont get it. Nobody would spend hours to make 100 accounts to shave off some pointless rep of someone.
I asked you:
What would you say if, right now, I created 100 accounts to downrate you with? Would you admit that you were wrong?
You answered:
Yeah sure, NOW I am wrong, if it really only takes 5 to 10 accounts, I guess someone with a real grudge might do it.
This is what you are saying is your "admission of being technically wrong". It's not. You didn't admit you were wrong, technically or otherwise, to the question I asked you which specified "100 accounts". You answer this question:
What would you say if, right now, I created 100 accounts to downrate you with? Would you admit that you were wrong?
as though I had asked this question
What would you say if, right now, I created some accounts to downrate you with? Would you admit that you were wrong that no-one would do such an attack?
When I pointed this out to you, you answered again, to the question that I asked.. which got the so-called "out of context" response. How can it be out of context if the question I said I asked you was the question that quote was in response to?
I'm actually starting to wonder if you understand what "out of context" means as this isn't the first time you've accused me of doing it.
This quote, in another topic discussing people who may be abusing the rating system, without any links to the source, is out of context:
Xyem could be:
I would create 100 accounts to downrep someone It is out of context because it is missing the conditional ("if I had their permission") and the context it being posted in makes it look like I am abusing the rating system. The quote has had its meaning changed by its transposition into a different context. It is "out of context".
If the exact same quote was posted in a topic discussing people who would create 100 accounts to downrep someone with their permission, it has retained its original meaning. It is not "out of context".
Because you defined "crazy". Do you not see the problem where one side of an argument gets to define something as "crazy" with no evidence that it is actually crazy? And continue to do so after it is revealed that it isn't?
jamotide: 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. What I have gathered is circumstantial what? You've missed a noun here. If you need a clue, it's "evidence". What I have is circumstantial evidence. So I do have evidence, it's just "circumstantial" and not "conclusive". That might be why I am investigating further and not reporting people.
jamotide: Yes something is definitely going on, you being wrong and trying to justify it desperately, that's all. Says you. Show me the evidence.
Indeed, the difference between you and me is I seek out evidence to find out what the reality is and you just assert your opinion. Go ahead, count up all your arguments that you actual provided evidence to back up that didn't come from my research.
jamotide: 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? Well, the only reason, that I can think of, to bother mentioning that it took you 5 minutes to create your account in response to me saying you can create 100 in 30 minutes is to say that 5 minutes is a common amount of time to spend doing it, even for disposable accounts..
There is no reason to spend that long creating an account as it would require you to type at 1 character every 5 seconds. The reasons one would have to spend that long, such as thinking of an account name, would not factor in when creating a lot of disposable accounts that are never intend to be used to post with... making it not an argument. You pick one ("IhateX" would do fine) and just add a number to the end of it for each account.
Part 1/2
Overdramatisation: may not hold up to any semblance of reality or sense.
This is what I mean by "you latched on". You've taken information I revealed and used it in your argument against me when it is irrelevant. The minimum number of times you need to stab someone to kill them is 1. The minimum number of accounts you need to low-rate most posts is 5. There are reasons why you get "multiple stab wounds" in a murder and there are reasons why someone would use a lot more than 5 accounts to rate with.
You: It's a crazy theory.
Me: Why?
You: It would take a crazy amount of time.
Me: 30 minutes is not a crazy amount of time.
You: Maybe you can do it in 30 minutes, but I couldn't do it.
The issue with that is your definition of "crazy amount of time" stems from your inability (or unwillingness) to do it that fast right now. If I showed you how to do it, you'd be able to do it as fast as me. Anyone could.
Besides, if you think that I am part of a tiny fraction of people who could figure out how to do it that fast, shouldn't I have a celestial sized ego for being so smart?
You said:
Man you dont get it. Nobody would spend hours to make 100 accounts to shave off some pointless rep of someone.
What would you say if, right now, I created 100 accounts to downrate you with? Would you admit that you were wrong?
Yeah sure, NOW I am wrong, if it really only takes 5 to 10 accounts, I guess someone with a real grudge might do it.
