Conquer Club

detlef wrote:Now, I understand that my methods can be rather coarse and even rude.

Honestly I could careless what you say or think.

From the way you needlessly attack people, I'm guessing you are just upset you have a small penis.

snifner wrote:

detlef wrote:Now, I understand that my methods can be rather coarse and even rude.

Honestly I could careless what you say or think.

From the way you needlessly attack people, I'm guessing you are just upset you have a small penis.

Ah yes, the "little pee pee" card. Always a good one to go to when you don't otherwise have a point.

It's really quite simple. If you come off like you've got the fix-all answer and, in fact, your "solution" is anything but, you should be prepared for people to point it out. When, after somebody does that, you shrug off the critique as "retarded and irrelevant" without giving any further reason why your "solution" has any merit at all, you should expect the beating to continue. That is the way of the message boards. People who make useless points, especially when they choose to do so with large type, catch hell.

Seriously, there must be something to your idea or you wouldn't have posted it. So what do you say we flesh it out a bit. So, could you kindly explain why changing from 5 to 4 stars will cause any relevant change at all? When I pointed this out in my first post you chided me for ignoring your other post, that I was taking your idea out of context. Well, I'm sorry, but the other one is no more illustrative.

wicked wrote:Well I and others have tried to do our part to educate that 5 should be excellent, not average, and not automatic. Hopefully that will continue to sink in. However, we may see something down the line to equalize the differences in how people rate. This was just something we had to see implemented first to see how it would play out.

What a pompous, self important remark.

You are quite staggering you really are. You 'educate' do you? What a shame you did not put as much effort into thinking through the huge and many issues that would come attached to such an ill thought, ill prepared, poorly structured, and I dare say, highly negative move as the new ratings.

then you go on to say .... we had to see implemented first to see how it would play out....

Staggering. So let's think about this stupid and inane remark.... We will implement something we have not fully considered, foist it on a paying public and sit back and see what happens!!! I am amazed at the complete and utter idiocy attached to all of this.

Has it not occured to you that the reason you are seeing the lowering of the numbers is because of abuse of the system!!!!!

Fruitcake wrote:

wicked wrote:Well I and others have tried to do our part to educate that 5 should be excellent, not average, and not automatic. Hopefully that will continue to sink in. However, we may see something down the line to equalize the differences in how people rate. This was just something we had to see implemented first to see how it would play out.

What a pompous, self important remark.

You are quite staggering you really are. You 'educate' do you? What a shame you did not put as much effort into thinking through the huge and many issues that would come attached to such an ill thought, ill prepared, poorly structured, and I dare say, highly negative move as the new ratings.

then you go on to say .... we had to see implemented first to see how it would play out....

Staggering. So let's think about this stupid and inane remark.... We will implement something we have not fully considered, foist it on a paying public and sit back and see what happens!!! I am amazed at the complete and utter idiocy attached to all of this.

Has it not occured to you that the reason you are seeing the lowering of the numbers is because of abuse of the system!!!!!

Yep, inspired by the fact that Solomon and wicked were patting each other on the back about how the ratings coming down must mean that people are beginning to realize that 3 should be the default rating. Why, look at Solomon's for instance. He must be proud that his is lower than most at 4.3. Surely this is the result of getting the deserved 3s that one should get for just showing up and playing. Wait a minute. What's that? Out of the 38 ratings he's gotten, he's only got 3s 3x? That he's still pretty much getting nothing but 5s with a smattering of 1s and 2s bringing it down?

What about wicked. Surely she must be taking this whole, "Don't give out 5s for no reason" message to the streets. Which, of course, explains why her rating has...Oh sorry, 5s across the board for her. Never mind.

See, that's sort of the rub, isn't it. For whatever reason, wicked and co. will feel this system is beginning to work as long as, in general, everyone's ratings start to get closer to 3. That there's as much reason to believe that this could just as easily happen as the result of people giving 1s because they're pissed off that they lost is not something worth worrying about it seems.

detlef wrote:

Fruitcake wrote:

wicked wrote:Well I and others have tried to do our part to educate that 5 should be excellent, not average, and not automatic. Hopefully that will continue to sink in. However, we may see something down the line to equalize the differences in how people rate. This was just something we had to see implemented first to see how it would play out.

What a pompous, self important remark.

You are quite staggering you really are. You 'educate' do you? What a shame you did not put as much effort into thinking through the huge and many issues that would come attached to such an ill thought, ill prepared, poorly structured, and I dare say, highly negative move as the new ratings.

then you go on to say .... we had to see implemented first to see how it would play out....

