How would you propose this be fixed then Mentalist? You highlighted the info, so I figure you have some ideas on ways to increase activity.

I agree with what Alexander said. I'd like to hear more from the Mentalist about this. It's easy to lay out "facts" and walk away. 

Patrick had been sitting on the sidelines, listening intently to everyone as they browsed the sheet and made their comments, talking among themselves. He immediately noticed assumptions being made about the intent of the statistics, and several individuals completely disregarding the information as invalid.

He was glad that he had done some investigation of his own before commenting, and decided now was a good time to start debating whether anything shown here was a problem to be addressed, or simply fluff to be dismissed. He opted to answer what he could as he saw either constructive questions, or bashing statements.

How exactly is activity level determined? I wonder if anyone could actually break it down for the citizens of this fair world.

Reply by: Blu_Blank at Jun 18, '14 15:01

I did some research of My own with the individuals that collect the data and found that it is calculated much in the same way as prowess, and is comparative and averaged between all the CLs/Upper Structure. I already know for a fact that just "sitting there with their fingers up their arses for twelve hours per day" will not bring it up.

I however have not stated that this is a "be all, end all" way to sort out exactly how "good" a leader is, but only a way to estimate how much work they are putting in compared to their peers.

I wonder what would happen if none upper structure members were rated in the same way as the uppers are. I have a feeling that most people would find out they are well below average activity levels.

Reply by: Blu_Blank at Jun 18, '14 15:51

They are, actually, in the form of prowess, only they are compared to others of their own rank, and it is not public knowledge. Those in leadership roles will always be scrutinized by the general public, and if they do not put themselves out there, statistics like these will be all the public will have to go on.

How would you propose this be fixed then Mentalist? You highlighted the info, so I figure you have some ideas on ways to increase activity.

Reply by: Alexander at Jun 18, '14 16:19

First of all, I merely put up a sheet of unbias statistics, and have not come to a conclusion yet, or made an accusation that something had to be "fixed". As to the second part though, any increase in activity, as a result from this thread, or any constructive debate within it, would be a win in My eyes.

Thirdly, although The-Mentalist has failed to provide us with any kind of opinions or argument to put this data into context of any particular stance he may hold, I'm going to assume that he's trying to call out uppers based on these stats for being inactive.

Reply by: Maria at Jun 18, '14 17:03

To "assume" just makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me". 

Not to toot his horn as he does it far too often and easily for himself, but lronSight is a prime example of the type of leader I enjoy seeing. Someone thats willing to graft and give their thoughts regardless of how someone may view those thoughts. If we had far more leaders like him I dare say this world would be a better place.

Reply by: TyrionLannister at Jun 18, '14 19:59

As he has an excellent Street presence and puts himself out there rather then letting a statistic estimate how well he is doing, I would tend to agree.  I'm not quite sure how this enforces your agreement with Maria's assumptions though.

"This has very little to do with measuring the success of a leader. However, it could be used as a reason to directly insult Jono and Ajani and that's something I can get behind. If you specifically speak of their ineptitude I will force myself to get behind this idea... otherwise, as others have previously stated the cold hard fact is you're harping over a pointless statistic. For those of you who put faith in this (if there is anyone else) being any kind of a sign, will my Organized Crime success rate or total number of Pick Pockets be how I'm judged next?"

Reply by: lronSight at Jun 18, '14 22:04

I'm having a hard time sifting out which parts of this statement/questions are facetious and which are actually how you feel personally, but considering the trolling that had been preceding it, I'll let My previous answers/statements be rebutted by you instead.

If you're looking to judge how hard people work off that thing, then you need to take a step back and reevaluate what that thing exactly stand for. Not hard work,but  time put into being seen around in the open.

Reply by: Mako at Jun 18, '14 22:48

I'm pretty sure it could be used in conjunction with other factors to come up with an idea/estimation of how much said leader/upper is investing in their role, much like witness statements are used to judge an estimate of how much investment an individual is putting into their weapon. I have yet not stated that this is a guaranteed picture of how "good" or "bad" they are, but again, more assumptions being made as to my intentions, which is perfectly fine. I accept that.

I agree with what Alexander said. I'd like to hear more from the Mentalist about this. It's easy to lay out "facts" and walk away. 

Reply by: Madness at Jun 18, '14 23:21

I was never planning to just "walk away", but I wanted to get a sense of what these statistics meant to people before commenting/debating further. I look forward to more discussion on the topic, and thank everyone so far for their contributions.

I'm pretty sure it could be used in conjunction with other factors to come up with an idea/estimation of how much said leader/upper is investing in their role, much like witness statements are used to judge an estimate of how much investment an individual is putting into their weapon. I have yet not stated that this is a guaranteed picture of how "good" or "bad" they are, but again, more assumptions being made as to my intentions, which is perfectly fine. I accept that.

