DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
wows forum
HTML https://wows.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Debates, Interviews
*****************************************************
#Post#: 608--------------------------------------------------
Debate 6
By: Dr Schizo Date: October 12, 2022, 5:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=wows link=topic=106.msg607#msg607 date=1665568688]
The second conspiracy is that i get less coal those days now fro
mthe loot boxes compared what i used to get. Coal income changed
after they introduced boosters.
[/quote]
Greetings,
I think your experience with gold members can be counted into my
work on the Ranked conspiracy, however it is still being
finalized.
I do not agree with the level of coal gain from daily
containers, it is simple mathematics.
The odds of receiving coal are:
100% chance for 400 coal
5% for 400 coal
25% for 400 coal
Using the Expected return formula the expected value of a coal
container is: 400*1 + 400*0.05 + 400*0.25 = 520 coal.
Adding 10% from clan bonus: 520*1.1 = 572
Times amount of coal containers per day from XP: 572*3 = 1716
Over a longer period of time it should be this number minimum,
but sometimes more given other containers also have chances for
coal.
I am believer of statistics since I had conducted droprate
research from last years christmas containers, the percentages
were correlated with those given by WG themselves. If you do not
agree I am fine with this, but I feel comfortable with
mathematics.
King regards.
#Post#: 611--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debate 6
By: wows Date: October 12, 2022, 10:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I moved some offtopics from the Halland-topic to here.
We can debate over the coal topic here and leave the Halland
topic more clean.
There is no outcome expected, let's just practice debation.
We should first look and angree with what do you don't agree.
And what was my claim.
Let's do it later.
#Post#: 612--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debate 6
By: wows Date: October 12, 2022, 10:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As you see i don't say about coal any of my opinions. I jsut
give an example of a conspiracy belief:
[quote]"The second conspiracy is ..."[/quote].
This is not my opinion about coal or coal levels. This is just
an example of doubts people can get.
And you respond that you don't agree with my opinion about Coal.
but i haven't given any opinion.
Do you agree?
#Post#: 614--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debate 6
By: Dr Schizo Date: October 12, 2022, 11:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree about there being a misunderstanding in the
communication on this topic. The interpretation was that you are
a firm believer of the Coal conspiracy, it was stated as "i get
less coal those days fro mthe loot boxes...", thus I decided to
answer it fully in a mannerful manner. Though this can be made
from human error, it is important to conduct peer-review with
each other, an old teacher of mine would have called this
incident an 'pedagogical error'. For now I understand the
discussion is completed, since we stand on even ground. Kind
regards.
#Post#: 615--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debate 6
By: wows Date: October 12, 2022, 12:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So, we can declare the debate to be over.
And the lesson was as you said: misunderstanding.
Let's look more. You seem to phrase that you don't agree about
some kind of (coal) levels. Levels are either numbers, or terms
like "Level 1, 2, .." but i on't mention any levels. In my text
i mention amounts. I don't mention exactly any certain levels or
certain amounts but you seem to say that you disagree with the
certain levels that i mention. And that makes your response
offtopical because from my text nobody talks about certain
levels. But maybe my english is not good and the word Levels is
accurate in your statement.
Also, if i state that something is conspiracy then it means that
i know that it is not true but jsut a belief that mind
fabricates. So, my text can be interpreted as "Coal level have
not been changed" and that makes your response irrelevant.
And, you represented what official wikipedia states but
Wikipedia contains mistakes and changes through history and the
real game code may have actually changed recently. So, wiki is
not so good source but it is not so bad either of course.
If you read my statement like "feels like coal income has
decreased" then there are many variables that may result such
reality and probabilities of one loot box type is only an
irrelevant part of such outcome.
I believe WG has changed in history how much vehicles earn etc
and they haven't announced everything. So, it is totally
possible that some variables have changed and the result is less
coal.
The More Coal type of box has procentages of the likelyhood and
if that likelyhood has been not lucky then the result is that
one feels that WG has decreased something.
We can do some testing with loot boxes next to see how it looks.
#Post#: 620--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debate 6
By: wows Date: October 13, 2022, 8:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I make a short epilogue for everyone interested in debates here,
as i usually do at the end of debates.