Staggering. So let's think about this stupid and inane remark.... We will implement something we have not fully considered, foist it on a paying public and sit back and see what happens!!! I am amazed at the complete and utter idiocy attached to all of this.

Has it not occured to you that the reason you are seeing the lowering of the numbers is because of abuse of the system!!!!!

Yep, inspired by the fact that Solomon and wicked were patting each other on the back about how the ratings coming down must mean that people are beginning to realize that 3 should be the default rating. Why, look at Solomon's for instance. He must be proud that his is lower than most at 4.3. Surely this is the result of getting the deserved 3s that one should get for just showing up and playing. Wait a minute. What's that? Out of the 38 ratings he's gotten, he's only got 3s 3x? That he's still pretty much getting nothing but 5s with a smattering of 1s and 2s bringing it down?

What about wicked. Surely she must be taking this whole, "Don't give out 5s for no reason" message to the streets. Which, of course, explains why her rating has...Oh sorry, 5s across the board for her. Never mind.

See, that's sort of the rub, isn't it. For whatever reason, wicked and co. will feel this system is beginning to work as long as, in general, everyone's ratings start to get closer to 3. That there's as much reason to believe that this could just as easily happen as the result of people giving 1s because they're pissed off that they lost is not something worth worrying about it seems.

I cannot control what ratings I retrieve why not try commenting on the ratings I have left which is in my realm of Control. You 2 since there are 2 quotes here that I am replying to, have done nothing but flame because your arguments hold no weight. You know how the system was designed yet instead of being part of the solution you rather belittle those attempting to use it properly and just add to the problem. This system is not perfect but I believe it is better and less emotionally charged then the old one.

That I guess is the problem most of the opponents of this new system are just very emotional and rather then use logic and facts as a basis for things like to lash out rebel and throw a sissy fit over matters. There is no abuse proof system with some tweaks and education this system could be less vulnerable to abuse. The only way to get an abuse free system all will agree on is to get rid of anyone who is abusive and make sure all agree on using the system as it is intended to be used...

Soloman wrote:There is no abuse proof system with some tweaks and education this system could be less vulnerable to abuse. The only way to get an abuse free system all will agree on is to get rid of anyone who is abusive and make sure all agree on using the system as it is intended to be used...

meanwhile, back on planet earth.......

Soloman wrote:

detlef wrote:

Soloman wrote:

IronE.GLE wrote:How is there going to be any education when less than 15% of the players on CC ever visit the forum? Are you going to go from game to game explaining to everyone that 3 stars should be the norm and anything over that is only warranted when someone does something extraordinary? Just how important do you people think you are?

anyone who reads the instructions and can read the star indicators should already know with all that in place should be the only education needed, It is you people in the forums that do not seem to care about using the system properly, thus the need for education...

Funny, I just went and checked out the instructions. I guess I couldn't find where it clearly pointed out what "average attendance", "average fairplay", or "average attitude" meant. So, after you guys managed to reprogram everyone out of the "anything less than 5 is a slap in the face" mentality that dominates every feedback system used on-line, then you're going get down to brass tacks as to how to define "average"?

Please take into context that this is directed at anyone that shares this ideology and lack of understanding on the rating system. If they have to explain what average is in those areas or what the word average means in context with this game and the brief list of examples is not enough to clear that for you nothing anyone says or prints will teach you. Given this mental inability I would probably advise not using the system at all for you and just ignoring it entirely as it appear to be to complicated for you to grasp. To make sure things are fair with no variables maybe they could possibly block you individuals from being rated at all, give you some type of immunity from ratings, That way you will always have the same start and finish amount on your ratings...

So, I guess I was right about the whole koolaid thing, eh?

Seriously though. Out of curiosity, what does "average attendance" mean? I've heard not missing a turn. I've heard moving faster than every 12 hours. I've heard only missing a turn every now and then. I mean, according you, it sounds like anyone with a half a brain should understand exactly what this means so this should be an easy one.

Oh, and while you're defining things, did this qualify as a flame? That's confusing as well. See, somehow we're "flaming the thread" by pointing out holes in your argument but you're not by insulting our intelligence. So much to cover...

detlef wrote:

Soloman wrote:

detlef wrote:

Soloman wrote:

IronE.GLE wrote:How is there going to be any education when less than 15% of the players on CC ever visit the forum? Are you going to go from game to game explaining to everyone that 3 stars should be the norm and anything over that is only warranted when someone does something extraordinary? Just how important do you people think you are?

anyone who reads the instructions and can read the star indicators should already know with all that in place should be the only education needed, It is you people in the forums that do not seem to care about using the system properly, thus the need for education...

