[QED QS] Top-3...(1)
Boklevski
Top-3… Things We Disagree On
Let me present you with a first result of the QED (Quantitative Electoral Demographics). QED is based on a survey filled by YOU… unless you haven’t filled it in yet, in which case you can still do so here: http://goo.gl/forms/4peQQNdA6M.
The Top-3 Things We Disagree On are:
1. Immigration Rules - regulated borders (rules for immigration) vs. open borders (no immigration rules).
2. HOF/HC – Yes or no to Honorable Foreigner and/or Honorary Citizen status.
3. In-game PM communication – The question whether we should use in-game PMs as main communication channel, or not.
I'll get into details in a later article, but it would be nice to hear the stances of the CP candidates on these much disputed topics!
Boklevski
QED Researcher
Methodology
How much we agree on something is calculated by determining the Standard Deviation. This means I take the Average of a given answer, and then determine the distance from that average for each single answer. The higher the distance, the more we disagree on something.
Example – I’m going to skip the exact math using square roots, etc., as this should clear it up enough.
All questions are on a scale from 1 to 6. If you select 1, you choose option 1; if you select 6, you choose option 2. Anything in between is choosing something… in between.
If we have 4 responses being 3, 3, 4 and 4, the average is 3.5. The distance from each answer to the average is 0.5.
If we would have answers 1, 1, 6 and 6, the average is still 3.5. However, the distance from each answer to the average is now 2.5.
In the first case, we pretty much agree with the average 3.5; in the latter case, we don’t.
Notice that the average doesn’t have to be 3.5! If I would have the answers 1, 1, 2 and 2, the average is 1.5. The distance from each answer to the average is thus 0.5. We basically agree as much as in the first example (both 0.5), although we agree that option 1 has the preference.
Comments
vote
The Top-3 Things I am agreeing On are:
1. Open borders -YES (no immigration rules).
2. NO - to Honorable Foreigner and/or Honorary Citizen status.
3. In-game PM communication – YES.
Perfect answer !!!!
1. Maybe (you can't enforce a "NO" anyways, so why fight it?)
2. Why exclude knowledgeable people that can (and want to) help? Not like we have a ton of willing people to actually do something like writing an article or organising something.
3. NO. In game PM's are useless except for the "elite" group that belongs to them. I'm not in congress for months, thus i'm not this "pm" and I don't have the foggiest idea what congress is f-ing up at this moment. Not a grain of transparency, no reports, no communication. Atleast on the forum every citizen had full access to all the debates and could participate. Second to that, when I was still in congress those PM's were mass spam messages rather than any decent constructive discussion
@SX80
Because the majority ignore the minority and all players who are now Honorable Foreigner are from your party or have the same policy than you
This Citizen status is only for continue turn the debates in your favor, Phaeminta is a good example
If you don't believe i will start a vote (again) for Marko Klis ex Belgian Congress Member became HF, and you will see the results
This stuff is reserved for your political group who take the majority with votes from a big number of foreigners from eUK
Well, it is common sense for them to demand open boarders and end HC and HF. This way they can flood in more PTOers and to take away all connections of eBE's past and members. This way, they can assert themselves as the sole dominate force in eBE.
The picture says it all.....http://prntscr.com/5z9c3k Evil government !!!
Tell us something less obvious next time. 😛
I was actually considering to say that myself, but figured that would make my article look less cool. 😛
More surprising stuff coming up soon... 😉
I found this research pointless. Your sample is pointless as those who are active are engaging the fight anyways and those who do not, are inactive. It tells us nothing and everything is shewed anyways.
I have to disagree with you.
First of all, this is only an extremely tiny part of the research - and certainly not the primary goal. You can read more about everything in my previous articles. It's also not a very surprising part, as Nohjis pointed out. But that doesn't make it less true.
Secondly, for these 3 topics in particular, only the active population is in fact important, as they decide on these topics. The opinions I collected may not be all citizens, but they are of the citizens that care enough to make the rules...
I read your survey and it does not offer much new insight. The questions you asked are uninteresting and totally not needed. We do not need your survey to tell us the perspective of the PTO and the establishment. This exercise is pointless.
Why don't you publish the names of those who do your polls. Not only is the poll pointless, but I question the validity of it in regards to the quality of the sample you used...
Please allow me to quote from my first article: "(...) a survey in eBelgium on how the political landscape looks like. I would like to see what the political parties stand for. Not by asking their Party Presidents what they stand for, but by asking EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL eBelgian citizen themselves."
If you can point me to any objective article that points where ATO, HOPE, or any other party stands, you're point is valid. However, there aren't such articles.
You consider the questions as "uninteresting", because they are high level. That's needed to determine where people stand. Sure, I could fire up the fireworks by asking whose HoF status should be removed, but THAT'S a pointless question in the larger political picture.
I have left the thought that there's only the "PTO" and "The Establishment" in eBelgium. If you don't, point out the difference between the BDP and HOPE. I'm sure you can't, as you consider them all "PTO". Or the difference between UU and ATO, which you would consider "The Establishment". But there's more than that. It's way more colorful.
As to the validity: I'm bound by the number of people willing to fill in the form. I can't and won't force anybody. However, there's a check to verify that people who send it really are who they say they are. If a certain group would be overrepresented, I could adjust for that. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
Lastly, I'm not going to publish any names, as I promised the respondents I won't do that. And thus... I won't do that.
I find your survey very positive and the questions you have posed are resonalble good.
I haven't seen anyone doing anything alike before.
You have tackled it very professionally and seriously.
Whether you should have done it differently or whether it is all pointless like the honorable citizen above
me has concluded, I wouldn't agree so.
I have to greet your effort and enthusiasm.
Good work up the highest statistician's standards
it's a good analysis, i don't know hwo didn't answered to questions, but it can be a good begining for new debates. Thanks
The Top-3 Things We Disagree On are:
My view
1. Immigration Rules. If we didn't had some stupid gamers who abused about the citizenship, , it would be a pleasure to remove all keys and open the door.
2. HOF/HC – No need a title to make a good job for his country
3. In-game PM communication : it's really a spamm box, sadly
voted
Quickscoping aaaah I remember those days 😁
Let me guess, the next article will be that those who say yes to open borders are very likely to be against HOF and very favourable towards the use of ingame PM's. 😛
Shh... spoiler alert! That was to be the grand finale of my series! 😛