The 2018 YMAM-Wide Political Scandal Survey

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 24, 2018 21:50:38 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

Jan 24, 2018 8:38:34 GMT -5 swamp said:

Questions:  Why are you doing this?   What are you going to do with the information?   Why is it better to get more data?  Isn't this too small of a group and not randomly selected, so no matter how much data we get, it's useless? 

I predict bimodal distributions requiring nonparametic modeling.

I predict you are correct in your prediction.

I haven't even glimpsed the data yet, including the number of respondents thus far.

[steff]

Jan 24, 2018 21:53:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 24, 2018 21:24:01 GMT -5 steff said:

I don't trust that my answers won't be twisted & used against me at a later date at the whims of "someone" here.  

Don't identify yourself, then.

If you don't supply a member ID or if you ask to not have your data labeled, I do hereby swear I will not label your data or otherwise associate them with you.

I'll take your previous post as your formal request to not have your data labeled unless you say otherwise.

I freely disclaim: members who submit their IDs and don't opt out of labeling open themselves to potential future criticism--by anybody--if they make definite predictions and those predictions ultimately turn out to be wrong. This didn't stop me from submitting my own feelings on where things are headed with my ID attached, but if you're worried about having to fend off "You thought X would happen and it didn't." accusations in future, omitting your ID or opting out of labeling is the option for you.

nope.  You already have too much info on us just from behind the scenes here.  I've seen first hand you abuse power you have behind the scenes.  You aren't trustworthy.  You also like to throw things in posters faces here from old posts.  You aren't trustworthy.  To think you will use any answers in good faith would be stupid on my part.   Been there, done that & I didn't like the tshirt. 

[thyme4change]

Jan 24, 2018 22:13:03 GMT -5 steff said:

Jan 24, 2018 21:53:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Don't identify yourself, then.

If you don't supply a member ID or if you ask to not have your data labeled, I do hereby swear I will not label your data or otherwise associate them with you.

I'll take your previous post as your formal request to not have your data labeled unless you say otherwise.

I freely disclaim: members who submit their IDs and don't opt out of labeling open themselves to potential future criticism--by anybody--if they make definite predictions and those predictions ultimately turn out to be wrong. This didn't stop me from submitting my own feelings on where things are headed with my ID attached, but if you're worried about having to fend off "You thought X would happen and it didn't." accusations in future, omitting your ID or opting out of labeling is the option for you.

nope.  You already have too much info on us just from behind the scenes here.  I've seen first hand you abuse power you have behind the scenes.  You aren't trustworthy.  You also like to throw things in posters faces here from old posts.  You aren't trustworthy.  To think you will use any answers in good faith would be stupid on my part.   Been there, done that & I didn't like the tshirt. 

Mine thoughts exactly

[Virgil Showlion]

Whatever.

I make no apologies for "throw[ing] things in posters faces here from old posts".

[Knee Deep in Water Chloe]

I also couldn't get past the first page of questions. 
I thought about putting a "5" because I didn't agree with the first statement one way or the other. But that didn't quite make sense for my answer either. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 24, 2018 22:22:35 GMT -5 Knee Deep in Water Chloe said:

I also couldn't get past the first page of questions. 
I thought about putting a "5" because I didn't agree with the first statement one way or the other. But that didn't quite make sense for my answer either. 

How would you word the question?

If I made the questions optional so that you could avoid answering some for whatever reason, would this change your mind?

[steff]

Jan 24, 2018 22:20:40 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Whatever.

I make no apologies for "throw[ing] things in posters faces here from old posts".

it's the way you go about using information against a poster that is the problem & exactly why you aren't trustworthy with the information you have & are trying to collect on posters.  You use it & then write a 12 page, 4,000 paragraph lecture against posters. 

It's really simple, you can't be trusted not to be a dick with any information you collect or to use it against a poster you don't agree with out of spite. 

[Jaguar]

Jan 24, 2018 22:20:40 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Whatever.

I make no apologies for "throw[ing] things in posters faces here from old posts".

And that's exactly why they shouldn't do this survey.