Funny, I just went and checked out the instructions. I guess I couldn't find where it clearly pointed out what "average attendance", "average fairplay", or "average attitude" meant. So, after you guys managed to reprogram everyone out of the "anything less than 5 is a slap in the face" mentality that dominates every feedback system used on-line, then you're going get down to brass tacks as to how to define "average"?

Please take into context that this is directed at anyone that shares this ideology and lack of understanding on the rating system. If they have to explain what average is in those areas or what the word average means in context with this game and the brief list of examples is not enough to clear that for you nothing anyone says or prints will teach you. Given this mental inability I would probably advise not using the system at all for you and just ignoring it entirely as it appear to be to complicated for you to grasp. To make sure things are fair with no variables maybe they could possibly block you individuals from being rated at all, give you some type of immunity from ratings, That way you will always have the same start and finish amount on your ratings...

So, I guess I was right about the whole koolaid thing, eh?

Seriously though. Out of curiosity, what does "average attendance" mean? I've heard not missing a turn. I've heard moving faster than every 12 hours. I've heard only missing a turn every now and then. I mean, according you, it sounds like anyone with a half a brain should understand exactly what this means so this should be an easy one.

Oh, and while you're defining things, did this qualify as a flame? That's confusing as well. See, somehow we're "flaming the thread" by pointing out holes in your argument but you're not by insulting our intelligence. So much to cover...

I can tell by the vast amounts of edits you have put a lot into this thread, and yes you were flaming both Wicked and I which I guess is your way of proving your point. You have done nothing which disproves the points I have made and at this point your just throwing a temper tantrum and making borderline racists statements Like Koolaid thing. It is not original and I have made no attempt to hide my ethnicity. You do not like the system so protest and do not use it then, it is here for those of us who want to get an accurate 1st glance of an individual with out in depth research and fr the most part it is working.

The system is much better then the old and it could use improvements but is still a step forward, As long as there are people afraid and resistant to change there will be problems with it as there will be with any system. I understand you want to part of that problem group and even to some degree revel in attention it brings you cool that is your thing. The insults to your intelligence are your own posts with there lack of logical conclusion and by the way they blatantly ignore the facts and information available...

Soloman wrote:

IronE.GLE wrote:How is there going to be any education when less than 15% of the players on CC ever visit the forum? Are you going to go from game to game explaining to everyone that 3 stars should be the norm and anything over that is only warranted when someone does something extraordinary? Just how important do you people think you are?

anyone who reads the instructions and can read the star indicators should already know with all that in place should be the only education needed, It is you people in the forums that do not seem to care about using the system properly, thus the need for education...

Certain modertors of this site are giving 5's out to everyone. How you can expect to educate no forum posters as well

Soloman wrote: at this point your just throwing a temper tantrum and making borderline racists statements Like Koolaid thing. It is not original and I have made no attempt to hide my ethnicity.

How in the f*ck do you connect kool-aid and racism? Are you out of your mind? Statements about "drinking the kool-aide" come from the Jonestown mass suicide in 1978, when members of the Peoples Temple poisoned themselves with cyanide. "Drinking the kool-aid" as it is called, means that you just take your medicine blindly and without questioning, or just believing whatever someone tells you. It has absolutely no racial significance whatsoever.

Now, with that bullshit out of the way.........

Soloman wrote:The system is much better then the old and it could use improvements but is still a step forward, As long as there are people afraid and resistant to change there will be problems with it as there will be with any system. I understand you want to part of that problem group and even to some degree revel in attention it brings you cool that is your thing. The insults to your intelligence are your own posts with there lack of logical conclusion and by the way they blatantly ignore the facts and information available...

Facts and information available? To whom? Certainly people who actually use these forums are privy to the current conversation, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a significant population on this site that are spiteful in loss and even worse when they win. There is next to nothing in terms of guidelines to explain what average attendance or average fair play might be. These things are subject to individual interpretation, so there will never be a global standard for these ratings.

Those that were involved in designing, building and implementing this new rating system are understandably going to think it is a better system than the old one, otherwise they wouldn't have invested time into this new rating system. Their views on how fair or effective this system can be are completely biased. It should be clear to them by now that a lot of people don't feel the same way and this calls for them to take another look at their creation and view it with an unbiased eye. Can they honestly do this? I can't say one way or another because I don't know these people but from the completely irrational defense being put up some people in this thread, I have a pretty good idea who is involved and it doesn't look like they will review their mess anytime soon.

IronE.GLE wrote:

Soloman wrote: at this point your just throwing a temper tantrum and making borderline racists statements Like Koolaid thing. It is not original and I have made no attempt to hide my ethnicity.

