Advertisement
by He Qixin » Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:12 am
jacknjellify wrote:Watch Battle For Dream Island or be eliminated.
by Trotterdam » Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:38 am
I am.He Qixin wrote:http://www.nationstates.net/page=beta
I still think you should consider which one may affect the way stats change.
by He Qixin » Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:54 am
Trotterdam wrote:I am.He Qixin wrote:http://www.nationstates.net/page=beta
I still think you should consider which one may affect the way stats change.
I'll deal with the betas once they get implemented. When that happens is not up to me. What more do you want me to do?
jacknjellify wrote:Watch Battle For Dream Island or be eliminated.
by Affairs » Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:46 am
by Candensia » Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:47 am
Affairs wrote:A few days ago I realized something very important: these numbers aren't generated by answering issues blindly or randomly. They don't tell you the probable results for average nations. They tell you the probable results for nations that gave similar responses to other issues. This can lead to serious understatement of some effects. For example, an option that trashes your environment to benefit your economy is likely to be picked by nations that don't have much of an environment to trash anymore, and therefore its negative effect on environmental beauty will be under-reported.
The Free Joy State wrote:Time spent working on writing skills -- even if the draft doesn't work -- is never wasted.
by Sapnu puas » Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:53 am
by Trotterdam » Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:45 am
True. It'll still probably be negative, though, even if it's less negative than it would be on another nation.Affairs wrote:A few days ago I realized something very important: these numbers aren't generated by answering issues blindly or randomly. They don't tell you the probable results for average nations. They tell you the probable results for nations that gave similar responses to other issues. This can lead to serious understatement of some effects. For example, an option that trashes your environment to benefit your economy is likely to be picked by nations that don't have much of an environment to trash anymore, and therefore its negative effect on environmental beauty will be under-reported.
Obviously not. If there's a plus number, then a fair number of nations must have seen an increase.Sapnu puas wrote:I've noticed that on issue results with a low plus mean number that it actually goes down no matter what issue.
by Minoa » Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:03 pm
Trotterdam wrote:As I explained to Jutsa two weeks ago:Minoa wrote:Hi, since the API implementation appears to capture the policies before the decision is enacted, it could be possible to look into the eligibility of issues, and whether they require a certain policy or more to be in force or not be in force at all.So in short, I have some tools that can help to confirm or refute a suspicion, but it's not practical to create an automated list. If you have any specific questions, ask.Trotterdam wrote:Well, the problem is that it's hard to prove a negative.
For example, my database currently thinks that #861 requires the "Conscription" and "Parental Licensing" policies, simply because it's a rare issue and all four nations it's seen answering it so far had those policies, even though they're obviously irrelevant. My backed-up pre-reset database thought the same issue required the "Polygamy" policy, which is even more silly. Given enough data points, these should eventually disappear, but until then they look indistinguishable from the one reported policy requirement that does make sense, "Geronticide".
Checking for requiring a lack of a policy being required, rather than it presence, has the same problem even stronger, since some policies are just really rare. Currently, around half of the issues in the game have never been observed on a nation with the Child Self-Rearing policy. So telling whether any issues legitimately don't appear for nations with that policy is basically impossible.
So it takes some creative interpreting to figure out what's likely to be a real validity and what's just a coincidence.
Conversely, the simple act of banking an issue and answering it later, after your policies changed, can make it look like the issue doesn't have a validity when it does. This rarely happens, but given enough time it will eventually, and it basically invalidates any conclusions I can draw. I think option validities are immune to this, at least.If the effect line is correct, then the data is correct.Minoa wrote:Also, can you confirm #6.2’s policy changes? It feels as if that belongs to option 3.
The issue option says: "For me, it's not about the name of your religion. It's about discovering your spirituality in whatever guise that takes.". Since this is promoting religious freedom rather than enforcing the precepts of any single religion, it is untheocratic.
Option 3 probably removes the Theocracy policy too, but that hasn't been captured yet because nations which are theocratic to begin with are unlikely to choose that option. I just queried the database and confirmed that, indeed, nobody has ever been observed doing that. (I do track the difference between "this has not been observed to happen" and "this has explicitly been observed to not happen", but displaying that in the published pages would be impractically bulky, especially since, as explained above, a lot of rarer policies will stay incomplete for a long time - and if an option has a policy prerequisite, then "what happens if someone without that policy chooses the option" will never be answerable.)
by Trotterdam » Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:47 pm
To add to this, while the data may be skewed, it's actually quite likely to be skewed in a way that favors the people who are looking at it to begin with.Trotterdam wrote:True. It'll still probably be negative, though, even if it's less negative than it would be on another nation.Affairs wrote:A few days ago I realized something very important: these numbers aren't generated by answering issues blindly or randomly. They don't tell you the probable results for average nations. They tell you the probable results for nations that gave similar responses to other issues. This can lead to serious understatement of some effects. For example, an option that trashes your environment to benefit your economy is likely to be picked by nations that don't have much of an environment to trash anymore, and therefore its negative effect on environmental beauty will be under-reported.