What would you say if, right now, I created 100 accounts to downrate you with? Would you admit that you were wrong?
What would you say if, right now, I created some accounts to downrate you with? Would you admit that you were wrong that no-one would do such an attack?
I'm actually starting to wonder if you understand what "out of context" means as this isn't the first time you've accused me of doing it.
This quote, in another topic discussing people who may be abusing the rating system, without any links to the source, is out of context:
Xyem could be:
I would create 100 accounts to downrep someone
If the exact same quote was posted in a topic discussing people who would create 100 accounts to downrep someone with their permission, it has retained its original meaning. It is not "out of context".
Because you defined "crazy". Do you not see the problem where one side of an argument gets to define something as "crazy" with no evidence that it is actually crazy? And continue to do so after it is revealed that it isn't?
Indeed, the difference between you and me is I seek out evidence to find out what the reality is and you just assert your opinion. Go ahead, count up all your arguments that you actual provided evidence to back up that didn't come from my research.
There is no reason to spend that long creating an account as it would require you to type at 1 character every 5 seconds. The reasons one would have to spend that long, such as thinking of an account name, would not factor in when creating a lot of disposable accounts that are never intend to be used to post with... making it not an argument. You pick one ("IhateX" would do fine) and just add a number to the end of it for each account.
Post edited August 22, 2013 by xyem
Bad Hair Day
Find me in STEAM OT
Registered: Dec 2012
From Other
xyem
Old-ish User
Registered: Sep 2010
From United Kingdom
Posted August 22, 2013
Part 2/2
xyem: 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. jamotide: 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. I'd rather you accept my authority on it because I was here when someone did it and the "false" ratings were not removed (to my knowledge anyway).
xyem: 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. jamotide: What? I am sure this made sense in your head, but the words you came up with don't. Sorry. What I meant was that people would read the "I would create 100 accounts to downrep someone" and downrate the post for that, ignoring the qualifying statements attached to it (i.e. "if they gave me permission to").
Admittedly, someone might still find it down-rateable even with the qualifier but in that case, if I am going to be punished whether I ask permission or not, I may as well not ask permission :P
xyem: I certainly didn't say it to stop it being downrated because that only works when someone is trying to get downrated! jamotide: Huh? If you obviously try to stop a post getting down-rated, people will "do the opposite" of what you want and low-rate it. If you say "low-rate this post", people tend to "do the opposite" and high-rate it. It works that way quite frequently in places with systems like this, I'm surprised you've never seen it.
In a way, it's a bit of a meta-game because if you play it right, you can get people to do the opposite of what they think you want them to do, when it's actually what you wanted in the first place (a Xanatos Gambit, I think?). The requires timing and very well chosen words though.
jamotide: Agreed, and I think you proved this by now! (warning: snippy remark, may not hold up to investigation) Okay, so it is obvious that you intended this as an insult (otherwise it wouldn't be a snippy remark..), but it can easily be taken as a compliment. Perhaps our definition of "trustworthiness" differs? You seem to regard it as "trustworthiness to be right" but it is more a "trustworthiness to be honest".
For example, I will present any information I obtain, even if it undermines my argument. That is what makes me a trustworthy debate opponent. I may be wrong, but I'm not deceptive.
xyem: 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). jamotide: Ok so I can trust you to keep my hundred bucks, not sure how that affects your paranoid statements. I didn't say it did. I was showing you that the trust I have doesn't stem from me giving away games, it stems from me not taking advantage of a position of power when I have one.
If you want to know how it affects my "paranoid statements", here's how.
Plenty of people have said that they think I am wrong to suspect something or that the evidence isn't enough. Yet, not one has said that I am lying about anything for any reason, even though I could have motive to i.e. to get back at you for "showing me up" or whatever. Even the person who is accusing me of
xyem: drawing attention to particular posts, in the hopes of sycophants uprating them to sooth the pain done to [my] ego. (by the way, it isn't an "overdramatisation" like you claim. You accused me in RepLog of using sychophants).
has levied no accusation that I am lying about any of the "circumstantial evidence". That's you, by the way.
xyem: 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. It has nothing to do with me. I know my reasons for giving away games so I know they aren't intended as bribes. It's not like I hold your opinion in high regard at the moment..
