Sociopath Community

Sensitive_Soul said: 

Heck, for a while in my chat, that is international, I have ONE American. The rest were Canadians and Swedes. That it happens at times is not that weird, because both Canada and Sweden have a high use of computers, where USA has gone to using phones instead of computers and mainly moved to Facebook and Twitter. Also the infrastructure of the web in Sweden always have been one of the best, which showed Sweden the Interwebz long before they were in reach for others. Swedes still use more hours per day being online. When technology mix in with the Swedish culture, things like this happen. We need to be social but we never talk to people, like people in a checkout line or our neighbors. We use the Internet to keep human contact.

I'm on the fence with Legga. I can't decide if he is batshit crazy or if this is his way of having fun. Seriously, no one can be this obsessed.

And he is lying. HE pushed the Skype call. When we were in Skype and my phone was stable, HE delayed for 20 minutes!!! For what reason? And of course he used the loophole that he had not promised to talk on Skype, but anyone would have just counted on it. So he acted against ethics.

I'm not sure who Inky is, except from Inky himself. I think we will never even have a vague idea, because that guy is smart. And careful. If he is someone else, I think he would be an American. (Right Inky?) THERE IS NO REASON WHY HIS PUPPETS MUST BE SWEDISH.

You can change your way of writing - to a point I'm sorry but how Inky and I talk on here is totally different. I can see the differences with ease. And I also admit he is better at English, which is due to him being younger. I wasn't victim of American cultural imperialism when I was a kid. That came in his childhood. He was immersed in the American English language. Also I suspect, despite what he says, that he spent time in the States.

We have proved to be two separate people. If I had enjoyed this more, I would have toyed with it, but I never did, even if I had the lnquirer (Lnquirer) puppet.

Still Legga hasn't proven anything. We don't actually know this is the real Legga. If you are the real Legga, tell me what question you asked me on Skype.

 

 here you go

MissCommunication said: 

Turncoat said:

Also, how do you define a 'user'?

For myself anyway, someone who's not a puppet and was around long enough to be more than a cameo? 

Having not heard their voices, three of those names could be alternate aliases of others on the list (Animerat, Deliciae, Mango). From both Legga and Inq not counting Mango I think we can cross it off the list though. 

 Is someone who visits the site, reads threads, maybe never even posts a 'user'?

Not an established one, but how would we even list people who are ghosting the place? They don't even have names. 

How could this even be presented as reason beyond justifying the "anything is possible" clause, let alone as evidence, without IPs or something? You couldn't even attach a real number to something like that. 

Over the years there have been numerous one-time posters who ask a question and leave. They used the site, are they not users?

"For myself" anyway I would not count them, which is why I began it with that. 

It'd also be difficult to have this form of "users" apply to Legga's current criteria, wouldn't it? 

For years, Luna used to post analytics that showed monthly traffic on SC, including page views, time spent on site/page and just hits. Those numbers were high - often in the tens of thousands.

You actually believed those numbers? 

I don't recall the time spent on site/page stats, but page views and IP pings don't tell you anything. We've been mocking her believed numbers hype for years. 

If the term 'userbase' is not clearly defined or known it can't be determined what numbers of a specific user category are statistically representative. 

Okay, lets say that we take your notion into account: That we ought to take people who post a single time and disappear and people who've never made accounts as "Users" instead of "Lurkers" and "Visitors" or something. This with Luna's figures being shown to be silly introduces how improbable it'd be to figure this total, which would lend to using a place where we can verify it making more sense to use as a relative basis to gauge a rough estimate. 

Aka... what Legga basically already did with Reddit. It's not the best comparison, as whatever draws people to Reddit isn't necessarily related to what draws people to our forum, but it still works as a rough general internet population figure from how vastly populated Reddit itself is and from how many numerous reasons there'd be for all but the blind and illiterate to attend. In lieu of more helpful data, he made a comparison from data that could actually be found and used that as his reasoning for doubting Inquirer purely to attack the odds, not the necessary reality that happens to be the case that said odds themselves are by design trying to figure. 

Based on S_S's claim though there ought to be a large percentage of Swedes on Reddit, right? 

