PDA

View Full Version : Arrogant one's trolls (split from a repertoire for black)



Arrogant-One
09-02-2005, 10:58 PM
It has come to my attention that Ian Rout uses chesschat.org more often than most members and I therefore propse that Ian start paying higher dues than the rest of us accordingly.

Hear, Hear!

JGB
09-02-2005, 11:32 PM
It has come to my attention that Ian Rout uses chesschat.org more often than most members and I therefore propse that Ian start paying higher dues than the rest of us accordingly.

Hear, Hear!

Why?

Garvinator
09-02-2005, 11:39 PM
It has come to my attention that Ian Rout uses chesschat.org more often than most members and I therefore propse that Ian start paying higher dues than the rest of us accordingly.

Hear, Hear!
this post is a much better model of trolling, well done, you put some more effort into this one. Anyone want to give it a grade for trolling :lol:

eclectic
09-02-2005, 11:55 PM
this post is a much better model of trolling, well done, you put some more effort into this one. Anyone want to give it a grade for trolling :lol:

You mean there ISN'T a TOP TEN TROLLERS LIST here somewhere?

:owned:

Mark

(Can't wait to see the admins and moderators compile one ... :whistle: )
( ... or an individual "Trollability Index" based on some algorithm which processes and "interprets" input ...)

:hand:

Garvinator
10-02-2005, 12:01 AM
( ... or an individual "Trollability Index" based on some algorithm which processes and "interprets" input ...)

:hand:
or a metric perhaps ;)

firegoat7
10-02-2005, 11:52 AM
Hello,

Lets accept AOs misguided reasoning and multiply Ians dues by 100 times. I'm sure Ian would agree that the penalty does justice to the crime.

Cheers FG7

ursogr8
10-02-2005, 11:57 AM
or a metric perhaps ;)

BG 5206
gg'' 4064
starter 3147
etc

JGB
10-02-2005, 12:06 PM
BG 5206
gg'' 4064
starter 3147
etc

...hmmm interesting but still trailing steadily ...

Garvinator
10-02-2005, 12:21 PM
i cant read the market as its in white, but i can just see my name mentioned :eek:

JGB
10-02-2005, 12:26 PM
i cant read the market as its in white, but i can just see my name mentioned :eek:

I wonder how many others never caught onto Starters "internal" game? Just highlight it in blue, you will see all of the little metrics he "hides". See what tricks are in store for us now?

Trent Parker
10-02-2005, 12:27 PM
i cant read the market as its in white, but i can just see my name mentioned :eek:

click and drag ggray :D

ursogr8
10-02-2005, 12:38 PM
I wonder how many others never caught onto Starters "internal" game? Just highlight it in blue, you will see all of the little metrics he "hides". See what tricks are in store for us now?

Now?


What have you missed in the past ........................................... :hmm:

JGB
10-02-2005, 01:02 PM
Now?


What have you missed in the past ........................................... :hmm:

me, I doubt very much important. But if one had not unveiled your little clear scrip, I assume there are others. Im sure you will think of something...

Alan Shore
10-02-2005, 04:54 PM
BG 5206
gg'' 4064
starter 3147
etc

......

Starter weren't you supposed to be doing some writing instead of following these useless postcount pursuits?

ursogr8
10-02-2005, 05:10 PM
......

Starter weren't you supposed to be doing some writing instead of following these useless postcount pursuits?

hi BD

You Daylight Losers sure have added a bit of spice to the board in recent months. Don't spoil it now by slipping into a carping mode...leave that to gg''.........he started the 'obsession thread'. Where did you get this ArrowGent Won?

Actually the useless tag in your post is false. The rate of use of the three unseemly words has declined since the metric has been in my signature line. Now, form a theory about that evidence.

regards
starter

Alan Shore
10-02-2005, 05:24 PM
hi BD

You Daylight Losers sure have added a bit of spice to the board in recent months. Don't spoil it now by slipping into a carping mode...leave that to gg''.........he started the 'obsession thread'. Where did you get this ArrowGent Won?