I wouldn't look too far into that. To use your gun you only need to be around for a minute out of an hour. That thingy majig judges you by minutes seen around the block. Surely you can have low activity and build this properly, considering you're around for that minute to get yours. I've seen of the most active leaders this world has held, and they wouldn't be contenders for what I see as 'building a cannon'. In today's world, it's fairly easy to do.

We also have coffee shops. If you don't see me it doesn't mean that I'm not here. There are plenty of forms of communication of which we can relate back and forth to each other. Now, if you cut yourself off from all these communications, then that's a completely different story. I know plenty of speakers who might appear to 'not be around', but are actively working on their next project, which in a sense, if you want to do it right and nicely your activity from this world will be effected by putting work to perfection.

Sure, it shows that the crewleader and their hands are 'seen', but it doesn't judge hard work. To be fair, how could it judge work based off the minute? I'm losing activity right now by just coming up with a proper response to yours, but that's to judge that me and mine are not working hard behind the scene? Mehhh on that. People judge how much work is put into something, not a crest.

First of all, I merely put up a sheet of unbias statistics, and have not come to a conclusion yet, or made an accusation that something had to be "fixed". As to the second part though, any increase in activity, as a result from this thread, or any constructive debate within it, would be a win in My eyes.

"This is false, as someone who works around statistics all the time, putting percentages at Average and Below intentionally drifts a readers perspective towards something you see rather than what the data is necessarily telling. It was unbiased until that point, and then when combined with a word like 'staggering' meant you did interpret the data for the reader on your own. Actually, this line right here states that the distribution is proper according to a basic normal distribution assumption where the majority will be closer to average and similar numbers should be present above and below what's deemed average."

I did some research of My own with the individuals that collect the data and found that it is calculated much in the same way as prowess, and is comparative and averaged between all the CLs/Upper Structure. I already know for a fact that just "sitting there with their fingers up their arses for twelve hours per day" will not bring it up.

"All this means is that there is varying activity among upper structure members of the community... which is something to be expected."

To "assume" just makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me".

"And to pretend you live your life without assumptions means you have a misunderstanding of the word. Do you check to make sure the ground underneath your foot can support your weight before every step you take on a sidewalk? If not... you're making assumptions with every step you take. Assumptions are a part of everyday life and the basis of higher thought, they're often both relevant in discussions of this sort and lead to real discoveries, but should be properly qualified as assumptions so others don't mistake it for fact. So if one is misleading it's best to focus on the thought process behind the assumption rather than the fact it is an assumption itself."

"My own previous statements were made of jest for those who thought it proper to bring me into the conversation while slightly expressing my own opinion I greatly disagree with the statistical value of the data presented. I must admit I would've preferred to avoid this subject because I do feel it is important for leaders to be active even if this particular data set isn't relevant for judgement of that in my eyes. That means that expressing my opinion actually hurts the long term goal you and I share, and despite my comments both prior and present I truly hope you see some success, even though it won't be noticeable with that data set."

"I hope this wasn't overstepping my bounds speaking in response to comments meant for others, I just couldn't resist the urge to comment on whatever I felt required attention after becoming truly involved in the discussion."

To "assume" just makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me". 

When you're too damn lazy to do anything other than spew out random "facts", with no context or consideration for any factors which may weigh in to their validity and usefulness, and offering no kind of argument surrounding them - when you literally cannot be arsed to do anything other than spew out these "facts" - don't then go playing the smart arse with the people who've taken the time to try to make this entire speech something meaningful. 

Did you actually think this speech out so poorly that you expected people to read these statistics and go, "Oh, fair enough. Very interesting. I'll just go about my day now"? That doesn't tend to be how these streets work. If this WAS how these streets work, I'd question why we bother making them part of our world at all. Or is it just that you're simply too scared to have people argue with your opinions, so you'll dodge sharing them for as long as possible?

When you can't be arsed to contextualize your own words, don't then be surprised when others interpret what you have brought out here and guess that you have a particular agenda by doing so. 

Be too damn lazy to put your random statistics into any kind of context, and just go ahead and make an "ass" out of yourself mate. The fact that this speech has garnered any response at all is far more down to the people who have taken the time to make something of it than it is down to anything you've done.

I did some research of My own with the individuals that collect the data and found that it is calculated much in the same way as prowess, and is comparative and averaged between all the CLs/Upper Structure. I already know for a fact that just "sitting there with their fingers up their arses for twelve hours per day" will not bring it up.