[Knee Deep in Water Chloe]

Jan 24, 2018 22:26:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 24, 2018 22:22:35 GMT -5 Knee Deep in Water Chloe said:

I also couldn't get past the first page of questions. 
I thought about putting a "5" because I didn't agree with the first statement one way or the other. But that didn't quite make sense for my answer either. 

How would you word the question?

If I made the questions optional so that you could avoid answering some for whatever reason, would this change your mind?

I think the quirk is in the rating scale. I cannot "agree" or "disagree" on any level with the statement: "I believe the investigation will turn up conclusive evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Pres. Trump, serious enough to warrant impeachment."

I make absolutely no presumptions about what the investigation--be it Mueller's, Starr's, or the local DA's--will turn up. Making such an assumption indicates that I can only seek out information in a way to feed a pre-determined opinion whereas I "seek first to understand". I've found in my maturing process that if I assume and am not open to differing opinions then I don't have an educated, informed opinion. 

Therefore  --assuming the statement remains the same-- I think the scale should not be linear. 
There are options of 
"I (strongly) don't believe that statement is valid."
"I (strongly believe that statement is valid."
"I cannot judge that statement because I'm not making assumptions until the results of the investigation are publicly released. 

The other option would be re-working the initial question. 
Which of the following statements is closest to your current beliefs about the investigation: 
(A) I strongly believe the investigation will prove that there was collusion between Trump, his campaign, and Russia.

(B) I believe the investigation will prove that there was collusion between Trump, his campaign, and Russia.

(C) I am not even following the investigation. 

(D) I know about the investigation and while I am anti-Trump, I trust Mueller will run an unbiased investigation and will respect his finding. 
 
(E) I know about the investigation and while I am pro-Trump, I trust Mueller will run an unbiased investigation and will respect his finding.

(F) I don't care about the results of the investigation, I know Trump did it.


(G) I don't care about the results of the investigation, I know Trump didn't do it.

 
(H) I strongly believe the investigation will prove that there was no collusion between Trump, his campaign, and Russia.

(I) I believe the investigation will prove that there was no collusion between Trump, his campaign, and Russia.

(J) What investigation? Why aren't we talking about snow leopards?



Would I answer if the questions/answers allowed for un-boxed in choices.  It's a higher possibility for me. If you changed nothing except for the choice to skip questions, yes I probably would.  Keep in mind, I didn't read the survey past the first page. 

[weltschmerz]

Jan 24, 2018 12:34:58 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 24, 2018 11:49:25 GMT -5 Opti said:

They are vastly different beliefs.

In a sense, yes.

In the sense of answering "How many members are certain it won't happen, how many are certain it will happen, and how many either don't know or don't care to speculate?", the difference is irrelevant.

Ironically, for someone as concerned about speculation (baseless or otherwise) as you're claiming to be, you speculate as much as anyone else on P/CE, often with a great deal of certainty.

If I had all the time and money in the world, I wouldn't bother to ask members to self-report. I'd hire a team to comb through each member's posts and populate the dataset based on an analysis of everything they've said on each issue. I'm confident your rating on Q1 wouldn't come back anywhere near 5 based on such an analysis, but it's quite possible that, for whatever reason, the certainty expressed in your words consistently belies uncertainty in your thoughts.

In any case, asking you to self-report is the best I can do. Since there are so few P/CE regulars, I was especially hoping that you all would indulge me in filling out the survey. Otherwise we don't get a representative sample of the P/CE contributorship, meaning the results won't accurately reflect the environment we live through in P/CE day after day.

I have a feeling you already do that.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 24, 2018 15:59:28 GMT -5 tyfighter3 said:

I think you should wait till the Nunes Memo comes out. It will show you  where the REAL scandal is.

more likely, it will expose a whole slew of state secrets for no good reason.

[Deleted]

I took the survey, but I don't appreciate that a Moderator feels it appropriate to do anything specifically to fulfill a need to "bug" a certain member...

(from the final page of the survey: ​"virgil thanks you your responses will be used to make cool charts and tables also, to bug richard " )


... and yes, it would still bother me even if his BS intention was to "bug" someone else.


ETA: Virgil should be "Cosby'd" just like I was and thrown out of the Moderators group for this, as it shows intent to have bias against members (well... one at least).