Turncoat said: 

I mean c'mon, dude did a call with both sensy and inq, and still claimed they're the same person.

I guess irrelevant reputation jabs on the rebound. 

Giving an example of Legga's debate style is quite relevant, especially since we're discussing how you both won't accept reasonable evidence. I mean it's gotten to what, page 24 before he has even provided the criteria he'll accept. lol that was pulling teeth. 

MissCommunication said: 

Sensitive_Soul said: 

Heck, for a while in my chat, that is international, I have ONE American. The rest were Canadians and Swedes. That it happens at times is not that weird, because both Canada and Sweden have a high use of computers, where USA has gone to using phones instead of computers and mainly moved to Facebook and Twitter. Also the infrastructure of the web in Sweden always have been one of the best, which showed Sweden the Interwebz long before they were in reach for others. Swedes still use more hours per day being online. When technology mix in with the Swedish culture, things like this happen. We need to be social but we never talk to people, like people in a checkout line or our neighbors. We use the Internet to keep human contact.

I'm on the fence with Legga. I can't decide if he is batshit crazy or if this is his way of having fun. Seriously, no one can be this obsessed.

And he is lying. HE pushed the Skype call. When we were in Skype and my phone was stable, HE delayed for 20 minutes!!! For what reason? And of course he used the loophole that he had not promised to talk on Skype, but anyone would have just counted on it. So he acted against ethics.

I'm not sure who Inky is, except from Inky himself. I think we will never even have a vague idea, because that guy is smart. And careful. If he is someone else, I think he would be an American. (Right Inky?) THERE IS NO REASON WHY HIS PUPPETS MUST BE SWEDISH.

You can change your way of writing - to a point I'm sorry but how Inky and I talk on here is totally different. I can see the differences with ease. And I also admit he is better at English, which is due to him being younger. I wasn't victim of American cultural imperialism when I was a kid. That came in his childhood. He was immersed in the American English language. Also I suspect, despite what he says, that he spent time in the States.

We have proved to be two separate people. If I had enjoyed this more, I would have toyed with it, but I never did, even if I had the lnquirer (Lnquirer) puppet.

Still Legga hasn't proven anything. We don't actually know this is the real Legga. If you are the real Legga, tell me what question you asked me on Skype.

 here you go

So... this isn't a fake SS? Why would SS think Inq's "spent time in the States", and how can you tell for instance that this SS isn't just Legga in a unicorn trenchcoat, perhaps as a fake wingman to try to make himself (Legga) look ridiculous to increase Inq's confidence and/or to bait his way into Inquirer's loosely drafted high turnover debate team? This is not beyond Legga at all. 

As I expected though this presents reasoning, and most of it's anecdotal when not purely speculation with a few quandaries like posing why Inq wouldn't try to pretend to be American as a puppetmaster (something that'd give Fake Sensy and Legga room to pose that Inq could have American puppets as well). We likely could verify the first paragraph through internet stats, but that doesn't further the legitimacy of the lists, just provides further reasons as to why it's easier to believe (as opposed to an "insane" claim). Basically, the explanation just shows that it's less insane to believe a higher number of Swedes populate here, not that there must be a high number of Swedes here in conclusion. 

Legga has already presented how it could be proven in the form of downsizing his requirements and spoonfeeding the delivery of how it could be done, so this shouldn't be so confusing. 

MissCommunication said:

Giving an example of Legga's debate style is quite relevant, especially since we're discussing how you both won't accept reasonable evidence.

I mean it's gotten to what, page 24 before he has even provided the criteria he'll accept. lol that was pulling teeth. 

Turncoat said: 

MissCommunication said: 

Turncoat said:

Also, how do you define a 'user'?

For myself anyway, someone who's not a puppet and was around long enough to be more than a cameo? 

Having not heard their voices, three of those names could be alternate aliases of others on the list (Animerat, Deliciae, Mango). From both Legga and Inq not counting Mango I think we can cross it off the list though. 

 Is someone who visits the site, reads threads, maybe never even posts a 'user'?

Not an established one, but how would we even list people who are ghosting the place? They don't even have names. 

