Quote from Nyarlathotep

Both CJ and brock have said on multiple occasions that if you play enough games with a decent connection you'll get out of it automatically.

Yeah.. KaitoMaster is still in the lag queue which is why I made a new account.


Also @Skele and Daz by your logic you have no proof that I have a bias memory and for all I know you have one

Quote from MasterKaito

Yeah.. KaitoMaster is still in the lag queue which is why I made a new account.


Also @Skele and Daz by your logic you have no proof that I have a bias memory and for all I know you have one

evidence dump of bias relating to judging if maps are random

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentric_bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias


Yes.
Me and DAZ have bias memories too.
I'm sure I could recall more terrible games on castle than any other map, and I know this is because I haven't remembered the other maps as well, not because they didn't happen.

How does that directly relate to judging whether or not maps are random? Theyre just general wikipedias.

Quote from Skeletonxf

evidence dump of bias relating to judging if maps are random

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentric_bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias


Yes.
Me and DAZ have bias memories too.
I'm sure I could recall more terrible games on castle than any other map, and I know this is because I haven't remembered the other maps as well, not because they didn't happen.

Yeah and what evidence do you have in saying I have that bias when I say I only experience castle more times in a row than other maps? Just because a concept exists doesn't mean it's always happening.

It's Wikipedia; go read the sources on those pages that are the evidence of the bias happening in people very very often.

Quote from Skeletonxf

It's Wikipedia; go read the sources on those pages that are the evidence of the bias happening in people very very often.

Wiki is unreliable lol.

Quote from AsePlayer

Wiki is unreliable lol.

"go read the sources on those pages that are evidence of the bias happening in people very often."

Reading.
Is a virtue.

Wikipedia is often edited. Therefore, not too much of a reliable source.

But yeah...

Quote from PUMU

Wikipedia is often edited. Therefore, not too much of a reliable source.

But yeah...

Quote from AsePlayer

Wiki is unreliable lol.

Oh this joke again.

There are numerous ways people can create a website without knowing how to code these days. On any such website they can then claim whatever the hell they want to (without providing a single source) and people don't bat an eyelid.

Then someone goes onto Wikipedia which has pages monitored by experts to check the validity, provides messages at the top of the page if the sourcing is poor on a given article, and then this person edits the page after logging into an account which is obviously going to be banned and reversed if used for griefing and people still think all the other sourceless pages on the interenet are somehow more reliable because 'anyone' can edit Wikipedia.

Because 'anyone' can edit Wikipedia, Wikipedia requires you actaully source your claims. Also, people can actually check that you are and ban you for griefing. Wikipedia is only less reliable than the academic research papers it cites.

Thank you for telling us something we knew, however, I'm not sure how this proves us wrong.
Ya kinda just gave the explanation as to why we find wiki unreliable at times, albeit unitended. Since those monitors exist, that in itself would suggest that there are people who do edit Wikipedia just to screw around with people on the Internet. That fact in itself is why I prefer to cite first hand documents and sources as opposed to info pools such as Wikipedia.

Quote from PUMU

Thank you for telling us something we knew, however, I'm not sure how this proves us wrong.
Ya kinda just gave the explanation as to why we find wiki unreliable at times, albeit unitended. Since those monitors exist, that in itself would suggest that there are people who do edit Wikipedia just to screw around with people on the Internet. That fact in itself is why I prefer to cite first hand documents and sources as opposed to info pools such as Wikipedia.

No he did not.

He gave the something legitimate, wiki requires the source section, other sites created by Joe Smoh do not. If you look at the links to the sources, you can find legitimate evidence.

Quote from spino

No he did not.

He gave the something legitimate, wiki requires the source section, other sites created by Joe Smoh do not. If you look at the links to the sources, you can find legitimate evidence.

I've seen a few pages lacking evidence at times :P

I politely ask Pumu, Kaito and AsePlayer to go back to w/e advanced mathematics course your middle school/high school/university offers.

Somehow this is the first time I've seen an actual argument occur on a mathematical fallacy, and it happens to be over the internet too. The more you know.

Hey Pumu:

"Virtually every game I got when I played chaos against order, I was on the left and the map was castle."
*Virtually implies 99%~, reeks of bullshit
*On the left; SE is a 2 player game, 1v1, 1 on the left, 1 on the right. It is mathematically impossible to not have a 50/50 split in the whole game
*Map is castle 5:1 ratio 84%, niice

Quote from Dazzy

I politely ask Pumu, Kaito and AsePlayer to go back to w/e advanced mathematics course your middle school/high school/university offers.

Already did the assignment tho :c