Removal of Inactive/Banned players from towns

100% against any person being removed from a town, that are from out side forces. Thank you very much and good day to you Sir! teehee

 

Yet somehow you make profit and have the highest vote count. Sounds legit.

 

Well, If you looked at the Statistics thread, you would see that Doha has a 47% bankruptcy rate calculated for town income. Being the largest town, having the largest number of assistants, and nearly half the number of residents not being able to pay tax, I still make more than the 10 towns below me combined.

So instead of puffing air and bashing every town you can, grab a calculator and do some basic math.

 

I just want to point something out,
didn't there use to be a rule where "not enough money to pay taxes" meant instant kick?
That sounds like a plan to me.

The main issue that some people do not want to address is that some players are voting for inactive members, or members that have not voted that day.
There is evidence of this all of the time (even in Aruhzona's "goodbye" thread he talks about Anvil players voting for other players)
I seriously doubt that only Anvil was partaking in this easy "free money" scheme.
Kicking inactives and banned players means mayors or staff-members cannot keep the "voting" coming in and that the server can stop the ridiculous cash-flow that comes in for no reason.
Also note that not all banned players have their Dei set to 0. Therefore when banned players pay their daily taxes, they are giving some of the money that they used to have to the town. (eventually all of their money will be in the bank) In most cases players get banned for very bad things, and the fact that people of all towns get to benefit from that money is disgusting in my opinion. This probably affects 90% of our towns, not only Doha.

 

mbon recently I have realised that many of your comments have been threatening or volatile, take for instance the one you put towards taco's thread that Vershye removed. These forum posts are for improvements and opinions not for petty little comments that actually do nothing but show that your very opinionated in the wrong way. Please stop with these comments. Venithar i totally agree with this, if they are banned there plot deserves to be the mayors,but if they get unbanned that could be a problem.

 

This is 100% true. Way too many people lie and say "how is that possible I can't change my ip or anything" when this isn't the case, it takes less than 5 minutes to find a stupid vpn to allow you to change ips. People don't necessarily do this for money but actually for town ranking. I'm not accusing any town of this but it is definitely evident, next time you see someone vote for the server do a /res info on them and you might see a 30+ inactivity which probably means someone voted for them. To be honest if I was Deity or an staff I could see why they wouldn't want to stop this mainly because it promotes the server on minestatus, it should however be frowned upon by the public. To close this up I'll be completely honest in saying that when I was mayor of Mirasol we experimented with this voting, we ended up concluding that it was wrong and never did it after that point.

 

I am on the same boat here, however I talked to SMC about this, I will not post his reply here as I don't have his permission, but he does not defend the "Minestatus" argument.
In the end, Deity and SMC are all about having a 'good and clean' community. Deity could find hundreds of ways to get 'more' out of the players in a financial way (like making it possible to pay like 10$ for 10,000 Dei, or stuff like that). However he does not. Therefore he really does care about the economy and the server's stability (and not about filling his pockets). Ergo it is my belief that SMC and Deity do not really care about promoting the server on minestatus enough to let the economy go into the crapper. Of course they would like more advertising, because the server is their baby and work, but they have very well set and ethical limits.

Basically SMC's response was that they know about it, and they also know that it almost impossible to stop (Since proxies are proxies after all). He does not support this in any way and agrees that it is against the rules (obviously). The idea is that they have more important 'issues' -> dupers to take care of prior to being able to put this issue under scrutiny.

I understand his point and completely agree with him. Compared to chain duping (which directly impacts everything on the server) this is only a 'trickle effect'. It basically does give 'free money' to people who abuse it, but stopping it would be very hard.

Basically:
They know about this, and (I think) that as soon as the main issues with duping are cleared up they will give this problem a second glance.

I would also note that having "alts" is exactly the same thing, in the way that you could theoretically vote multiple times while it is for the same person. Even though you still own both accounts, it still does somewhat fall into the category of voting multiple times.


This is a very harsh issue, and the decisions made by the staff on this require a lot of thought in my opinion. Deciding to kick "ghosts" after a certain time is harsh, because it is unjust to some while necessary for others. I do not think that a simple plugin could fix this, but I think that this could at least help.