My own understanding of how this was collected was that it was simply collected using the hours per week that each uppers member spends online in this world - or at least, I'm fairly sure that that is how it was explained to my ancestor by one of the Gods when this counter was introduced. Unless something has been added to the criteria since, I'm fairly sure that you do not have to do anything other than simply stay present for however many hours for it to count. You could literally sit around and not lift one finger to commit a crime, as long as your face was visible to others. This is then averaged between all the uppers to create the rankings. 

Before I'd take your word for this, I'd like to get it clarified by someone with some authority around here. Perhaps if one of the Gods notices this, they could take a few seconds to clarify for us?

Before I'd take your word for this, I'd like to get it clarified by someone with some authority around here.

You called? But seriously this was the answer one of the Gods gave when I brought this exact same topic up back when I was just starting out in these streets. Nowadays I just stand around with the rest of the other average guys, thumb in ass.

Extreme OOC here, but just for clarification:

The upper structure activity listed in Crew Info page for new members only lists activity on a very simple level.  It simply tallies up the total number of minutes you appear on the 60 second list over the course of a week.  We have LHM who are active 10 minutes in the past week, a GF active for 2 hours in the past week, all the way up to a RHM who is active for 90 hours in the past week.  The levels simply compare you against the combined average of all upper structure for the week, which at this moment is 32.3 hours. 

From this data, you can't necessarily tell who works their ass off and who doesn't, but you are able to get a general feel of who is around and who isn't.  Someone who is here 10 minutes a week is on an entirely different level than someone who is online to a tune of 540x more active.

To form your own opinion, you should factor in other things, like how active they are in the forums, which we also give you a link in everyone's profile to see their forum activity.  What level they are at compared to their age.  Whatever info you want to add on, if its not private info - you are generally able to look for the answer yourself.

So sure, its a crude tool, and is not granular, but it will help educate you on who could be a better person to match to your activity time.

-Squishy

Patrick got the bartenders attention, ordering a drink and sipping it quietly while he listened, sparking up a cigarette and taking a few long drags. Obviously the general consensus was that the statistics he had posted were not an exact science, or the greatest representation of what goes on behind the scenes, but at the same time, could they just be disregarded completely, and if so, why are they even there?

I wouldn't look too far into that. To use your gun you only need to be around for a minute out of an hour. That thingy majig judges you by minutes seen around the block. Surely you can have low activity and build this properly, considering you're around for that minute to get yours. I've seen of the most active leaders this world has held, and they wouldn't be contenders for what I see as 'building a cannon'. In today's world, it's fairly easy to do.

Reply by: Mako at Jun 19, '14 00:28

This was in response to "I'm pretty sure it could be used in conjunction with other factors to come up with an idea/estimation of how much said leader/upper is investing in their role, much like witness statements are used to judge an estimate of how much investment an individual is putting into their weapon." 

I can see that you misunderstood the comparison I was trying to make. I was not in any way saying that the size of an individual's gun makes them a good or bad leader, but that the two forms of estimation were similar. I was likening the gathering of these statistics to the gathering of witness statements. Neither is an exact science, and therefore does not show a true picture of how much investment the individual is putting into either activity, or their gun, unless they are combined with other factors.

"This is false, as someone who works around statistics all the time, putting percentages at Average and Below intentionally drifts a readers perspective towards something you see rather than what the data is necessarily telling. It was unbiased until that point, and then when combined with a word like 'staggering' meant you did interpret the data for the reader on your own. Actually, this line right here states that the distribution is proper according to a basic normal distribution assumption where the majority will be closer to average and similar numbers should be present above and below what's deemed average."

Reply by: lronSight at Jun 19, '14 01:04

I digress on two points. According to the law of averages, it would be impossible for everyone in said group to be above average, and even though I was not trying to bash the upper structure for inactivity, I was attempting to bring some light to it, and possibly through this thread, raise the standard slightly. Still, the actual statistics, although we've already come to the conclusion that they are not an exact science, were unbias, other than what you pointed out in the percentages I added into the bottom. I showed everyone's activity level, the good and the bad, and that is what I had meant by unbias.

"And to pretend you live your life without assumptions means you have a misunderstanding of the word. Do you check to make sure the ground underneath your foot can support your weight before every step you take on a sidewalk? If not... you're making assumptions with every step you take. Assumptions are a part of everyday life and the basis of higher thought, they're often both relevant in discussions of this sort and lead to real discoveries, but should be properly qualified as assumptions so others don't mistake it for fact. So if one is misleading it's best to focus on the thought process behind the assumption rather than the fact it is an assumption itself."

Reply by: lronSight at Jun 19, '14 01:04

You seriously wrote a whole paragraph in response to a quote that I retorted in response to someone else, even after you had a bout of ridiculousness that borderlined  trolling yourself?