Actually the useless tag in your post is false. The rate of use of the three unseemly words has declined since the metric has been in my signature line. Now, form a theory about that evidence.

regards
starter

Starter,

I was not referring to your sig, I found that metric quite amusing. I refer to your post I quoted. Try to stay with us, old man. :D

Re: 'A.W.' yeah, he is a real find isn't he? Haha.

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2005, 06:17 PM
Actually the useless tag in your post is false. The rate of use of the three unseemly words has declined since the metric has been in my signature line. Now, form a theory about that evidence.

Unfortunately as usual your metric is flawed. ;)

It is not a true measure of where the words were used because it includes posts where the word appears in a quote of another post.

BTW it appears the search function has a problem and it is not finding all occurences of words. e.g. it currently shows the word moron being first used by CL back on 02-01-2004 at 09:34 PM. It was however in the immediately preceding post as part of a quote and used a few posts prior to that by me.

ursogr8
10-02-2005, 07:15 PM
Unfortunately as usual your metric is flawed. ;)

Bill

OK. I will bite. How can this metric be flawed. At face value it is an estimator of the number of times that three particular words appear on the BB.
It fails to measure posts in the SHOUTBOX. It fails to measure PMs between posters. It may or may not count posts in private Mt B. regions that the rest of us cannot see. It fails to count the posts in the hidden MODs forum. It fails to count Coffee Lounge posts perhaps.
But that just makes it an under-estimator. of the total number of occurrences An under-estimator is not flawed Bill, it is just biased downwards.

And even the under-estimation bias is not relevant if the statistician is hoping to measure the effect of the rate of change of these three words on the chesschat.com, rather than the total number of occurrences over time.


It is not a true measure of where the words were used because it includes posts where the word appears in a quote of another post.

And you had better expand on this too Bill because we (users of SEARCH) all know the search function picks up posts that quote posts. So what is not true Bill?


BTW it appears the search function has a problem and it is not finding all occurences of words. e.g. it currently shows the word moron being first used by CL back on 02-01-2004 at 09:34 PM. It was however in the immediately preceding post as part of a quote and used a few posts prior to that by me.

Feel free to add it to Karthick's job list. But Amiel and I would prefer him to restore 'Who is on-line' first.


starter

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2005, 07:22 PM
Bill

OK. I will bite. How can this metric be flawed. At face value it is an estimator of the number of times that three particular words appear on the BB.
It fails to measure posts in the SHOUTBOX. It fails to measure PMs between posters. It may or may not count posts in private Mt B. regions that the rest of us cannot see. It fails to count the posts in the hidden MODs forum. It fails to count Coffee Lounge posts perhaps.
But that just makes it an under-estimator. of the total number of occurrences An under-estimator is not flawed Bill, it is just biased downwards.

And even the under-estimation bias is not relevant if the statistician is hoping to measure the effect of the rate of change of these three words on the chesschat.com, rather than the total number of occurrences over time.It is flawed as a metric because it misrepresents the situation.

And you had better expand on this too Bill because we (users of SEARCH) all know the search function picks up posts that quote posts. So what is not true Bill?It is not a true representation of where the words were used as intended.


Feel free to add it to Karthick's job list. But Amiel and I would prefer him to restore 'Who is on-line' first.On this we agree.

ursogr8
10-02-2005, 07:23 PM
Starter,
I was not referring to your sig, I found that metric quite amusing. I refer to your post I quoted. Try to stay with us, old man. :D

BD

The post you quoted finished with
etc.


That is where the ambiguity of termination occurred in my reading.

ursogr8
10-02-2005, 07:44 PM
It is flawed as a metric because it misrepresents the situation.
It is not a true representation of where the words were used as intended.

On this we agree.

Bill

I refer you to the protocol outlined in post#17 on this other thread (http://67.43.11.40/showthread.php?t=1896&page=2&pp=15)

If you are going to give perfunctory throw-away lines, then engage with some other poster.


starter

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2005, 08:17 PM
Bill

I refer you to the protocol outlined in post#17 on this other thread (http://67.43.11.40/showthread.php?t=1896&page=2&pp=15)As usual your logic is flawed.
KB comment ot fg7 does not have any bearing on my reply to you.

If you are going to give perfunctory throw-away lines, then engage with some other poster.Yes, well since you obviously cant refute them, its no wonder you would withdraw.