Our sweet and problematic ALT`s (tech.solution)

[Niblette]

Small samples can be accurate but only if they are representative of the population and there are issues with a poll like this that is not random. For a small sample it to be accurate it really must be a random sample of the population and people must also be honest in how they respond. Still I think it likely shows something whatever that might be is up for people to discuss.

[Twiggy]

Small samples can be accurate but only if they are representative of the population and there are issues with a poll like this that is not random. For a small sample it to be accurate it really must be a random sample of the population and people must also be honest in how they respond. Still I think it likely shows something whatever that might be is up for people to discuss.

 

Yes I tend to agree with this, although I do also agree with what Perimede is saying to a certain degree as well.

A small sample like this one can give some sort of indication, but most definitely can not be taken as a definite.

If matched up with other indicators it can help in finding some views on things, but cannot be determined as even a slight indicator, for that further review would need to be done with a better system for a poll.

I simply put what I did there to say that website and what had been said wasn't really a good argument.

 

There is one thing I would like to add and have mentioned before in this forum.

We can estimate figures the way we see from our experience in the game and should not cop the backlash that is always given.

People may have different ideas from their own experience and that is fine, but to continually say things like, have you researched every player in the game to get those figures is getting really old.

What I have said that hasn't seemed to get to well noticed is that Gizmo in many cases will have those figures.

If we present ideas from what we can see then it gives him the chance to match those ideas with the figures he has.

No matter who is right or wrong about the figures does not really matter as much as the ideas being free to continue from how each person sees things.

[Sage Stoner]

Gives a 16.76% margin of error.

 

Do you understand how huge that is?  Naturally, it is not so huge that you can't make any inferences at all. But it does mean that if 50% of your sample answered yes to a particular question, the percentage of people in the entire population who would have answered yes could be anywhere between 33% and 67%. That kind of margin of error might be good enough if you are trying to gauge what flavors of ice cream to market in a particular region. But not if you are trying to gauge whether or not to compromise individual privacy of all users to satisfy the paranoia of a few vociferous ones. 

 

And that is the issue that we keep coming back to here: Are enough people so seriously concerned about alts that it warrants identifying all the alts of all accounts against the wishes of the majority? If you think a margin of error that large is good enough to make that kind of judgment, then I would say that you actually don't understand the first thing about statistics and how they are properly used. 

[Perimede]

Thanks, Twiggy. Did Xeno ever intend it to be anything other than a snapshot. He was concerned enough to look into the problem of alt misuse. Ex has made a suggestion worth considering. I think that is to be commended.

 

So let’s see these things for what they are, welcome all suggestions, consider them in a sensible manner and, if a consensus.is reached, propose the ideas to the devs.

 

The polls are just one tool to see how much support an idea has.

 

There is, and never has been, any need for people to make out it’s doomsday because someone puts together a suggestion, in good faith.

[Twiggy]

Do you understand how huge that is?  Naturally, it is not so huge that you can't make any inferences at all. But it does mean that if 50% of your sample answered yes to a particular question, the percentage of people in the entire population who would have answered yes could be anywhere between 33% and 67%. That kind of margin of error might be good enough if you are trying to gauge what flavors of ice cream to market in a particular region. But not if you are trying to gauge whether or not to compromise individual privacy of all users to satisfy the paranoia of a few vociferous ones. 

 

And that is the issue that we keep coming back to here: Are enough people so seriously concerned about alts that it warrants identifying all the alts of all accounts against the wishes of the majority? If you think a margin of error that large is good enough to make that kind of judgment, then I would say that you actually don't understand the first thing about statistics and how they are properly used. 

 

You need to learn a little bit about marketing, the margin of error is always total, not to taken to both sides of the figure.

So for your sample of 50% it will be between 42% and 58% and under a normal survey of where something was to show say 75%, then that could be used in a marketing strategy. 

Oh and if you don't believe me go back to that website calculator, put in a high figure for the amount of people and say 1 for the amount surveyed, anything over 50% as the margin of error will prove you to be wrong.

There are surveys taken with just a few hundred people to help determine the thoughts of sometimes hundreds of thousands, but like Niblette pointed out, they are done with a lot more control over them than a poll on a forum.

We would get a better idea of the answer from that calculator if we could put in say a 60% confidence on margin of error where it only allows us to go down to 95%, as that would be more like the validity of the answers given.

For that reason very few would take reference to a poll done on the Internet as being anything more than being able to give a view of possibilities.

 

Edited to add..

I didn't read the 2nd part of your post properly before I replied.

Yes I have a very good understanding of statistics where it appears you yourself don't seem to understand the 1st thing about them.

And I will go further to say this.

Any company that has say 80% of its market happy but 20% of the market are not happy with something that may effect the other 80%.

They will still try hard to find something to make that 20% happy with minimal effect to the other 80%.

You talk about this as it is one huge invasion of privacy as being the problem, it is not and you know that.

It my opinion it is what they want to be able to do with alts by keeping them anonymous is the real issue.

 

And where do you get there is so much a majority that want it kept the way it is, from a poll done in this forum ?