"My own previous statements were made of jest for those who thought it proper to bring me into the conversation while slightly expressing my own opinion I greatly disagree with the statistical value of the data presented. I must admit I would've preferred to avoid this subject because I do feel it is important for leaders to be active even if this particular data set isn't relevant for judgement of that in my eyes. That means that expressing my opinion actually hurts the long term goal you and I share, and despite my comments both prior and present I truly hope you see some success, even though it won't be noticeable with that data set."

Reply by: lronSight at Jun 19, '14 01:04

Aye, we've already come to the conclusion that we need more than just these statistics to show how hard a leader is working/ doing their job, but besides that, what can we do to promote more activity? We seem to both have the same goal, as you've stated, even though you seem to have the misconception that I am basing my view of Crew Leader/ Upper Structures activity on just these statistics alone.

Be too damn lazy to put your random statistics into any kind of context, and just go ahead and make an "ass" out of yourself mate. The fact that this speech has garnered any response at all is far more down to the people who have taken the time to make something of it than it is down to anything you've done.

Reply by: Maria at Jun 19, '14 03:10

I wasn't exactly sure which part of your post to put up here, since you repeated yourself so many times, but thank you Maria for making this thread such a success and pointing out just how lazy I am. Your contributions are appreciated.

You called? But seriously this was the answer one of the Gods gave when I brought this exact same topic up back when I was just starting out in these streets. Nowadays I just stand around with the rest of the other average guys, thumb in ass.

Reply by: Desmand at Jun 19, '14 03:24

Extreme OOC here, but just for clarification:

The upper structure activity listed in Crew Info page for new members only lists activity on a very simple level.  It simply tallies up the total number of minutes you appear on the 60 second list over the course of a week.  We have LHM who are active 10 minutes in the past week, a GF active for 2 hours in the past week, all the way up to a RHM who is active for 90 hours in the past week.  The levels simply compare you against the combined average of all upper structure for the week, which at this moment is 32.3 hours. 

From this data, you can't necessarily tell who works their ass off and who doesn't, but you are able to get a general feel of who is around and who isn't.  Someone who is here 10 minutes a week is on an entirely different level than someone who is online to a tune of 540x more active.

To form your own opinion, you should factor in other things, like how active they are in the forums, which we also give you a link in everyone's profile to see their forum activity.  What level they are at compared to their age.  Whatever info you want to add on, if its not private info - you are generally able to look for the answer yourself.

So sure, its a crude tool, and is not granular, but it will help educate you on who could be a better person to match to your activity time.

-Squishy

 Thank you Desmand, but if I may ask, exactly how long ago did you receive that, as the info I got the day I tacked up the sheet was a bit different, although more vague than this.

At the moment, we do not have a great way to measure how active someone is in the position they've been given, although a lot of factors can be combined to give a good clue. So here is the thing. Should there be a standard? Should new life coming into this world just have to deal with where they end up?

Active leaders will promote activity from their members. Lead by example. A leader that is willing to put himself or herself out there for people to see will always garner more respect in my eyes. Do not make these statistics the only way for people to cast judgement on you.

Patrick sat back with a great sigh, finishing the rest of his drink and lighting another cigarette while waiting for more discussion.

Draven listens carefully to everything being said knowing she herself is one of the "low activity crew leaders."

Mentalist.. She pauses a bit as she looks up at the sky and watches a few of the birds fly by. Is activity all that matters to you? I mean I can understand someone never on and such.. But is that your primary concearn really in this things of ours? She notices a bird land on a seat next to her and she glances at it before returning her gaze at The-Mentalist.

While some might not be on day in and day out, do you not think that there are some kind of qualities that some people find in these crew leaders that might still make people want to be there? I mean I can not, nor will I speak on behalf of any of my people or my hands, but sometimes (just sometimes) there are things that happen to take our attention away.

She popped her head over to the bird happily eatting a worm. Giving a slight smile to it she looks out over at all those upon the crowd that happen to be listening or those that go about their day in front of them.

Sometime this time, here that we have, goes by so quickly you don't even bother to get to know any of those in your family. Sometimes it goes by just quickly enough to know everyone there and your lineage looks back upon them (regardless as what others think) as great.

I can look at any number of people and not think fuck.. They are inactive damn oh well push them away and call them IA or hell even come in the streets and be like screw them..

Instead I look at it as a concearn as to what has captured their attention, and with that the first question I ask is are they ok?

Am I bad for thinking like this? Hell I don't know, but I can say I rather like it. I like knowing that when those around me are here they work damn fucking hard, and even when they might be off for a bit here and there they still are working even fucking harder.