WG should dissolve and give back smileyleg to TJC.

Thanks whoever, it's nice to be appreciated!

(Assuming this is from a TJC person that is...)

* Respondents were mostly male (64), with 2 reported females. The males includes one respondent who is assumed to be female by many.

And, of course, what all you horny pervs want to know: the non-anonymous woman chose to not share her age, the anonymous woman is 17 and therefore jailbait. So please behave!

(4) Falling down the stairs hurts a lot more when there's a wall halfway through your fall.

Quality ^_^

Why not disclose names in your report ?

Can you explain why top seeded sometimes falls 2nd in your rankings ? Doesn't make sense to me.

Can you explain why top seeded sometimes falls 2nd in your rankings ?

What do you mean?

Edited 2/14/2017 16:14:16

Jailbait at 17?
You live in weird country.

What do you mean?

7th Heaven for example. Unless they are not displayed in descending order ? Why ? WHY ?!? lol

Edited 2/14/2017 17:05:14

                   1    2    3    4    5    6 mean   sd
CORP            32.6 43.0  9.3  9.3  3.5  2.3 2.15 1.21
7th Heaven      52.3 20.9  3.5  8.1  7.0  8.1 2.21 1.67

Because clans are based on this (the bold) number and not on who was voted what place most.

Edited 2/14/2017 17:06:32

Yeah

Clans are sorted by mean rank.

Still doesn't make sense to me though or there should be different weights on each position (top positions heavier than lower positions), which would result in just sort by % for each position.

#### Division A ####

           1    2    3    4    5    6    7 		mean   sd        
Masters 78.9 14.4  4.4  1.1  0.0  0.0  1.1 = 100%	1.33 0.85 addition of values 1-7 shold give a total of 100%
Lynx    13.3 56.7 15.6  7.8  3.3  3.3  0.0 = 100%	2.41 1.13
Turtles  3.3 15.6 52.2 17.8 11.1  0.0  0.0 = 100%	3.18 0.94
French   2.2  6.7 16.7 34.4 21.1 16.7  2.2 = 100%	4.24 1.29
Outlaws  0.0  2.2  7.8 20.0 28.9 21.1 20.0 = 100%	5.19 1.31
One      1.1  3.3  3.3 16.7 22.2 38.9 14.4 = 100%	5.30 1.29
Blitz    2.2  1.1  1.1  3.3 13.3 17.8 61.1 = 100%	6.22 1.30

Ranked after mean.

Mean = you add up all the numbers and then divide by the number of numbers.

The percentage below each rank then shows you how many players voted them into that place.

Thanks for the nice words everyone! It was my pleasure. And obviously, I have no idea why you (mostly) guys find a report with some boring statistics funny.

To answer some of the comments:

(Assuming this is from a TJC person that is...)

This respondent is a member of TJC.

Why not disclose names in your report ?

In the survey itself, it was stated that results would be anonymized. I alone keep the non-anonymized data for quality control. I'm willing to share the fully anonymized data to anyone who can give me a good reason why they want them (i.e. an idea for a data-analysis) through PM.

Can you explain why top seeded sometimes falls 2nd in your rankings ? Doesn't make sense to me.

As linberson explained, they are ranked after mean. I went back and forth a little on this because the mean is not a great choice for this, but it is the best one there is, I believe. Sorting by number of first place votes doesn't make sense, it would put Blitz before Outlaws for example in A. Sorting by mode or median doesn't make sense either, see Q3 for example (and an additional tiebreaker would be needed).

Another system I considered was sort of a surplus votes ranking. The first ranked team is the one with the most first place votes. The second ranked team is the ones with the most first and second place votes, where first place votes count double, etc. The problem with this system is that going from first to last can give a different ranking than going from last to first, which is undesirable for a ranking system.

I considered putting weights on positions as well, as you mentioned. My initial idea was something along the lines 10-7-5-3-2-1-0. I decided against this as any choice of weights would have been arbitrary. Weights would assumingly work better if there is indeed uninformed last-place voting, as is probably the case for 7th Heaven and Apprentice.

Jailbait at 17?
You live in weird country.

In many jurisdictions, this is the case. Note that for all practical purposes the jurisdiction of the act where it happened, applies. I'm not sure under which jurisdiction Warlight.net falls in case of sexual harassment, so I erred towards caution.