Lacuna, let us have a look how a hypothesis test is done.
When somebody is raising a new allegation, the assumption of the contrary is considered as the null hypothesis, the new hypothesis as the research hypothesis.
The new hypothesis is that widespread camping on bosses is occurring and being a problem. Null hypothesis is that nothing such is taking place to a significant extent. And a new allegation has to convince the skeptics, not the believers, when it wants to be science, not religion.
Not I have to prove that the alleged camping epidemic is non-existant, but the accusers have to prove that it exists.
The first prerequisite for camping existing would be the presence of campers around boss locations. A camper suspect would be defined as a player character idling in the location or its vicinity for no obvious reason.
Therefore, every lack of a camper suspect around a given location is proof that at this given time, no camping occurred. Clearly, it is no proof that there has never been camping at that location. But as bosses use to spawn randomly, a camping which only occurs here and then is not very effective, more exactly, it is doubtful whether it is camping at all.
The significance of my observations has nothing to do with that it is mine or somebody else's. If there are these mysterious campers, everybody would have to see them. And I am one among those. Additionally, I asked others whether they saw boss locations under siege lately, the answers widely being negative.
Even those who repeatedly assert this camping epidemic failed to bring up evidence for. So far, I do not see any serious challenge for the null hypothesis. Even worse, I fail to see any evidence for non incidential presence of players around boss spawns. Hard to see how an allegation can fail more ashamably.
When somebody is raising a new allegation, the assumption of the contrary is considered as the null hypothesis, the new hypothesis as the research hypothesis.
The new hypothesis is that widespread camping on bosses is occurring and being a problem. Null hypothesis is that nothing such is taking place to a significant extent. And a new allegation has to convince the skeptics, not the believers, when it wants to be science, not religion.
Not I have to prove that the alleged camping epidemic is non-existant, but the accusers have to prove that it exists.
The first prerequisite for camping existing would be the presence of campers around boss locations. A camper suspect would be defined as a player character idling in the location or its vicinity for no obvious reason.
Therefore, every lack of a camper suspect around a given location is proof that at this given time, no camping occurred. Clearly, it is no proof that there has never been camping at that location. But as bosses use to spawn randomly, a camping which only occurs here and then is not very effective, more exactly, it is doubtful whether it is camping at all.
The significance of my observations has nothing to do with that it is mine or somebody else's. If there are these mysterious campers, everybody would have to see them. And I am one among those. Additionally, I asked others whether they saw boss locations under siege lately, the answers widely being negative.
Even those who repeatedly assert this camping epidemic failed to bring up evidence for. So far, I do not see any serious challenge for the null hypothesis. Even worse, I fail to see any evidence for non incidential presence of players around boss spawns. Hard to see how an allegation can fail more ashamably.
---
Daomei die Streunerin - religionsneutral, zivilisationsneutral, gildenneutral