[Deleted]

Jan 24, 2018 21:24:01 GMT -5 steff said:

I don't trust that my answers won't be twisted & used against me at a later date at the whims of "someone" here.  

I actually expect that mine will (because it's Virgil giving the test, and I KNOW how he loves to twist words)... and I simply don't give a damn.

None of the questions poses a security threat and I have always maintained that barring security concerns, I will answer any question posed to me. because I literally don't care what people know about me and my beliefs. There's nothing in what I will share that anyone can use to harm me IRL.

[resolution]

Jan 25, 2018 5:39:08 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 24, 2018 21:24:01 GMT -5 steff said:

I don't trust that my answers won't be twisted & used against me at a later date at the whims of "someone" here.  

I actually expect that mine will (because it's Virgil giving the test, and I KNOW how he loves to twist words)... and I simply don't give a damn.

None of the questions poses a security threat and I have always maintained that barring security concerns, I will answer any question posed to me. because I literally don't care what people know about me and my beliefs. There's nothing in what I will share that anyone can use to harm me IRL.

I filled it out too, since it doesn't really matter what people on here think of my political opinions.  Generally if someone writes a 4 page essay or starts scolding us, I just skip it and skim for the short, witty responses. I try to save most of my brain power for more seriously written and sourced articles, and just mess around on discussion boards for easy entertainment.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 24, 2018 23:18:01 GMT -5 Jaguar said:

Jan 24, 2018 22:20:40 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Whatever.

I make no apologies for "throw[ing] things in posters faces here from old posts".

And that's exactly why they shouldn't do this survey.

Not true.

Members who don't supply identifying info or who supply it but opt out of labeling have my public guarantee I won't bring up their responses and/or use them as a basis to critique their positions in future.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 25, 2018 5:33:33 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I took the survey, but I don't appreciate that a Moderator feels it appropriate to do anything specifically to fulfill a need to "bug" a certain member...

(from the final page of the survey: ​"virgil thanks you your responses will be used to make cool charts and tables also, to bug richard " )


... and yes, it would still bother me even if his BS intention was to "bug" someone else.


ETA: Virgil should be "Cosby'd" just like I was and thrown out of the Moderators group for this, as it shows intent to have bias against members (well... one at least).

Just the one question.

But who knows? Maybe the results will confirm your view of things and I'll wind up with egg on my face.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 24, 2018 23:35:14 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Jan 24, 2018 12:34:58 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

In a sense, yes.

In the sense of answering "How many members are certain it won't happen, how many are certain it will happen, and how many either don't know or don't care to speculate?", the difference is irrelevant.

Ironically, for someone as concerned about speculation (baseless or otherwise) as you're claiming to be, you speculate as much as anyone else on P/CE, often with a great deal of certainty.

If I had all the time and money in the world, I wouldn't bother to ask members to self-report. I'd hire a team to comb through each member's posts and populate the dataset based on an analysis of everything they've said on each issue. I'm confident your rating on Q1 wouldn't come back anywhere near 5 based on such an analysis, but it's quite possible that, for whatever reason, the certainty expressed in your words consistently belies uncertainty in your thoughts.

In any case, asking you to self-report is the best I can do. Since there are so few P/CE regulars, I was especially hoping that you all would indulge me in filling out the survey. Otherwise we don't get a representative sample of the P/CE contributorship, meaning the results won't accurately reflect the environment we live through in P/CE day after day.

I have a feeling you already do that.

You've long accused me of having a "spreadsheet", but it suffices to have a reliable memory for past conversations and the "Search" button on the menu.

Tennesseer also has considerable competency in this regard. He tends to remember past conversations in some detail, he avails himself of the tools we all have access to, and he confronts members about (what he perceives to be) hypocrisy or inconsistency.

Strangely, I've never seen anyone accuse him of having a spreadsheet. Almost as though you appreciate his taking conservatives to task on their double-mindedness.

[Opti]

Jan 25, 2018 10:57:25 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 24, 2018 23:35:14 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

I have a feeling you already do that.

You've long accused me of having a "spreadsheet", but it suffices to have a reliable memory for past conversations and the "Search" button on the menu.