[Perimede]

Sage is one who regularly uses three avis, that's OK he is sensible about it. I tease him a bit about it and he teases me back. All good, and fun. So people like Sagie are right to emphasise the need to retain the option of 3 avis. The problem is that any suggestion made has to balance privacy against the benefits of what it is intended to achieve. Like Twiggy I think the intrusion on privacy of Ex's suggestion, and Xeno's, is acceptable. Sagie thinks it isn't. All fine, when argued sensibly.

 

I think it worth thinking about what we think is important in trying to decide if an idea is any good or not, hence my criteria idea. I know, that sounds horribly analytical but it might just help - even if only to identify what most people feel is important.

[TheTruth3dx]

How people choose do use their alts or conduct themselves in the game of 3dx is no business of yours until you begin to pay their subscriptions, or be the one writing the terms of service. Truth.

[Sage Stoner]

You need to learn a little bit about marketing, the margin of error is always total, not to taken to both sides of the figure.

So for your sample of 50% it will be between 42% and 58% and under a normal survey of where something was to show say 75%, then that could be used in a marketing strategy. 

 

This is what is says at  https://www.checkmar...ize-calculator/, 

 

Margin of error:

This is the plus-or-minus figure usually reported in newspaper or television opinion poll results. For example, if you use a margin of error of 4% and 47% percent of your sample picks an answer, you can be “sure” that if you had asked the question to the entire population, between 43% (47-4) and 51% (47+4) would have picked that answer.

 

 

So, you are wrong. Plain and simple, you don't know what you are talking about. 

[Perimede]

Stop squabbling you two, lmao. You’re in the wrong thread anyway.

[Twiggy]

This is what is says at  https://www.checkmar...ize-calculator/, 

 

Margin of error:

This is the plus-or-minus figure usually reported in newspaper or television opinion poll results. For example, if you use a margin of error of 4% and 47% percent of your sample picks an answer, you can be “sure” that if you had asked the question to the entire population, between 43% (47-4) and 51% (47+4) would have picked that answer.

 

 

So, you are wrong. Plain and simple, you don't know what you are talking about. 

 

Ok, so I was wrong with that, it wasn't the method I was shown, plus the method I was shown did not go down below 0% and above 100%.

But the question remains, and with what you say here is even more applicable as you are so determine to prove how polls in this forum mean nothing.

Where do you get that there is such a majority of players that do not want any changes ?

If I go off what has been said in these forums there seems to be just as many want something done as there is don't.

If I go off what people I know in the game think it would actually be the other way, more in favour of having it so we can see who owns what alts.

Different circles I guess, but I most definitely do not think there is such a majority in the actual game as you keep suggesting, no where near it

[Mar Mohan]

The only way to get an idea is to actually ask the users who log into the game with an active sub then knock off a certain amount for those with multiple accounts to get a basis for what the users of the game want.

 

Or they take it to one avi and there isn't any need to have any @parentname, color markers, click box to show alts or any other suggestion that would come up.  It doesn't state we are given three avis anywhere so they can take them at any given time.  If they were to do that, then give the users a chance to move the avis they still want to another account a reduced rate for the first month.

[Perimede]

A certain amount? How much? That sounds very rigorous to me. As you say, though, it would be good to ask people on log in to the game. As you say it would engage a better proportion of the user base. If made compulsory it could cause people not to log in at all. Life being too short to participate in surveys when you don’t want to.

[Mar Mohan]

The amount can be a small percentage or particular number based on the amount of users that take the survey.  If you put it as you log in, a simple survey that takes a minute to complete then go on about enjoying the game.  I've been suggesting to poll the actual user base all along to get an idea as not everyone on the forum is in game or have even signed up for the game.  Here would be an example:   Do you still wish to have 3 avis?  Do you want your avi name(s) tied to your account with a @parentname somewhere on your profile(s), Color Marker showing it's an alt or a check box choosing to show your avi(s) (as those have been suggested)? 

 

While this may give a general idea, the known amount of multiple accounts per User is hard.  To base it on their bank debit card (VIsa/MasterCard), a credit card, a prepaid credit card, prepaid game card would be difficult as you can use all of them.  I know some that buy prepaid cards for friends, some buy during the holiday deal in case they don't offer it so they buy two.

[Perimede]

How is the amount calculated? Does is relate to sample size or any other parameter? I may not be that good at statistics but I think I know enough to get a fix on it. I may have got it wrong but it came across as a fiddle factor to me, which could be adjusted to suit anything.

 

Any poll must be optional in my opinion. The number of times I, for one, have avoided polls just because I'm not in the mood - even if it's 'just a minute'. If Gizmo needs the sort of hard data you think would be useful then he's got the skills to do it in house, hence quite cheap. Unless he's got some good statistics under his belt he'll probably have to get the analysis done elsewhere, which will cost. So whatever poll he runs will have to be about something that'll generate sufficient income to justify the expense. His call as always - so we can suggest, discuss and then propose stuff to him.