1. Rushing=Underestimating. If one rushes to somewhere then it
underestimates the opponent. Try to practice taking a time
before you send out the torpedos. In this debate we saw that the
opponent rushed in and his torpedos become totally irrelevant.
Specially if you face a Guru who has never lost any debates you
should not rush but take your time and prepare your tactics
well. Sometimes also an unknown stranger may surprice with a
devastating response. And if you even face a many times defeated
enemy then still bad luck happens and you may lose, and, why not
to still practice taking a time and do a complex attack instead
of a primitive rush. Rushing is the urge emotion and means
unstable mentality, like money-gamblers become compulsive and
cannot stop. This unstability is trained with the
meditation-things. In this forum we gave 2 exercises that works
towards the "stable-mind goal". Next time in life just take your
time and even say as i did "Let's do it later".
2. Avoid links and Wiki pages and the info you get there. I have
said it thousands of time i guess and proved plenty of times
that links are incompetent and in debation we have a clear rule
that we generally prohibit links. You find some kind of Wows
Wikipedia info and basically copypasted it here and your mind
was so attached to it and the belief in authority/wiki was so
strong that all your response was very empty, jsut a copypaste
and even that copypaste was offtopical. That is what blind
believing does. Don't believe in links and authorities, believe
in yourself. Wows community propagates such blindness by saying
often "listen to good players", and "Stats=Math/Science". Be
yourself, be creative, don't have blind believes. I msut write
clearly into debating rules that links are not allowed, and
other rules, but who knows when i do it. This wasn't planned as
a debate initially and we didn't agree any debating rules, but i
just remind to others here, that links are not allowed, and
faith to authority is not allowed either. And this time we again
proved that links and wikipedia info are useless.
3. Thing more than twice when you are forming your main claim.
This is typically a sentence like "I don't agree with ...", "it
is not true .. because..". If you make such main sentence
qrongly then your whole following proof may become useless like
it did this time. You can first ask confirmation questions from
the opponent like i did with "Do you agree?". Let the opponent
clarifies his standpoint and after that only provide your
arguments. Otherwise you assume wrong things and reply to wrong
things.
4. It is forbidden to say intentionally irrelevant things like
Hello, Regards, PS, Btw, etc. I explained in one debate that
such PS-sections at the ends, or Btw-phrases are totally useless
noise. They have no adequate goal. Again, i say that here to
everyone who is interested in future debates. Also in ethics it
is so that it is not better if one uses politeness in wrong
places/ways. For example, if one kills another then that is not
ethical, but if one says during that act "kind regards" then
that is even more unethical and called probably sadism etc. Many
people believe primitively that a polite phrase is always a
polite good thing no matter which context it is used in. Very
often such cosmetically polite behaviour turns into salty
sarcasm, or sadism as we explained. There is no need to be or
risk to be a sadist, sarcastic, etc. Be adequate instead. No
need for "kind regards" in debates. I'm not sure if it is wise
to let people use such rudimental phrases in non-debatal topics,
i have to think, let them use elsewhere i guess. But i don't
feel myself any need to do any such irrelevant
phrases/behaviours and in debates it is a must to follow such
rule.
5. You say at the end that it is fine to stay on different
opinions. The term opinion is a quite complex term. I can give
in a separate topic one day better definition for that term. In
short, opinion is for example if you have different base
values/goals/taste than the other person then your conclucions
based on your those are different than his, and then it is your
opinion, and one can only attack you by saying that you have bad
taste/believes. For example, if you are a concervative
politician then your main wish is to keep your country clean
from migrants, and your opinion about international student
exchange programmes is negative because your believe the foreign
students stay in your country and pollute your country's
genofond. But a capitalistic politician values money and profit
the most and his opinion is that those student are good
employees and money bringers. Those 2 politicians have a
different opinion and it is very difficult to say whose opinion
is better or wrong. Opinions are not right/wrong, they are based
on goals, faith, etc. If you provided a clear proof about Coal
thing likelyhood then there is no way to stay on different
opinions/believes. If i would stay that i still stay on my
believes after you provided a strong proof then my such saying
is not adequate and i lose the debate. Children do such things
but in a real world there is no space for such "i still continue
to believe" attitude.
*****************************************************