I objected to you saying that the community is so petty that they would accept such bribes intentionally or so stupid that they would unintentionally. I suppose, there is also the implication that other people who give away stuff are bribing people.
Who says my job isn't to argue with jamotide and his hobby isn't to argue with me? :)
It would explain why he is having fun!
tinyE: There are plenty of fine upstanding members of this forum with neither jobs nor hobbies that aren't partaking in this thread. :D Sometimes, when I'm feeling sad, I like to think that is because I'm doing a good enough job that they don't have to.
I know it's not true, but it is a nice thought, isn't it?
Admittedly, someone might still find it down-rateable even with the qualifier but in that case, if I am going to be punished whether I ask permission or not, I may as well not ask permission :P
In a way, it's a bit of a meta-game because if you play it right, you can get people to do the opposite of what they think you want them to do, when it's actually what you wanted in the first place (a Xanatos Gambit, I think?). The requires timing and very well chosen words though.
For example, I will present any information I obtain, even if it undermines my argument. That is what makes me a trustworthy debate opponent. I may be wrong, but I'm not deceptive.
If you want to know how it affects my "paranoid statements", here's how.
Plenty of people have said that they think I am wrong to suspect something or that the evidence isn't enough. Yet, not one has said that I am lying about anything for any reason, even though I could have motive to i.e. to get back at you for "showing me up" or whatever. Even the person who is accusing me of
has levied no accusation that I am lying about any of the "circumstantial evidence". That's you, by the way.
I objected to you saying that the community is so petty that they would accept such bribes intentionally or so stupid that they would unintentionally. I suppose, there is also the implication that other people who give away stuff are bribing people.
Who says my job isn't to argue with jamotide and his hobby isn't to argue with me? :)
It would explain why he is having fun!
I know it's not true, but it is a nice thought, isn't it?
Post edited August 22, 2013 by xyem
YnK
White dragon
Registered: Apr 2010
From Russian Federation
Posted August 22, 2013
Guys, please... there's not enough popcorn in the entire world to follow this thread...
I suppose that creating an account for stupid purposes (e.g. downrepping) could very well take a lot less time than creating a normal account for buying, just because one probably won't even be double-checking everything after typing it in (does it matter if something is mistyped if the accounts aren't even used for posting?).
I suppose that creating an account for stupid purposes (e.g. downrepping) could very well take a lot less time than creating a normal account for buying, just because one probably won't even be double-checking everything after typing it in (does it matter if something is mistyped if the accounts aren't even used for posting?).
Post edited August 22, 2013 by YnK
Tiefood
Dancing Around
Registered: Mar 2011
From United States
Posted August 22, 2013
Dayum.. I'm going to +1 that shit...
Post edited August 22, 2013 by Tiefood
xyem
Old-ish User
Registered: Sep 2010
From United Kingdom
Posted August 22, 2013
My time of ~15 seconds comes from how fast I could create my account by typing the correct data in. There are optimisations that could be done on top of that.
So yeah, "30 minutes to create 100 accounts" isn't even based on the fastest manual way I could do it. I'd estimate closer to... 16 maybe.. if I was going full out manually (and could keep it up).
I have to admit, I'm tempted to record me making say, 10 accounts to demonstrate how fast it can be done without trying and then another 10 at "full speed". Not sure how I would avoid any accusation of speeding the video up though (unless I live-stream it maybe?).
Maybe I should get sponsored by a popcorn company then? :)
jamotide
Jack Keane 2016!
Registered: Jul 2011
From Netherlands
Posted August 22, 2013
Nice try, you didn't quite get it but keep practising.
And yes of course it is irrelevant, thats the beauty of multiquote fests, almost everything here is irrelevant to you making up things to avoid realising that people disagree with you.
...