 

In this case, where we are thinking about the tiny minority of people who behave badly in game and cause trouble, the difficulty is trying to balance all the different wants of the user base. In that sense a rigourous poll might not help much. Discussing the issue, either around a little poll, as with Xeno's thread, or a suggestion, as here, is likely to be more revealing. It provides a sense of all these conflicting needs. I think a compromise, or balance, is there to be had if we choose to go looking for it. Obviously not at the expense of other stuff of interest.

 

At the end of the day the griefers are a tiny minority, the problem is that they cause far more grief than their numbers justify. It is analogous to the case of bullies in schools or the workplace - denying the problem doesn't make it go away. Accepting the problem and looking at ways of dealing with it may not provide a magic bullet but it will help reduce the incidence of the behaviour.

[Xandisweet]

Or cause more serial huggings.

[Mar Mohan]

That's what the general survey is for. Nothing is hardcore, never will be. You can only base off what you get and do variables from there.  I deal with data on a daily basis for my job and my two businesses. We have no idea for the present stats to claim it reflects any amount of users.  Only the game users can help justify that and even then it's not accurate due to multiple accounts.  How is polling the actual users in game not going to help?  They use the game, not everyone on the forum are current users let alone have even an account in the game.

 

What I don't see is people saying there isn't a problem with alts but an explanation of how the suggestions may not work or how it will affect other users.

 

To get to the topic back on track, the suggestion need to be clear cut taking everything into consideration.

[TheTruth3dx]

By it's nature, being a game and virtual world revolving around sex and pornography, bad behavior is actually encouraged on 3dx, not the contrary. Truth.

[TheTruth3dx]

The game should be renamed to 3D-DJ, 3DBuilders, or 3DDatingSite. But definitely not 3DHugs. Truth.

[Perimede]

So it is a fiddle factor, just made up? That seems really odd to me. If you are adjusting your figures then there must be a set method to it, surely? So say, for example, you were handling a major survey of maybe 2000 or 3000, or even 10000, respondents on a range of questions. Let's go for political, perhaps an exit poll from the last US election or even for the last UK one. People are asked a bit more than just which way they voted, but that would be the core question. How would your adjustment work there? Perhaps say if the follow up questions revolved not around the pM or president but the more local candidates.

 

I'm intrigued by this - as I've already said my stats isn't that great but should be sufficient.

 

To pick up on the guy above's point, people play the game in many, many different ways. As I said before the big difficulty with discussion on what to do about the tiny minority of people who cause trouble is that they cause more trouble than their numbers justify.and any action against them impacts on the people who use alts sensibley. I still think a compromise is possible if we talk about it sensibley enough. I aslo think if we come up with a good idea Gizmo will consider it, even if he decides not to pick up on it.

 

Some bahviours are unnacceptable anywhere - I think the dodgy rooms threads showed that. The ToS outlines how the devs see it, and most poor behaviour fits in to those somewhere - even the random huggers who do it with intnet to demean or intimidate. But other approaches are better for that because 99% of the time it is just an irritation. It's the odd 1%, or whatever, of people who deliberately make it nasty, demeaning or intimidating who make it an issue.

 

As I said before, the trouble makers are a tiny minority and piss people off for the hell of it. It stops being funny after a while and turns in to something else.

[TheTruth3dx]

 

To pick up on the guy above's point, people play the game in many, many different ways. As I said before the big difficulty with discussion on what to do about the tiny minority of people who cause trouble is that they cause more trouble than their numbers justify.and any action against them impacts on the people who use alts sensibley. I still think a compromise is possible 

 

This compromise you speak of is know as the ignore feature. Truth.

[Perimede]

Oh dear, iggie is reactive. The offender has already done his, or her, worst. This is closing the door after the horse has bolted - hence trying to find another way of dealing with the problem. I agree iggie is better than nothing, but is of limited value in some instances.

[Xandisweet]

meh. Was gonna say something else but I’ve come to terms that this shite is going to go on forever. Have a good week y’all.

[TheTruth3dx]

Refusing to be reactive and not using the ignore feature is like refusing to prosecute a home invader because the crime should have been prevented before it had ever occurred, with the perpetrator having been raised better by his parents and counseled properly much earlier in his life when showing signs of criminal behavior. Truth.

 

* - edited for you sir.

[Sage Stoner]

Oh dear, iggie is reactive. The offender has already done his, or her, worst. This is closing the door after the horse has bolted - hence trying to find another way of dealing with the problem. I agree iggie is better than nothing, but is of limited value in some instances.

 

Yeah, and reactive is good enough, because the problem itself is not as pervasive as a few butt-hurt individuals make it out to be. You yourself in this thread characterized the issue as, and I quote, "what to do about the tiny minority of people who cause trouble." Well, the answer is iggie them and get on with your life.

 

Yes, there are a few cases, particularly related to iggied players entering user rooms, that need to be addressed. That I will grant you. But the idea that the Devs need to do something that will affect everyone just to hobble a few obnoxious individuals is both illogical and unsubstantiated by any factual evidence. 

[Briana]

Here my reaction over this: