Cool, I will. Let’s start with these:
Right, so, how do you expect this to effect the results?
I’D expect DPS to dislike roleQ more, BUT… now you have to go show that.
They show that those areas being polled aren’t representative of the playerbase.
We already know, from the queue times, that Damage is by far the most popular role.
Right, but now you have to show that it effects the results, and by how much.
Lets do this from the other direction.
Because, again, Bayes showed that the results were right, now, you are going to have to show all of the data was not just slightly out, but MASSIVELY out.
Like you said, you’d expect Damage players to be the most opposed to Role Queue compared with other roles, and if their responses aren’t being sufficiently accounted for, the results will be skewed.
Now you have to show that it is MASSIVELY skewed.
Because the results were pretty pointed in one direction, to overcome that the effect has to be super super strong.
you are against Bayes here.
Damage is literally shown as being the least popular role from those responses, which means those areas are massively skewed. We know that Damage is far more popular.
Yep, I agree, AND I even agree that Damage would be against it in general.
BUT, you have to show that is ENOUGH to change the results by enough that it doesn’t show a preference in the RoleQ direction anyway.
Like, I am not even trying to make this hard here, I am not trying to make you fight to show that Damage would dislike roleQ in general, which is a kindness I would not have expected you to show me.
I’d need to see your results first - all of them.
But you haven’t linked them.
AGAIN? I’ve done this twice already. for you, no less.
This is why I think you don’t argue in good faith.
If I can show that I have linked a massive amount of polls for YOU, then this is the last time you pull this right? RIGHT?
THEN we go back to you trying to show that the Bias you have shown is enough to overcome the results.
I am not having you go back to fighting over that data because you don’t want to take this analysis to the end.
Because It REALLY want to see you do this, and the results, because I’ve got a PRETTY good idea of what comes out here 
But we get that agreement FIRST. Because I am NOT having you move goalposts.
You haven’t linked them.
You keep talking, but not proving anything or showing your calculations.
This time you are going to try to show stuff right? Because again, I do not think you argue in good faith.
I am after something to show you will do that, then I link, and we go from there.
Remember I have 20k of posts to go back and look, and I’m not doing that unless I think you will see this through to the end.
Still nothing. There’s one person not trying to argue in good faith here, I don’t think it’s me.
Burden of proof is on you, you made the claim of a majority. It isn’t my problem if that inconveniences you.
I note you are NOT promising you will do so. It is easy, you promise you will see this line of argument to the end, and I’ll do it.
Because I do NOT believe you will do so, and next time I want to be able to just point at this.
I am going to have to do a lot of work for this, the LEAST you can do is promise to see it to the end.
You’d rather get me to do some kind of “pinky promise” than provide all your data.
Don’t you want to prove your side of the argument, if not to convince me then at least everyone else?
For someone who was supposedly so interested in this subject, it’s strange that you didn’t keep note of all your data/evidence on a file somewhere.
This is a small set, I’ll go look for the bigger one.
I have many interests, not everything gets a file.
Now, lets start your analysis.
If the polls are not there anymore (since, I can see failed links), you can see people in the thread saying that it DOES show the results which is claimed, which would NOT have happened if they did not.
As recipts said…
And I was showing that it was 2/3 Majority AFTER people experienced it.
So, go for it.
Again, showing the data was 2/3 for, and 1/3 again, but this time talking about the post polls.
Time for you to maths it up.
You must now show that the bias you are talking about swamps that data.
Can you just link the polls directly please? (Exactly the same way I did regarding role distribution.)
I’m not going to sift through pages of discussions with expired(?) links.
It’s your job to provide the data, not discussions, the data.
Well, we could find someone complaining that I did link all of this stuff both in the community, and into reddit threads etc.
Oh wait, it was you complaining that I did exactly that…
I’ve shown what the results, were, AND that you were aware of them, AND that I had linked to both inside and outside the forums.
Now, do your analysis. I’ve shown people know I linked to it, AND that you were aware of it.
No more dodging, start your work.
Yeah okay, I get it.
No data.
Thanks for clarifying.
Except I have linked to the post, which linked to the polls.
AND I have shown that you KNEW that, and you were willing to be upset at the results then.
I’ve shown that we had a 2/3 majority in the polls, AND that they were from more than the forums, AND that you accepted that in the past, and was upset that I did so.
I’ve shown the proof, and do your maths, because if you don’t, then I have shown you are arguing in bad faith.
After all, WHY would YOU be complaining about the polls results, if I hadn’t shown them
Now, do the maths.