-> Voting only works if player is currently in game

Good luck plugging that one in ladies and gentlemen.
This is the ultimate solution (some people will cry because they will not be able to vote while on vacation etc.)
However this means that no one could vote for accounts that they do not own.

 

Yes. I remember that from year ago when i was assistant in BV. Few people lost their plots and got automatically evicted because they spent all remaining money on town teleports. Next day they came back online and i had to find where their plot could possibly be and let them reclaim it.

 

First, I would like to apologize for being very accusatory. Like suggested, I did some math, and found some interesting results. Last month, Doha had a reported 1221 votes. At the time of writing this, Doha has 967 votes, or 79% of last months votes already accounted for with it being projected to take another 15 days to reach the number of 1221, yet if you continue on this trend, Doha will finish the month with about 1445 votes though the number of inactive residents has gone up. It just doesn't add up to me for inactive persons to be contributing to this count, but I'm not going to discuss the subject further. Continue to make these numbers as it should be no concern of mine how you attain them.

Why my posts may seem volatile to you, I have no idea. You are also no person to be telling me to stop with anything, nor the person to be telling me that I am opinionated in the wrong way. Don't like what I say? I welcome every member of the community to comment on any and all of my posts so I can see your thoughs and opinions and explain my own. As for the post that Vershye removed, that was more personal and I shouldn't have put it there in the first place, but again thank you for policing my last few "comments" and letting me know how you feel about their tone.

 

Statement:
I am against people cheating in votes to get free money, but I will say right here that the 'math' you did was not 'math' at all.
I have been looking over this issue for a while now, and I am quite shocked that you would directly attack a single town with no logical evidence, mathematically speaking.
The issue is that a direct algorithm for voting behaviors is extremely complex, and with no proof on your part as to what your calculations are, I cannot hold it as evidence.


You seem to forget something very simple...
1221 votes theoretically means 40~ daily voters.
1445 votes theoretically means 48~ daily voters.

Continue to make these numbers as it should be no concern of mine how you attain them.
The issue here, is that you are trying to envenom the situation. As stated by totalmoobs your comments of the late have been noticed to be a bit over the line, therefore I will demonstrate why you are wrong 'mathematically'.
Here you are attempting to set in an innuendo that Yogs is cheating, or at least that he has allowed cheating within his town. The problem here is that the numbers are completely correct in his situation. His town does have a very high amount of players and many of them are active. you are stating that the amount of inactive players in Doha is increasing, but you are forgetting the fact that the amount of active players also increases.
As you have said "I have done some math" I will assume that in doing that 'math' you did not forget the basic parameters of the idea that you wished to demonstrate.
Let's make this very basic:

Tp -> Total players
Tap -> Total Active players
Tip -> Total inactive players

Therefore;
Tp = Tap + Tip
Tp+x = (Tap +Tip) +x
Determination of [Tp+x = Tip +x] is theoretically correct in large quantities (in terms of probability) but it is mathematically incorrect to forget about the second generated increase.

Basically, if he recruits more players every month, there will be more active and inactive players each month (probability based).
You are also forgetting secondary items to this algorithm, which are not mathematically presentable (since they are not based on any mathematical laws): what's that?

-> One of a Mayor's main desires is to render his town more active, therefore in time, mayors and town staff's become better recruiters and generate more active players (probability based as well).
Therefore (let's say) if a new player had a 50% chance to become inactive they would have a lower chance of going inactive with a better (or 'more experienced') town staff.
I.E: Every time that someone recruits a new players, they learn things to make the next recruitment go better and generally old assistants (if they care and have time) would theoretically have better odds of making new players become active.
Ergo the fact that there are more votes could technically be assimilated to the fact that the staff of Doha does a better job making new players active with each passing month.


The secondary thing that you seem to forget is the difference between "ghost" and "inactive".
Many people in Doha (and the grand majority of towns) are 'ghosts' in the sense that they are not hardcore players, but log in once in a while to vote and play a little bit.
This does not make them inactive. I know some people that play 5-15 minutes a day, but still do remember to vote. This is also something you seem to have forgotten in your 'calculations'.


