[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
No question their randomization algorithm was [censored] up.

[/ QUOTE ]

While your calculation is very clear, I have a very difficult time understanding how exactly you got to the quoted conclusion. In fact I don't see how can any conclusion about the goodness of an RNG be a result of such an "experiment". As I said in the original thread, the probability of getting _any specific group_ of names is equal to the probability of getting _any other specific group_ of names.

It is exactly the same as tossing a dice n times, getting a sequence of n heads in a row and then say: "this dice is clearly biased". Well, it might or might not be biased. The fact that you have a "suspicious" sequence is far from being enough in order to make such a strong assertion about the "randomness" of it.

Here's maybe another perspective to think about it:

Suppose Empire randomly chooses names, with a very good RNG or whatever, and the result is exactly this group of names that goes from A to C. Now they obviously think (like most of the people on 2+2, it seems) that this result won't look random, or in fact isn't random for some reason, so they "delete" it and start again. Won't you agree that there's some problematic aspect in even considering that there's something "wrong" (i.e, non-random) with the first group, if this is the practical result?

To be clear: I'm not trying to defend Empire or anything, as far as I care it could be any other site or company or whatever. I'm only interested in the pure theoretical discussion.

I'll be very interested to read your reply and more opinions.