Tennesseer also has considerable competency in this regard. He tends to remember past conversations in some detail, he avails himself of the tools we all have access to, and he confronts members about (what he perceives to be) hypocrisy or inconsistency.

Strangely, I've never seen anyone accuse him of having a spreadsheet. Almost as though you appreciate his taking conservatives to task on their double-mindedness.

Or it might be he does it differently than you.

[emma1420]

Jan 24, 2018 22:22:35 GMT -5 Knee Deep in Water Chloe said:

I also couldn't get past the first page of questions. 
I thought about putting a "5" because I didn't agree with the first statement one way or the other. But that didn't quite make sense for my answer either. 

Unfortunately, I couldn't either.  Four of the five questions on the first page were so poorly constructed that they really aren't answerable.  I have no idea what the other pages were like as I couldn't move past the first one.

And to be honest, I find this sort of request for information from posters here to be a little inappropriate especially because it seems to be requested to confirm an agenda.

[kadee79]

Jan 25, 2018 11:27:08 GMT -5 emma1420 said:

Jan 24, 2018 22:22:35 GMT -5 Knee Deep in Water Chloe said:

I also couldn't get past the first page of questions. 
I thought about putting a "5" because I didn't agree with the first statement one way or the other. But that didn't quite make sense for my answer either. 

Unfortunately, I couldn't either.  Four of the five questions on the first page were so poorly constructed that they really aren't answerable.  I have no idea what the other pages were like as I couldn't move past the first one.

And to be honest, I find this sort of request for information from posters here to be a little inappropriate especially because it seems to be requested to confirm an agenda.

I don't read most of the OP's posts anyway....so no way would I take a survey that person developed.  And having had something "thrown" at me once by the OP...you are sh*t out of luck with me!
I agree with Steff....this person isn't trustworthy on these boards...especially since they are a Mod!

[dondub]

I also found the "bug Richard" comment to be inappropriate for this particular exercise. It speaks to the Oprah2020 game that has been played and is a cheap shot coming from a moderator. He mentioned bullies coming out on that thread and it turns out to be him. Right here.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 24, 2018 23:32:03 GMT -5 Knee Deep in Water Chloe said:

Jan 24, 2018 22:26:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

How would you word the question?

If I made the questions optional so that you could avoid answering some for whatever reason, would this change your mind?

I think the quirk is in the rating scale. I cannot "agree" or "disagree" on any level with the statement: "I believe the investigation will turn up conclusive evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Pres. Trump, serious enough to warrant impeachment."

I make absolutely no presumptions about what the investigation--be it Mueller's, Starr's, or the local DA's--will turn up. Making such an assumption indicates that I can only seek out information in a way to feed a pre-determined opinion whereas I "seek first to understand". I've found in my maturing process that if I assume and am not open to differing opinions then I don't have an educated, informed opinion. 

Therefore  --assuming the statement remains the same-- I think the scale should not be linear. 
There are options of 
"I (strongly) don't believe that statement is valid."
"I (strongly believe that statement is valid."
"I cannot judge that statement because I'm not making assumptions until the results of the investigation are publicly released. 

1. This is the same grievance Optimist has expressed. Unfortunately, there are limitations on the survey technology.

As I said to Optimist, adding a follow-up question to each primary question, asking respondents to rate their confidence in their primary response, would cause prohibitive bloating in the survey.

Reducing the question to three options is (IMO) unfeasible since the majority of respondents may not strongly believe either pro or con, and their responses should be able to reflect a spectrum of relative certainties. Furthermore, the options proposed above wouldn't address differing levels of confidence in mid-spectrum votes.

Finally, this survey tech doesn't allow the designer to explicitly attach "opt out" or "I don't know" checkboxes to scale-rated questions. The best I can do is make questions optional.

The other option would be re-working the initial question. 
Which of the following statements is closest to your current beliefs about the investigation: 
(A) I strongly believe the investigation will prove that there was collusion between Trump, his campaign, and Russia.

(B) I believe the investigation will prove that there was collusion between Trump, his campaign, and Russia.

(C) I am not even following the investigation. 