You're the one who suggests unlikely theories, you're the one who needs to present evidence.
Proving exactly that. Afterwards you can record the in and outlogging of 100 accounts, first finding and then downrating countless posts with each account. I'd carefully guess this takes more than 16 minutes. Now you can come up with more weird methods of doing all this extremely fast. But before you waste your time...where is the cutoff point for crazy? How many minutes are sane to waste for creating downrepping accounts? My personal cutoff point is 1 minute and 13 seconds which unfortunately is less time it takes me to create an account, but then again I am the laziest person on the planet. I'm sure you'd be more dedicated.
Post edited August 22, 2013 by jamotide
Tiefood
Dancing Around
Registered: Mar 2011
From United States
Posted August 22, 2013
And the waiting begins..
Post edited August 22, 2013 by Tiefood
amok
FREEEEDOOOM!!!!
Registered: Sep 2008
From United Kingdom
Posted August 28, 2013
It seems like Pheace may have annoyed someone also:
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/is_it_possible_to_add_gog_games_that_use_dosbox_to_steam/post13
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/is_it_possible_to_add_gog_games_that_use_dosbox_to_steam/post17
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/is_it_possible_to_add_gog_games_that_use_dosbox_to_steam/post24
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/is_it_possible_to_add_gog_games_that_use_dosbox_to_steam/post26
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/is_it_possible_to_add_gog_games_that_use_dosbox_to_steam/post30
.....
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/is_it_possible_to_add_gog_games_that_use_dosbox_to_steam/post13
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/is_it_possible_to_add_gog_games_that_use_dosbox_to_steam/post17
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/is_it_possible_to_add_gog_games_that_use_dosbox_to_steam/post24
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/is_it_possible_to_add_gog_games_that_use_dosbox_to_steam/post26
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/is_it_possible_to_add_gog_games_that_use_dosbox_to_steam/post30
.....
Elmofongo
It's 2L84U
Registered: Sep 2011
From Puerto Rico
Posted August 28, 2013
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/is_it_possible_to_add_gog_games_that_use_dosbox_to_steam/post13
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/is_it_possible_to_add_gog_games_that_use_dosbox_to_steam/post17
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/is_it_possible_to_add_gog_games_that_use_dosbox_to_steam/post24
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/is_it_possible_to_add_gog_games_that_use_dosbox_to_steam/post26
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/is_it_possible_to_add_gog_games_that_use_dosbox_to_steam/post30
.....
P1na
Wandering fruit
Registered: Apr 2012
From Spain
xyem
Old-ish User
Registered: Sep 2010
From United Kingdom
Posted September 05, 2013
Response regarding the forum timestamps.
I'm sorry, but I won't be able to provide this data. While the time (too much of it) needed to pull such stats from the database is reason enough, we would rather not share any information that isn't already available on the site.
However, please note that, should you extrapolate how exactly the rep system assigns points, it would eventually leak out and could potentially open the door to all sorts of exploitation. It may not be a goal worth pursuing.
On a personal level, while I didn't take part in designing the rep system (though I was already employed here back then), I'm sure that it was never intended to be treated with such seriousness. I would rather not use the word "obsession", but it is the first thing that came to my mind when I saw that thread.
However, please note that, should you extrapolate how exactly the rep system assigns points, it would eventually leak out and could potentially open the door to all sorts of exploitation. It may not be a goal worth pursuing.
On a personal level, while I didn't take part in designing the rep system (though I was already employed here back then), I'm sure that it was never intended to be treated with such seriousness. I would rather not use the word "obsession", but it is the first thing that came to my mind when I saw that thread.
wpegg
Optimus Pegg
Registered: Nov 2009
From United Kingdom
Posted September 05, 2013
I'm sorry, but I won't be able to provide this data. While the time (too much of it) needed to pull such stats from the database is reason enough, we would rather not share any information that isn't already available on the site.
However, please note that, should you extrapolate how exactly the rep system assigns points, it would eventually leak out and could potentially open the door to all sorts of exploitation. It may not be a goal worth pursuing.
