lol this has the be the oddest thread ive seen in awhile but ill bite.

I am a conservative independent who will be playing both Order and Destruction. Sorry...i didnt see that option in your poll

Originally posted by Zanetanos

Originally posted by Loben

You're going to have an issue with confounding variables if you try to do any type of regression or correlation study.

 

Confounding variables only matter in causative studies, not in correlative statistical tests.  The most important thing here is that he probably won't have enough people for a statistically significant sample.

Even at low correlations (p=0), with only about 400 people (which is not uncommon here), you can get about a  0.1 error at the 0.05 level. Your sample doesn't have to be huge to make inferences. Political polls are usually a few thousand people and they draw inferences about populations of millions of people. The most important thing here is that the sampling method is bad, and the question will probably produce bias.

This is all assuming that the correlation is linear in nature. 

Also most people don't distinguish between statistically correlated and causality. I assume by the title of the post that the intention is to draw conclusions of the causitive kind. 

conservatives = order

democrats = destruction

IRL too

Originally posted by Firebrawn

conservatives = order

democrats = destruction

 

IRL too

Wouldn't it be the other way around?

Conservatives want fewer restrictions, smaller government and would rather not have social programs to help the less fortunate.

Liberals want bigger government,a stronger central government, more regulations and support more social programs to help the needy.

I'm over simplifying, of course.

Seems pretty split down the middle, regardless of politics destruction seems to lead in every category. Hence why I'm going to go Order despite the fact that Dest appeals to me more.  Yay for the Underdog.

Originally posted by EduardoASG

Originally posted by severius

Originally posted by EduardoASG

 PS: for instance Tolkien in the Lord of the Rings associates the Allied forces to the 'light' side with elven hobbits etc.. and the 'dark' side to the Axis..

The above is a complete and utter falsehood.  Tolkien himself, long before he died, said that people will attach all sorts of meanings to what he was writing and that they were all categorically wrong.  There is no allegory in Lord of the Rings, he was merely writing a new mythology for a group of people who's myths were destroyed by the Roman Empire.  Look it up and you may learn something.

 

"In 1916 Tolkien was sent to France, where he and his fellow soldiers faced the terrifying new mechanisms of modern warfare—machine guns, tanks, and poison gas—fighting in some of the bloodiest battles known to human history. Tolkien fought in the Battle of the Somme, a vicious engagement in which over a million people were either killed or wounded.

In the trenches of World War I, Tolkien began recording the horrors of war that would later surface in The Lord of the Rings. Later that year he caught trench fever, an illness carried by lice, and was sent back to England. During his convalescence, he began writing down the stories and mythology of Middle-earth, which would form the basis for The Silmarillion.

...

 

In the foreword to the second edition of The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien wrote, "By 1918, all but one of my close friends were dead." The reader cannot help but notice that the Dead Marshes of Mordor is eerily reminiscent of World War I's Western Front and its utter devastation of life. "

excerpts from : http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngbeyond/rings/influences.html

You might want to check that website and learn a bit more about what has influenced Tolkien in his wondrous writtings.

 

Like many people that wish nothing more than to perpetuate falsehoods as truth you fail to read the full foreward didn't you?  You cherry pick information in an attempt to give your false conclusions the illusion of merit where there is none.  I quote:

"As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches"  These are Tolkien's words in DIRECT refutation of the fallacy you attempt to claim as truth.

You continue to fail by confusing the differences between influence and a direct association.  It is the reader that is superimposing their thoughts on what is nothing more than and I quote again from the forward that was written by tolkien in the second edition, not from Christopher Tolkien or some other pundit: "I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them. As a guide I had only my own feelings for what is appealing or moving"

He continues: "Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."

In other words, from Tolkien himself you are wrong.  He was drawing 0 comparrisons between the Axis and Allies.  You are looking for something which is not there, plain and simple.

Welp, it's happened.
People have ran out of stupid shit to make polls about now we start on the silly crap.

"Do you think Paris Hilton's right Breast will effect the release of WAR?"

Should be the next question.
Just trying to contribute.

Interesting poll and idea; however there are numerous issues with it. However, since it is mainly for fun and enjoyment, its fine. Just do not publish your results.

The major problem that you have is that the term liberal and conservative are too broad. Most people are liberal and conservative, it just depends on the issue at hand.

To relate this directly to WAR, I can see very liberal and very conservative ideals in the Empire for example.

I am not suggesting you do a poll on it but it would be interesting to see (for United States players) what party identification players have and what side they choose: Republican, Democrat, or 3rd party. With this being an election year, it would be very interesting just for fun, nothing more. In NO way would the poll even be remotely scientific. And thats opening a huge can of worms which I think should remain closed!! :)

I am a political scientist and teach it and to be completely honest, I have always speculated about political party identification and MMO players - again, just for fun and such, nothing more.

I'm not a fan of this poll. There is NO correlation between your politcal stance and what side you play in WAR... it's just a matter of preference, generally due to the visual aspect.

[EDIT]: As can be seen by the current poll results, I was right - no correlation at all!

Originally posted by fiontar

Originally posted by Firebrawn

conservatives = order

democrats = destruction

 

IRL too

Wouldn't it be the other way around?

Conservatives want fewer restrictions, smaller government and would rather not have social programs to help the less fortunate.

Liberals want bigger government,a stronger central government, more regulations and support more social programs to help the needy.

I'm over simplifying, of course.

Actually, come to think of it, conservatives are destruction (they're the ones who love war and tearing up other countries).

Originally posted by ParkCarsHere

I'm not a fan of this poll. There is NO correlation between your politcal stance and what side you play in WAR... it's just a matter of preference, generally due to the visual aspect.