(D) I know about the investigation and while I am anti-Trump, I trust Mueller will run an unbiased investigation and will respect his finding. 
 
(E) I know about the investigation and while I am pro-Trump, I trust Mueller will run an unbiased investigation and will respect his finding.

(F) I don't care about the results of the investigation, I know Trump did it.

(G) I don't care about the results of the investigation, I know Trump didn't do it.
 
(H) I strongly believe the investigation will prove that there was no collusion between Trump, his campaign, and Russia.

(I) I believe the investigation will prove that there was no collusion between Trump, his campaign, and Russia.

(J) What investigation? Why aren't we talking about snow leopards?

2. It's an interesting alternative, although I'd be worried about the criticisms:

• (C) and (J) are too similar
• (D) and (E) heavily overlap with other responses; for example, it's possible for either statement to be completely true at the same time as (A), (B), (H) or (I); respondents might have a difficult time determining which of two true statement is truer
  
• there are no options that express distrust (i.e. the expectation of bias) in the Mueller investigation, and several members have expressed having this viewpoint in the past
• "collusion" is ill-defined (i.e. nebulous, too general a charge) and can realistically refer to charges that have no meaningful impact and/or are directed at people nobody cares about
• (F) and (G) heavily overlap with other responses (in particular, (A), (B), (C), (H) and (I))
  

In any case, I can't change the format now. I do appreciate the feedback and suggestion, however. Live and learn.0
 
Would I answer if the questions/answers allowed for un-boxed in choices.  It's a higher possibility for me. If you changed nothing except for the choice to skip questions, yes I probably would.  Keep in mind, I didn't read the survey past the first page.

3. I shall do so now.

Responses inline and numbered.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 25, 2018 11:47:41 GMT -5 dondub said:

I also found the "bug Richard" comment to be inappropriate for this particular exercise. It speaks to the Oprah2020 game that has been played and is a cheap shot coming from a moderator. He mentioned bullies coming out on that thread and it turns out to be him. Right here.

He's perfectly capable of speaking for himself, o caster of stones.

[dondub]

The boulder I saw dropped on Richard was your "bug Richard" jab. Completely unnecessary and coming from a mod it's a flagrant foul.

Richard did speak for himself so go ahead and read post #41 again. I also see others have weighed in about your bullying comment.

[Virgil Showlion]

This is a formal announcement that all survey questions (with the exception of two on page 4, not related to scandals) have been rendered optional.

For respondents either unaware of certain issues or totally uncertain about their outcomes, I maintain that "5" (the midpoint of "0 - Absolutely Not" and "10 - Absolutely") is an appropriate response to scale-rated questions in these circumstances.

Even so, if you worry that no point on the spectrum accurately reflects your viewpoint, I'd prefer that you refrain from answering specific questions than shunning the survey as a whole.

Thank you to all respondents thus far. My thanks in advance to future respondents.

[Green Eyed Lady]

This went well!

[dondub]

A lot of work to disguise a sleazy back door jab at Richard. And from a mod no less! He should be fired.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 25, 2018 12:22:18 GMT -5 dondub said:

The boulder I saw dropped on Richard was your "bug Richard" jab. Completely unnecessary and coming from a mod it's a flagrant foul.

Richard did speak for himself so go ahead and read post #41 again. I also see others have weighed in about your bullying comment.

"Bug Richard" refers to asking a question with the intent of disproving his hypothesis from the Oprah thread. Since I very recently assured another mod I'd abandon that discussion, it seems only appropriate that I not disclose the results of the offending question.

As to your accusations: nothing on a message board is necessary, and your judgment of "a flagrant foul" is in error.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 25, 2018 12:28:34 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

This went well!

It is going well.

29 responses so far. I just checked.

[swamp]

Jan 24, 2018 21:50:38 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

Jan 24, 2018 8:38:34 GMT -5 swamp said:

Questions:  Why are you doing this?   What are you going to do with the information?   Why is it better to get more data?  Isn't this too small of a group and not randomly selected, so no matter how much data we get, it's useless? 

I predict bimodal distributions requiring nonparametic modeling.

I don't know what that means, but I think it basically says the survey is a pile of shit.