There, a place for you all to discuss this without adding to the behemoth that is "The End Is Nigh."

I agree, I almost cringe when I see that there is another post in "The End is Nigh". Whatever happened to trying to stay on subject?

Speaking of which, my post count is quite low, but I think I'll let it grow at a natural rate rather than post one word replys.

cough cough

In Response to michele9993 (#9648):

Good.

In Response to michele9993 (#9648):

I didn't post any one word replies.

BTW, I hereby submit my post count.

and here is my post count.

Odd, but I get the feeling that phrase should be reserved for the number of confirmed kills in a mail room shooting spree...

If my position of 6th is usurped I can at leat rest assured that no one is even close to my tally for the searchable archive[1]. I have a lead of 838, which means it'll be about 5 years more before even the most eager of people can catch me.

[1]Unfortunately I didn't actually enter all those and so even this claim of prowess is a lie. The glory in that claim actually goes to luvrhino and chuck (who isn't even on the forums) who both succeeded in destroying themselves on my ghastly interface only to have phillip blanket them as mine (because he's lazy, not malicious)

In Response to mea37 (#9650):

Same here.

Oh, and here is my official post count.

Post count++!

In Response to michele9993 (#9648):

Whatever happened to trying to stay on subject?

He took a train to Peru and we never saw him again.

In Response to tor (#9664):

If my position of 6th is usurped I can at leat rest assured that no one is even close to my tally for the searchable archive[1]. I have a lead of 838, which means it'll be about 5 years more before even the most eager of people can catch me.

So how many strips did you enter/edit really?

(Ooo, my meager post count shows too.)

lessie...there's one on Venice Blvd, one on Vermont Avenue.....

In Response to michele9993 (#9648):

You think you cringe?

My last-read status has been broken for about 5 days....which means EVERY entry in that monstrosity of a thread is marked as unread.

In Response to Rich (#9679):

Hard to remember (it was a couple of years ago) but I think only a couple hundred.

I did do a lot of the early moderating though. Those numbers got lost because the db changed so much that the original moderator approval was rather meaningless in the new context.

Perhaps some kind of device measuring one's posts-to-karma ratio could be developed? I mean, if one were trying to quantify post quality, that would be the route I'd take...

-- TMK (0.307)

In Response to TheMooseKing (#9691):

Whilst that appears to be a good idea there are a couple of issues.

Firstly, karma is not visible to others and so there is no verification (you know people can lie and stuff which is bad for karma IRL, so you shouldn't be trying to give people the temptation for it. I guess it is some kind of recursion where your own RL karma will be affected for giving people the temptation to damage their own karma)

Next Karma gets to 50 and stops. Which has a couple of implications.

1. An increase in posts after hitting 50 will reduce your "Quality of posts" measurement, even if they get modded up.

2. A single down mod will affect your karma, whereas any up has no effect so the "quality of post" will be damaged badly by a single drunken rant.

3. You are thinking too much about it. If you read the posts you get a pretty good feel for those that post:

meaningless junk
troll
or claim to be better than anyone else for no apparent reason

just from experience.

4. Thinking too much gives you cancer whereas drinking to slow down the brain has led to surprising and splendid inventions world wide. Go do that one. Then sell us some of your inventions, or at least post about them.

In Response to tor (#9695):

I realise that once again I am wrong. Karma is, of course, available to be viewed, even if it means looking through the individuals posts and working it out for yourself.

Damn this universe that loves making me look stupid so often!

Despite this I maintain that I am still correct in nature if not fact, in that:

1. To verify karma you'd have to scroll through loads of entries and add them up on paper, unless you were phillip and had access to the raw data, in which case you wouldn't do it at all because

2. It is still an evil waaste of drinking time.

However in persuing my entries to see how far back it goes and how my karma has gone I do notice that I have made _2_ posts (one super genius and one informative) that made it to 5. Myself I think that is cool. and for that I think I'll give myself a gold star of happiness. Well okay a green can of happiness [tuborg.com].

Oh yeah and for any Sydney based fans of the rather nice Danish beer, Jim's Bottleshop at Waitara in Sydney is selling it for about $40 a case of 24x500ml cans. I'm not saying it is a great beer, but it is a good beer and that is good value. Quite a malty lager I'd classify it as (although my classification is pretty shonky as are my tastebuds)

In Response to TheMooseKing (#9691):

I did mention this myself when the Forums v2.0 first came out, and some people liked the idea, however as Tor said, it involves too much thinking.

But as I have grown accustomed to waking up for work during the week, and the pub doesn't open til 10am on saturdays, I got bored and decided to to some research. the following is what I found out:

My posts are
3.32% Funny,
2.90% Insightful,
2.07% Pathetic and
0.41% Stupid.

Just so I don't give my karma rating away to the masses, I left out my other ratings and only included the positive karma top 3, along with the negative top 1.

In Response to tor (#9696):

There is a rough way of verifying karma. Your title is based on your karma. "Sentient Citrus" means a karma level of 41-50

In Response to tor (#9696):

It's the beer of Danish kings!

("A custom more honoured in the breach than the observance"?)

Post Count +1 bringing my total to a whooping 1! YAY!

In Response to jimmyjazz (#9720):

i stoped being such a stupid stupid poster a bit ago,
(arguably)

In Response to kornz (#9722):

that is a rediculious raiting, seeing how this is a section devoted to; "Flame wars and unending stupidity: anything goes (a la goats-fans)"

In Response to kornz (#9751):

Nahh.

You claiming not to be a stupid poster anymore definately counts as flamebait in my book.

And I wasn't even the one who gave you that rating.

But to give you some credit, you are getting better. I have to admit.

In Response to kornz (#9751):

Ok. Granted. This is the Ring of Fire. However, this style of moderation is done purely on how the post is perceived by another user (who, at this point happens to be a moderator). If he/she thinks the post is fine, then it will go unmoderated. If he/she thinks it is a "good" post (whatever "good" means to him/her), then they will mod it up/ Obviously, this particular moderator thinks that the post is flamebait.

Personally, I think this is an excellent way of moderation, in that it captures the essence of the forum without having to define it exactly. It also means that as the forum matures, the essence/ethos can also mature, and the moderation that goes on reflects this. Additionally, it means that complex rules for modding etc. do not have to be derived and maintained over time.

In Response to evilaltor (#9756):

At the same time, "Flamebait" has a specific meaning. Flamebait is intentionally posting in order to provoke a negative response.

Neither of those posts were flamebait, as neither poster has the intelligence to be that shrewd and calculating.

I've made some adjustments that should more accurately reflect their nature.

Oh, and evilaltor, when you post to a thread, your earlier moderations get negated. The characterizations stay, but the points return to where they were originally.

In Response to jon (#9758):

Neither of those posts were flamebait, as neither poster has the intelligence to be that shrewd and calculating.

Flamebait.

In Response to kornz (#9751):

I wouldn't have down-modded that post (though I wouldn't have up-modded it, either). But, that's another thing about slash moderation: It's got a sort of randomly-democratic thing going on. All it takes is for someone to think your post deserved to take a hit; that person happens to get mod points, and they can make it happen (with a few restrictions).

That's the random bit. The democratic part is that if the majority of people agree with you (that the moderation was unfair), then the meta-moderation system will register that fact.

But one thing: Just because the forum is defined as "anything goes", that doesn't negate the karmic enforcement of quality standards within the posting community.