[EDIT]: As can be seen by the current poll results, I was right - no correlation at all!

Hiya, I never intended to make people believe there was or was not a correlation between the side played in WAR and basic political philosophy in the USA.  I made the poll to see if any recognizable trends would emerge and it was mainly just to satisfy my own personal curiosity as to whether a correlation trend could be seen to exist or not.   Obviously you must have found the poll usefull as you find it proves a point you'd like to make with the data set provided.  A result of no correlation at all is still a valid result, and I was not leaning toward any particular conclusion when I put this poll together. 

I hope this helps.

Originally posted by Firebrawn

Originally posted by fiontar

Originally posted by Firebrawn

conservatives = order

democrats = destruction

 

IRL too

Wouldn't it be the other way around?

Conservatives want fewer restrictions, smaller government and would rather not have social programs to help the less fortunate.

Liberals want bigger government,a stronger central government, more regulations and support more social programs to help the needy.

I'm over simplifying, of course.

 

Actually, come to think of it, conservatives are destruction (they're the ones who love war and tearing up other countries).

The government in UK that backed both the Afgan and Iraq wars was a Labour government (left of center). Also the Nazi Government in Germany was a socialist party (left of center), and the Soviet Union and many Asian countries were as left wing as you could get but still caused destruction.

Originally posted by mcharj11

Originally posted by Firebrawn

Originally posted by fiontar

Originally posted by Firebrawn

conservatives = order

democrats = destruction

 

IRL too

Wouldn't it be the other way around?

Conservatives want fewer restrictions, smaller government and would rather not have social programs to help the less fortunate.

Liberals want bigger government,a stronger central government, more regulations and support more social programs to help the needy.

I'm over simplifying, of course.

 

Actually, come to think of it, conservatives are destruction (they're the ones who love war and tearing up other countries).

 

The government in UK that backed both the Afgan and Iraq wars was a Labour government (left of center). Also the Nazi Government in Germany was a socialist party (left of center), and the Soviet Union and many Asian countries were as left wing as you could get but still caused destruction.

 

 

lol, actually, when i think REALLY think about it, democrats are responsible for most of the american deaths in America (caused by declaring war). I remember a statistic like 90% of wars declared and fought have been at the hands of democratic majority governments.

Originally posted by fiontar

Originally posted by Firebrawn

conservatives = order

democrats = destruction

 

IRL too

Wouldn't it be the other way around?

Conservatives want fewer restrictions, smaller government and would rather not have social programs to help the less fortunate.

Liberals want bigger government,a stronger central government, more regulations and support more social programs to help the needy.

I'm over simplifying, of course.

You would think so, but it doesn't quite seem to work out that way.  Both sides are rather contradictory.

Bah, there are no political parties. Just illusions of control. Much the same way living in an online world is an illusionary world. There is the only correlation between WAR and politics. They are both illusions.

There are just those with power, and those who want power. Power to make them feel like they have some sort of control over their little worlds and the people in them. It's all BS, smoke screens and shadows..."pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". The political leaders in any party don't really care about you, they only care about your support. Your money and your vote. Why? So they can be on top just a little longer, get what they think they need, control what they think they need to control to make the world more enjoyable for themselves before they die. Sure, there are idealists. But what are they really? Just someone making a moral/ethical judement to better define their own pathetic existance.

So vote or don't vote. Vote Democratic or vote Republican. Its really a vote for the same thing. And in the end nothing will change, nothing of any real substance. Play WAR or don't play WAR. Much like the game of politics, WAR will go on with or without you.

Oh, btw, I voted independent/uncertain.

Lotta people doing regression analyses and creating professional surveys and polls on this forum.  Didn't realize the community was so well educated.

Head.....Hurtz.....*winces in pain*......

This is actually a really interesting poll/topic for discussion.  Good going coming up with it.    You'll have to send the results of your research to the official campaigns so that they can market their advertising accordingly. 

USA It's biggest problem are the jesus lovers.

Think about it,

Originally posted by Sypro

USA It's biggest problem are the jesus lovers.

Think about it,

Explain...

Originally posted by Sypro

USA It's biggest problem are the jesus lovers.

Think about it,

If you are going to broach the topic of religion, you probably need to start your own thread.  I think the topic of politics and gaming is probably controversial enough to keep this thread going without turning into a flame war.

I hope this helps.

I'm surprised that "Uncertain" wasn't the #1 liberal choice.

I think that a preliminary trend can be established based on the small data set here.  At the time of this post Destruction has a lead over Order amoung self identified Independents, Conservatives, and Liberals.  This suggests that people who identify with those political factions are all more likely to identify with Anarchy and personal freedom (aka destruction) than they are to identify with Fascism and state control (aka order).  Thank you to everyone who participated.

Originally posted by zmortis

I think that a preliminary trend can be established based on the small data set here.  At the time of this post Destruction has a lead over Order amoung self identified Independents, Conservatives, and Liberals.  This suggests that people who identify with those political factions are all more likely to identify with Anarchy and personal freedom (aka destruction) than they are to identify with Fascism and state control (aka order).  Thank you to everyone who participated.

It doesn't suggest anything like you say.....or really anything at all.

Originally posted by zmortis

I think that a preliminary trend can be established based on the small data set here.  At the time of this post Destruction has a lead over Order amoung self identified Independents, Conservatives, and Liberals.  This suggests that people who identify with those political factions are all more likely to identify with Anarchy and personal freedom (aka destruction) than they are to identify with Fascism and state control (aka order).  Thank you to everyone who participated.