Lastly, I want to ask you how you have determined that the numbers are incorrect. I would have you know that Mathematics are based upon logical links, and that making such a direct assumption is crazy when so many elements in the algorithm are incalculable. How were you able to decide what the 'activity patterns' of hundreds of players are? This really interests me. If you have infact found a logical and provable algorithm to demonstrate that Doha is actually cheating, please do share. However I highly doubt so. The level of math, and the complexity of the algorithm (which would need to be linked to human behavioral sciences) would be insane. This would mean months and months of work on your part studying Doha's social patterns, and the math level would perhaps be beyond that of Post-grads, or even researchers.


Basically:

Either post the algorithm allowing you to provide evidence for such a statement, or don't make that kind of a statement at all.
As of now, I consider your last few statements on this thread to be toxic and that you simply meant to generate frustration or anger.
I really do not believe that you are dumb, so I will in fact go to my secondary conclusion:

I believe that you sir, are a troll.

 

All the towns with more than 20 Residents.

 

Here is what I did. Note that everything is based off of last months counts.

Total Residents - 442
Taxable Residents (residents-staff) - 423
Total Votes - 1221
Votes per Resident - 2.5
Total "Inactive" Residents (Yogs said 60%) - 265
Total Bankrupt Residents (Yogs said 43%) - 190
"Active" Voting Residents (Total-Inactive) - 177
Total Taxes Collected (w/o bankrupt residents) - 393390
Total Taxes Collected (w/ bankrupt residents) - 216690
Town Server Tax - 41478
Town Resident Tax - 30
Net Gain - 175212
Votes per resident (in month) - 7
Votes per day - 39
Votes per resident per day - .23
% accounted for in Feb. (967/1221) - 79

If the latter wasn't clear enough or you still have any questions, do not hesitate to reply.

 

Quote from quote, you suggest that I am not one to say anything yet you say that "I welcome every member of the community to comment on any of my posts". From assessing a couple of posts that you have interacted in I can see how you simply accuse with no specific evidence. This thread was not intended to come out like this but because of your unneeded comment a fire has been sparked.

Firstly if you want to accuse people simply supply sufficient evidence, which you have failed to do in the biased comment you intended towards yogs. Secondly don't contradict yourself saying that you are all up for criticisms when in reality you criticise all of the time but when someone proves you wrong you don't like it. I'm simply stating proof from the comments I have read that you have counteracted with. If you cant take it, then don't give it.

 

And here we are.
Exactly what I was saying. You are doing basic mathematics, with no logical approach to the situation.

You are going on a "per vote" quota based on statistics that are approximate (60% 'what yogs said')
Yogs gave what he thinks is close to the idea of how many residents are innactive.

Please try to counter this argument:

If 30 residents vote each day (and 100 residents vote 1/10 days) there is no error in the logic behind Doha's vote patterns.
^ this is not a mathematical truth but one of the eventuallities.

The way that you are doing 'math' is completely catastrophic. You are pulling numbers out of 'beliefs of other percentages' which comes back to what I was saying, you are completely incorrect.
If your entire idea of 'evidence' is based on an idea that somewhere around 60% of players are inactive you cannot hold the argument as valid, for it does not have logical and provable grounds, and even if it did, it would still not be mathematically correct.


I have yet to see the algorithm, all you have stated are basic numbers and 'if it was not clear enough'.
Please post the socially behaviorally linked algorithm of your calculations. Remember, in order for it be correct, you must have all of the correct starting numbers. And you must explain every single human pattern of voting behavior....
I am truly sorry, but all that I have seen up to now is completely baseless math in which you do not demonstrate a single thing, but just show us approximates of approximates.
Again, everything you have done can be refuted by a single idea:

What if there are 30~ people in Doha that vote every single day (900~ votes per month) and then some players who vote here and there?

As of now, I remain on the logical conclusion that you are in fact trolling.
Please do demonstrate your logic, for all I see now are logical fallacies and a complete massacre of what I hold dear as logical and provable mathematics.
You bring fire to the conversation, and have nothing to back you up. Evidence-less bashing is completely beneath us, or at least I used to believe so.

 

Yeah, that's pretty much what we were saying ^.^
We all agree (most of us) that this is not 'that big' of an issue compared to the other problems that are currently ongoing with the server, and it cannot hurt to get a little bit of extra attention on minestatus as long as it is not truly a harmful thing for the server

 

Yet still advertising with being the #1 town, backing it up with your resident number?

 

My ad is "the largest town."
This is true by # of plots claimed and resident capacity.