Let's test this theory. Here is a list of the top 50 posters, sorted by rep, from here and here. 1 evenflow 2 Tamar Garish 3 Elwood 4 Mrs. Albert 5 Paladin 6 Diacanu 7 Muad Dib 8 Uncle Albert 9 Marso 10 Ramen 11 Volpone 12 Forbin 13 Tex 14 Storm 15 Chaos Descending 16 Linda R. 17 marathon 18 shootER 19 Chuck 20 Bulldog 21 Clyde 22 Asyncritus 23 BearTM 24 Ancalagon 25 Man Afraid of his Shoes 26 Zombie 27 Dan Leach 28 Shep 29 gul 30 Scorponok 31 Chris 32 Summerteeth 33 Sokar 34 Talkahuano 35 The Defender 36 Demiurge 37 Order2Chaos 38 Anna 39 Lanzman 40 Eccentric 41 Bock 42 Bailey 43 matthunter 44 Caboose 45 El Chup 46 ecky 47 Aenea 48 Quas 49 Techman 50 Lethesoda Techman is still on the list!
I meant threads where people are bitching about getting negged or "cleverly" trying to illicit sympathy "warriors" or rep blocks with thinly veiled threads. It is good to still see Techman there though, isn't it?
Or pointing out where someone is just being a douche. But I guess Tamar can't accept that answer. EDIT: When did you turn completely into a bitch?
Yes. All joking aside, it is. It's a measure of his popularity that, 2 years after he had to stop posting, he's still among the 50 top posters rep-wise. And I still miss him...
And why are they a douche? Because of rep. You show weakness where rep is concerned and it = Epic Fail. Hey, I didn't invent this crap..I stay out of rep wars and shit, but it seems to be the tradition from what I've observed.
You really want to know? 1) When I suggested a thread ignore, you basically said maybe I shouldn't be posting here. A feature you now have I might add. 2) Am I honestly not supposed to think your rep post comment up thread was directly referenceing my Mewa thread? 3) Your general reaction when someone mentions the way WF is ran.
1) I still think that if someone comes to a BBS that ignoring entire threads seems counter to the point. And with WF in particular, if you can't take a thread title from someone you don't like, it doesn't seem like the WF philosophy would be a good fit. Luckily for you, Lanzman disagrees and someone managed to code it. Que sera, sera. 2) There have been so many of such things here over the years....that was a general comment. It is coincidence you posted one recently...there was nothing purposely pointed there. 3) I'm not sure what reaction you mean? I don't react the same way to every situation, it rather depends on what it is about.
Well, you fell into a different phenomenon here...any thread with my name on it that doesn't involve tits or sickness will turn to crap within 10 posts or less.
Then why am I not among the listed? I think some of the names on that list are duals *pouting* (there's not a good pouting smilie) [that's a hint Tamar!]
OK, Async. Let's make it a little more meaningful than just a popularity contest. Take the rep count and divide by post count and show us that list. And, no. I don't want to do it.
Impossible to do without a specific figure for rep. Each person can see exactly how many rep points they have, but for others you can't know unless they tell you. It would be interesting to set up such a correlation, and both Summerteeth (32nd on the list, but has only 4,376 posts) and Aenea (47th on the list, but with only 3,174 posts) would certainly be very high on such a list. Actually, only 7 posters on the list have less than 10,000 posts. (The 50 posters on the list have an average--as of now--of 17,253.5 posts each.) It is also worth noting that if you set up the members list in order of post count, 5 of the top 50 have their rep turned off. It is fairly likely that several of them (perhaps all 5) would be in the top 50 rep-wise, if they turned it on. So I guess it's pretty hard to get really serious statistics out of the system. You'll just have to settle for the list, copied from the first two pages of rep scores.
I am probably going to regret saying this, but it should be comparatively easy for an admin to add a category "rep/postcount" to the members list. Both variables are obviosuly already there.
You are 14th overall in post count. No poster has even twice as many posts as you do (though two of them come close). You waste way more time here than you should (like all the rest of us). Just think how many models you could have put together during all that time!
And even if we could convince tptb to release the info, it might wind up just alienating some people.
Maths! Huzzah and whatnot. Okay, so, I have 11 pips 4960 posts (not including this one, because at time of writing, this post doesn't exist yet). 11/4960 would show how many pips per post but I'll do 4960/11, to work out how many posts per pip. Because that will give me a higher number. 4960 / 11 = 450.909090 recurring Someone else needs to do theirs so I can rank!
Posts/pip (or pips/post) isn't a very meaningful number, though, because almost 100 posters (counting those who have rep turned off but probably are that high) have 11 pips. It doesn't get any higher than that, so (for example) evenflow, who has a lot more rep points than I do (the technical term for that quantity is "a whole buncha"), has the same number of pips. Pips are only useful for differenciating between those who are just "getting into the game." After you've been around for a while, you have to go on the basis of rank (i.e., who has the most, the second-most, and so on).
