[Unofficial wiki] - maintained by boistordu - referencing of the case open/closed/status unknown for flash sale of december


That is a basic premise of the scientific principal. Science is tentative and does not prove. It gives the best conclusions from the available data. More data can change conclusion of any science. If you know of a different scientific principal please enlighten me.

Actually has nothing to do with whether or not science proves anything


A bit sigh stays, it is still very theoretical.
I know several colleagues working as theoretical physics (using math everywhere to prove their findings) are they mathematicians or are they scientists?


Adt for one. And you are the one that jumped the gun.

I was not responding to you. I never said you said anything about data distortion. Adt does.

I have been repeatedly attacked by you and ownerer as you claim this was never said. It has been said, I did not jump to conclusions or foolishly respond. Also, representatives of Eve and others have repeatedly mentioned on this and other threads that people that received their V just don’t participate on this site. That is asinine to present that as an argument. I have addressed why previously.
So, before attacking me, how about you actually read what was posted


How about they’re two separate statements that stand on their own.

What was your point about looking at paragraph and fully quoting it anyway? Doesn’t change anything.


The philosopher mentioned has to conclude that they are mathematicians, because he argues that only mathematics can describe truth (with his specific definition of truth where “truth” is still a century old debate between the different philosophic schools).

They themselves consider their work as science and themselves as scientists.


Glad to see you back my good and thinking friend :heart_eyes:


I do not think I talked to you… neither did I attack anyone.
I feel attacked in this thread for no reason…
I might have misunderstood boistordu’s chart. Why not just telling me that I misunderstood something?


I realize this post I responded to is by bfuentes. For some reason I THOUGHT it was by boistordy. Sorry for that. Still, I stand by what I wrote in response, minus the “this is getting annoying” :wink:


I never said you did. I said you claimed the data was distorted.


Indeed. And in the process, you said data is data is data is data is data about 900 times, made several claims about statistical analyses and inferences that were just plain wrong.

And to think it wasn’t even what she said in the first place.


@Wickedly as I said to @ownerer, could you please wait before disregard anything ?
I know that you are ones of the senior creator as I said to @AML in a previous post who never actually accepted newcomers ideas especially if it cirticizes management or anything related to eve-tech and that you are even annoyed by all those newcomers who have another view on this project and company.
But I’m going to point to 3 things here :slightly_smiling_face:
First it’s an idea that I had at the same moment than @AML so actually it’s an idea from one of yours too :wink:

Second, actually mike and konsta even if I can totally imagine the PR move here, like this idea.

Three, I’m not from the same time zone and I do have a life and plenty of professional activities as so many times stated before.

I still didn’t have the time nor to answer to adt nor to AML nor to konsta and mike, nor to the update nor done what AML ask me. And even if I understand that AML not seeing it yet what could become his idea in the end, and so he can’t defend it yet properly.
-> can you please wait before to spread your venom and try to destroy everything ?
Thanks in advance…
And yes I would like a good night of sleep from time to time.

So @adt I’m going to finish to answer to you tomorrow and that will close the incident.
For the others I will explain tomorrow and yes as I said to ownerer before you can read my previous post to know what I said.
After that you can try to make irony and spit on everything if you like, okey ?


And @AML as I stated before you know I like your style recently so please don’t encourage @Wickedly as he has the tendency of fucking everything as a child or as some of my students… it’s really annoying some times. So I would be glad if I don’t have to deal with those things while we try to build something here and as it’s times consuming.



Is actually what was said. So how about you mind your own business for once.


Keep it cool.

While I know that they are spitting in the soup and you are upset about it, and that we both see more or less what it could become and the perspective of those datas, so you know I’m on your side. Just let’s try to be calm here.

I’m going to clarify things for everybody in a 24 hours time frame then we can resume our work here and have constructive ideas and continue to compiling datas


Leave it to me, I will close the incident one way or another.



I am new here, in case you are keeping still this updated, I bough my eve on 4th December flash sale, in fact, I think I was one of the first as I bought it practicaly within minutes of its opening. However, I have not got it in June and got an update for end of August.

My order contained many accessories. So I am trying to split the order so the accesories can come later, If I cannot get the eve by 18th July I will request a refund (it is a birthday present). My order number starts with #14XX


Yes I totally continue to update all of this, I will integrate your data during the day or the next. No need to worry :slight_smile:


So now I can answer to what I wanted to say, the incident with adt is closed for now. No I won’t delete her entry for very specific reasons that I explained to her.
I would specify one or 2 things.
It’s not her data. the only thing would could be interpretate as her data can be her nickname
Art. 4 GDPR Definitions
For the purposes of this Regulation:

‘personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;

the rest is only extrapolation and processing from me nothing more.

On the opposite, if people did send me their informations through private channel, that would be different and I would be obligated to delete their entry if they request it to me.

There is no building work of a commercial databank here. We are trying to assemble data to try to improve management work of eve-tech and to point to any potential wrong-doing to give the possibility to management to rectify it.

Nevertheless, if one of you feel uncomfortable with the mention of his nickname here, and if I have found her/his informations on the forum, then I would totally delete his/her entry only if she/he deletes also some posts that I would point it to him/her in counterpart.

That’s I wanted to say about the demand of deletion of some entries.


Jesus, how about we all agree that this argument (the science one) is pointless and 99% fed by semantics, language barriers and whatnot. I don’t even know what the argument is about anymore :joy:.

The one and only thing that can currently truly, objectively, scientifically be said about the data @boistordu has gathered is this:

Let’s define:

  • Buyers = all the people who have ever bought a V.
  • Subset1 = Buyers that have an account on the forums.
  • Subset2 = Subset1 that have made their situation public knowledge by posting it here.

You could even argue there is a subset3 (= subset2 and known to @boistordu), but let’s keep it simple.


  1. No one knows the ratio of Subset1/Buyers.
  2. No one knows the ratio of Subset2/Subset1.

The data found in this topic only shows Subset2. In other words:

The data found in this topic only shows the situation of the people that have bought a V at some point, have an account on the forums and have made their situation public.

Everything else is interpretation/extrapolation/speculation and therefor subject to a margin of error none of us can possibly claim to know, as demonstrated in the facts I mentioned. It could be 1%, it could be 89%. And that goes for everyone, whether they argue in favor of EVE, against them or land somewhere in between.

Some may choose to use this data to further their propaganda of painting a bad picture of EVE. Personally I choose to err on the side of caution and conclude that there are too many unknown variables to draw any kind of conclusion in the bigger picture either way.

Again, this is not to say I’m challenging @boistordu’s work here. I’m just saying: view it in its appropriate context.

I’m curious to see what more @boistordu has up his sleeve. But until new data is presented, this is all that can be said on the matter.

If our resident scientists feel like debunking any of this, by all means, have at it :slight_smile:


on a note side I would like to point also the fact, that this is a wiki and that everybody have access to it to modify or rectify data in it. Of course, since I copy paste the wiki based on an html file of mine and if I don’t think that the modifications made by someone else are relevant I won’t integrate it in my html file and so the next copy paste won’t take that into account. That’s my right as the right of everyone else.

And of course we can discuss it, I’m not closed to the discussion.
But that’s my point of view and I won’t change it if no good arguments will be presented.