How could this even be presented as reason beyond justifying the "anything is possible" clause, let alone as evidence, without IPs or something? You couldn't even attach a real number to something like that. 

Over the years there have been numerous one-time posters who ask a question and leave. They used the site, are they not users?

"For myself" anyway I would not count them, which is why I began it with that. 

It'd also be difficult to have this form of "users" apply to Legga's current criteria, wouldn't it? 

For years, Luna used to post analytics that showed monthly traffic on SC, including page views, time spent on site/page and just hits. Those numbers were high - often in the tens of thousands.

You actually believed those numbers? 

Yes because I use google analytics all the time. She could have fudged them but why bother. Plus she posted them when traffic was down after various mass exodus and showed that trend despite it making her look bad. She also honestly had really good SEO. It was surprising and impressive. 

 

 

If the term 'userbase' is not clearly defined or known it can't be determined what numbers of a specific user category are statistically representative. 

Okay, lets say that we take your notion into account: That we ought to take people who post a single time and disappear and people who've never made accounts as "Users" instead of "Lurkers" and "Visitors" or something. This with Luna's figures being shown to be silly introduces how improbable it'd be to figure this total, which would lend to using a place where we can verify it making more sense to use as a relative basis to gauge a rough estimate. 

Aka... what Legga basically already did with Reddit. It's not the best comparison, as whatever draws people to Reddit isn't necessarily related to what draws people to our forum, but it still works as a rough general internet population figure from how vastly populated Reddit itself is and from how many numerous reasons there'd be for all but the blind and illiterate to attend. In lieu of more helpful data, he made a comparison from data that could actually be found and used that as his reasoning for doubting Inquirer purely to attack the odds, not the necessary reality that happens to be the case that said odds themselves are by design trying to figure. 

Reddit isn't a good comparison. It's an entirely different type of forum. We also don't know how reddit defined and calculated their users to get the stats. Then there's the timeline factor. What time period was used to calculate those figures. One month? A year? Legga's stats are as valid as Legga's list lol - it's just made up.

I recall Legga also said he only used the EU and the US numbers as factors which just further shows he doesn't know this community and his conclusions are inaccurate.  What about Pakistan, Australia, Canada... 

inb4 you say that would further prove his point. It shows that there is no statistical validity to his claims. It's hilarious though and I like it for that reason. 

As an aside, you keep going on about reputation... Something about it really bothers you for some reason. 

You do know how people get their reputation, right? They earn it through consistent words and deeds. You act like Inq's reputation was bestowed on him and not earned.  He earned it, just as you have earned yours. That's how it works. 

actually I take this back - i realized I misread something 

MissCommunication said: 

Turncoat said: 

MissCommunication said: 

Turncoat said:

Also, how do you define a 'user'?

For myself anyway, someone who's not a puppet and was around long enough to be more than a cameo? 

Having not heard their voices, three of those names could be alternate aliases of others on the list (Animerat, Deliciae, Mango). From both Legga and Inq not counting Mango I think we can cross it off the list though. 

 Is someone who visits the site, reads threads, maybe never even posts a 'user'?

Not an established one, but how would we even list people who are ghosting the place? They don't even have names. 

How could this even be presented as reason beyond justifying the "anything is possible" clause, let alone as evidence, without IPs or something? You couldn't even attach a real number to something like that. 

Over the years there have been numerous one-time posters who ask a question and leave. They used the site, are they not users?

"For myself" anyway I would not count them, which is why I began it with that. 

It'd also be difficult to have this form of "users" apply to Legga's current criteria, wouldn't it? 

For years, Luna used to post analytics that showed monthly traffic on SC, including page views, time spent on site/page and just hits. Those numbers were high - often in the tens of thousands.

You actually believed those numbers? 

Yes because I use google analytics all the time. She could have fudged them but why bother. Plus she posted them when traffic was down after various mass exodus and showed that trend despite it making her look bad. She also honestly had really good SEO. It was surprising and impressive. 

Look up how proxies and analytics bots work and you'll only be starting to get into why Luna's stats were clearly misguided. While the site did have times of boosted traffic during crossovers with other websites and media, it's not to the point that she's been led to believe and even her downtime gave goofy figures. 