On a personal level, while I didn't take part in designing the rep system (though I was already employed here back then), I'm sure that it was never intended to be treated with such seriousness. I would rather not use the word "obsession", but it is the first thing that came to my mind when I saw that thread.
xyem
Old-ish User
Registered: Sep 2010
From United Kingdom
Posted September 09, 2013
low rated
I find the reasons given to be quite lacking.
Presuming "too long" actually means a significant amount of time, one must ask why GOG hired web developers that can't quickly do something the site is already programmed to do. This reason just makes the developers sound incredibly incompetent. This is a single(?) query that is already coded into the site.. the developers should be able to figure it out within moments. Or just replace the relative calculations with a strftime call..
In comparison, it took me about 15-20 minutes to decode a database with no documentation, that I had never seen before, with helpful table names like PPPP_MMNN_0100. The implication that a web development team would take that long with a database they are supposedly familiar with is.. pretty ridiculous in my opinion.
If "too long" is a very small amount of time.. as in, if it was meant as "5 minutes is too long to spend on something you want us to do".. well, that's just a jerkmove. I don't believe this to be the case, but it could be interpreted this way, given the lack of even a rough timeframe being stated.
The other reason is also lacking because every post has the information I requested for an hour after it is posted. So the data I requested was available on the site and continues to be available for recent posts. If I had known ahead of time, I could have easily gathered it myself so refusing on these grounds seems.. excessively uncooperative? Reminds me somewhat of the "Raspberry Pi" argument for not supporting Linux.
It's also a bit of a jerk move to make me wait if it was going to be refused on those grounds anyway. The "kick you while you're down" was that I received that response on the same day I buried one of my cats (hence my recent absence).
GOG tout "Customer Love" and tell me to "Expect [...] royal treatment" but I'm not feeling it and I don't feel like I'm getting it. I've effectively purchased the entire catalogue twice.. that's enough to hire a web developer for about a month.
If that isn't enough to get ~15 minutes of a GOG web developers time.. what hope does anyone else have? Oh.. yeah, when we had scammers, a few people asked for the "pointless" rep to be added to the PM view and that got done, pretty quickly too if I recall correctly.
Yeah, distinctly not feeling the love.
Presuming "too long" actually means a significant amount of time, one must ask why GOG hired web developers that can't quickly do something the site is already programmed to do. This reason just makes the developers sound incredibly incompetent. This is a single(?) query that is already coded into the site.. the developers should be able to figure it out within moments. Or just replace the relative calculations with a strftime call..
In comparison, it took me about 15-20 minutes to decode a database with no documentation, that I had never seen before, with helpful table names like PPPP_MMNN_0100. The implication that a web development team would take that long with a database they are supposedly familiar with is.. pretty ridiculous in my opinion.
If "too long" is a very small amount of time.. as in, if it was meant as "5 minutes is too long to spend on something you want us to do".. well, that's just a jerkmove. I don't believe this to be the case, but it could be interpreted this way, given the lack of even a rough timeframe being stated.
The other reason is also lacking because every post has the information I requested for an hour after it is posted. So the data I requested was available on the site and continues to be available for recent posts. If I had known ahead of time, I could have easily gathered it myself so refusing on these grounds seems.. excessively uncooperative? Reminds me somewhat of the "Raspberry Pi" argument for not supporting Linux.
It's also a bit of a jerk move to make me wait if it was going to be refused on those grounds anyway. The "kick you while you're down" was that I received that response on the same day I buried one of my cats (hence my recent absence).
GOG tout "Customer Love" and tell me to "Expect [...] royal treatment" but I'm not feeling it and I don't feel like I'm getting it. I've effectively purchased the entire catalogue twice.. that's enough to hire a web developer for about a month.
If that isn't enough to get ~15 minutes of a GOG web developers time.. what hope does anyone else have? Oh.. yeah, when we had scammers, a few people asked for the "pointless" rep to be added to the PM view and that got done, pretty quickly too if I recall correctly.
Yeah, distinctly not feeling the love.