Furthermore, if even one nation answers an issue in a way that goes against the nation's previous policy (which is fairly likely to happen at some point, even if it's a minority) then this will update the minimum and maximum values, even if it doesn't do much for the mean.
by Candlewhisper Archive » Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:47 am
Affairs wrote:A few days ago I realized something very important: these numbers aren't generated by answering issues blindly or randomly. They don't tell you the probable results for average nations. They tell you the probable results for nations that gave similar responses to other issues. This can lead to serious understatement of some effects. For example, an option that trashes your environment to benefit your economy is likely to be picked by nations that don't have much of an environment to trash anymore, and therefore its negative effect on environmental beauty will be under-reported.
by Candlewhisper Archive » Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:05 am
by Sapnu puas » Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:34 am
by Chan Island » Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:48 am
Conserative Morality wrote:"It's not time yet" is a tactic used by reactionaries in every era. "It's not time for democracy, it's not time for capitalism, it's not time for emancipation." Of course it's not time. It's never time, not on its own. You make it time. If you're under fire in the no-man's land of WW1, you start digging a foxhole even if the ideal time would be when you *aren't* being bombarded, because once you wait for it to be 'time', other situations will need your attention, assuming you survive that long. If the fields aren't furrowed, plow them. If the iron is not hot, make it so. If society is not ready, change it.
by Affairs » Sat Apr 28, 2018 9:05 am
Trotterdam wrote:To add to this, while the data may be skewed, it's actually quite likely to be skewed in a way that favors the people who are looking at it to begin with.
If you've been heavily pro-environment up until now, you're not likely to even consider choosing an anti-environment option, no matter what my spoilers predict the stat effects will be.
If you're seriously considering choosing the anti-environment option, but want to look up what stat changes to expect before confirming your decision, then data collected specifically from other nations who also thought choosing that option looked like a good idea is a lot more likely to be applicable to you.
So, when used for its intended purpose, this bias in the data is actually not much of a problem.
My spoilers are intended to help players who aren't sure what they want to choose, not to encourage players to choose something that they would otherwise consider anathema against everything their nation stands for. They're meant to supplement roleplay, not replace it.
by Trotterdam » Sat Apr 28, 2018 10:11 am
The good news is that if you're specifically choosing options for their small effects, even if you get it wrong, it won't be much of a loss.Affairs wrote:When issue options are chosen for their small secondary effects instead of their more predictable primary effects,
by Sapnu puas » Sat Apr 28, 2018 10:26 am
by Trotterdam » Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:22 am
You can see the real option numbers by looking at the source code. However, generally, you shouldn't have to. You can also just use common sense. One reason I include the effect lines is so if an effect line seems obviously unfitting to the option you're seeing, you'll know to be suspicious. Which option seems more likely to lead to the effect line "the reams of paperwork accompanying any electronic item are a recognised contributor to national deforestation": the one that says "Since when have you been responsible for the labour standards of other nations? Crazy legislation is just going to add to the cost of production, and that'll mean price hikes and lost jobs, right here in Sapnu puas. Instead, announce that you’ll trust the industry to self-regulate, and we'll do right by the economy and by our shareholders.", or the one that says "Corporations should be providing documentation proving an ethical supply chain."? If you want the option with paperwork, then pick the option that mentions paperwork.Sapnu puas wrote:You should add eligibility notices for options, or have a tidbit of the beginning of an option; option numbers don't always equal what a nation is given, and despite some saying a combined description result for options "1/2", that isn't true—in my specific case, it is Issue #890: I clicked on the choices 1/2 for my corresponding setup thing, but it gave me the description for 3/4 "the latest "must-have" uPhone is 1/4 mm thinner than last year's uPhone"
by Sapnu puas » Sat Apr 28, 2018 3:36 pm
Trotterdam wrote:I try to provide a useful resource, but I'm not responsible for holding your hand.
by Candlewhisper Archive » Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:08 am
Trotterdam wrote:I try to provide a useful resource, but I'm not responsible for holding your hand.
by Bedetopia » Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:48 am
by Evil Dictators Happyland » Fri May 04, 2018 9:13 am
by Minoa » Sat May 05, 2018 12:51 am
by Trotterdam » Sat May 05, 2018 3:10 am
by Sapnu puas » Sun May 06, 2018 8:14 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Skiva
Advertisement