See, this is where if I were you I'd be doing reputation attacks about how credible you think Luna is to have people take your points less seriously. My doing that would contribute nothing to the discussion, just like claiming that Legga is insane doesn't. 

If the term 'userbase' is not clearly defined or known it can't be determined what numbers of a specific user category are statistically representative. 

Okay, lets say that we take your notion into account: That we ought to take people who post a single time and disappear and people who've never made accounts as "Users" instead of "Lurkers" and "Visitors" or something. This with Luna's figures being shown to be silly introduces how improbable it'd be to figure this total, which would lend to using a place where we can verify it making more sense to use as a relative basis to gauge a rough estimate. 

Aka... what Legga basically already did with Reddit. It's not the best comparison, as whatever draws people to Reddit isn't necessarily related to what draws people to our forum, but it still works as a rough general internet population figure from how vastly populated Reddit itself is and from how many numerous reasons there'd be for all but the blind and illiterate to attend. In lieu of more helpful data, he made a comparison from data that could actually be found and used that as his reasoning for doubting Inquirer purely to attack the odds, not the necessary reality that happens to be the case that said odds themselves are by design trying to figure. 

Reddit isn't a good comparison. It's an entirely different type of forum. We also don't know how reddit defined and calculated their users to get the stats. Then there's the timeline factor. What time period was used to calculate those figures. One month? A year? Those stats are as valid as Legga's list lol - it's just made up. 

Knowing Legga he likely has a source for it, seeing as it wasn't hard for me to find one myself. These stats however could easily be being thrown off by proxies, seeing as just three years ago the US pop was closer to 54% according to Tech Junkie. 

I recall Legga also said he only used the EU and the US numbers as factors which just further shows he doesn't know this community and his conclusions are inaccurate.  What about Pakistan, Australia, Canada... 

Sweden is in the EU, and him nixing places outside of the EU and US would serve to make the Swedish percentage appear larger. Seeing as Legga's goal is to show there's less, not more, he's technically doing Inquirer a favor by not counting those other places. 

inb4 you say that would further prove his point. It shows that there is no statistical validity to his claims. It's hilarious though and I like it for that reason. 

That's not what I was going to say about this portion at all. 

Instead, I pose that this portion we're discussing here is a side-tangent that itself has nothing to do with the lists in question, but instead over a small tangent of their own that didn't even surpass a page. It's relation to his paper is purely over his use of the word "insane" in relation to Inquirer's head count otherwise, since Fake Sensy attempts to rationalize how larger numbers could exist. 

For the sake of argument though, Legga's point about the Swedish population though isn't completely baseless. A quick internet search yielded me that there's 7.7 billion people on Earth with 56.1% of them being internet users, accounting for 4,319,700,000 people. The United States (circa 2017) listed their population at 325.7 million with 76% of their population using the internet, accounting for 247,532,000 people. Swedes (circa 2017) listed their population at a little under 10 million with 94% of their population using the internet, accounting for around 9,400,000 people. While more people per population in Sweden use the internet, it still makes for around 3.5 Swedish internet users for every 100 American ones. 

Of course the above ignores sociological reasonings for why different cultures might find themselves here, but speaking from a basis of internet population averages focusing purely on Sweden vs USA in relation to the world pop, assuming I didn't fuck up the math anywhere we ought to have around three to four Swedes here for every one hundred Americans. 

sc traffic for the 1.5 years prior to its destruction

the dip to 0 is when we upgraded versions if i recall correctly

id also like to take this opportunity to attack tc. he talks like hes smart and knows things, but lets keep in mind that he's always been nothing more than a self-absorbed talker who has never actually contributed a single thing to sc. in fact he has no education, no job, no real friends, no family, and lives off the government for some mental dissability likely called laziness and lack of motivation. he spends his time on SC, and puts so much effort in here because even with how little hes done on SC, its still his greatest accomplishment. take what he says with a grain of salt becasue hes filled with bias that strives to shine him in a more relavent light

also it would be difficult to make up all this data