How in the f*ck do you connect kool-aid and racism? Are you out of your mind? Statements about "drinking the kool-aide" come from the Jonestown mass suicide in 1978, when members of the Peoples Temple poisoned themselves with cyanide. "Drinking the kool-aid" as it is called, means that you just take your medicine blindly and without questioning, or just believing whatever someone tells you. It has absolutely no racial significance whatsoever.

Now, with that bullshit out of the way.........

Soloman wrote:The system is much better then the old and it could use improvements but is still a step forward, As long as there are people afraid and resistant to change there will be problems with it as there will be with any system. I understand you want to part of that problem group and even to some degree revel in attention it brings you cool that is your thing. The insults to your intelligence are your own posts with there lack of logical conclusion and by the way they blatantly ignore the facts and information available...

Facts and information available? To whom? Certainly people who actually use these forums are privy to the current conversation, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a significant population on this site that are spiteful in loss and even worse when they win. There is next to nothing in terms of guidelines to explain what average attendance or average fair play might be. These things are subject to individual interpretation, so there will never be a global standard for these ratings.

Those that were involved in designing, building and implementing this new rating system are understandably going to think it is a better system than the old one, otherwise they wouldn't have invested time into this new rating system. Their views on how fair or effective this system can be are completely biased. It should be clear to them by now that a lot of people don't feel the same way and this calls for them to take another look at their creation and view it with an unbiased eye. Can they honestly do this? I can't say one way or another because I don't know these people but from the completely irrational defense being put up some people in this thread, I have a pretty good idea who is involved and it doesn't look like they will review their mess anytime soon.

Hmm then maybe you have no idea about Jokes made in poor taste about Black People and KoolAid if not then I am glad you have never experienced racism on that level I have. That coupled with the fact FlavorAid was used and not KoolAid in Jonestown. Your arguments are pointless after that because it is obvious the educational standards involved and the cultural context is lost on you based on your response to my comment. As far as the system I realize you hate it but it is better and in time if people start using it correctly and acknowledge the design context it will do it's job properly. Even with abuse and misuse the fact it is based off of averages means it will become very accurate over time and aberrations will be easily spotted.

Soloman wrote:

IronE.GLE wrote:

Soloman wrote: at this point your just throwing a temper tantrum and making borderline racists statements Like Koolaid thing. It is not original and I have made no attempt to hide my ethnicity.

How in the f*ck do you connect kool-aid and racism? Are you out of your mind? Statements about "drinking the kool-aide" come from the Jonestown mass suicide in 1978, when members of the Peoples Temple poisoned themselves with cyanide. "Drinking the kool-aid" as it is called, means that you just take your medicine blindly and without questioning, or just believing whatever someone tells you. It has absolutely no racial significance whatsoever.

Now, with that bullshit out of the way.........

Soloman wrote:The system is much better then the old and it could use improvements but is still a step forward, As long as there are people afraid and resistant to change there will be problems with it as there will be with any system. I understand you want to part of that problem group and even to some degree revel in attention it brings you cool that is your thing. The insults to your intelligence are your own posts with there lack of logical conclusion and by the way they blatantly ignore the facts and information available...

Facts and information available? To whom? Certainly people who actually use these forums are privy to the current conversation, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a significant population on this site that are spiteful in loss and even worse when they win. There is next to nothing in terms of guidelines to explain what average attendance or average fair play might be. These things are subject to individual interpretation, so there will never be a global standard for these ratings.

Those that were involved in designing, building and implementing this new rating system are understandably going to think it is a better system than the old one, otherwise they wouldn't have invested time into this new rating system. Their views on how fair or effective this system can be are completely biased. It should be clear to them by now that a lot of people don't feel the same way and this calls for them to take another look at their creation and view it with an unbiased eye. Can they honestly do this? I can't say one way or another because I don't know these people but from the completely irrational defense being put up some people in this thread, I have a pretty good idea who is involved and it doesn't look like they will review their mess anytime soon.

Hmm then maybe you have no idea about Jokes made in poor taste about Black People and KoolAid if not then I am glad you have never experienced racism on that level I have. That coupled with the fact FlavorAid was used and not KoolAid in Jonestown. Your arguments are pointless after that because it is obvious the educational standards involved and the cultural context is lost on you based on your response to my comment. As far as the system I realize you hate it but it is better and in time if people start using it correctly and acknowledge the design context it will do it's job properly. Even with abuse and misuse the fact it is based off of averages means it will become very accurate over time and aberrations will be easily spotted.

Just stop trying to sound intelligent already. Its quite clear that you aren't.

IronE.GLE wrote:

Soloman wrote:

IronE.GLE wrote:

Soloman wrote: at this point your just throwing a temper tantrum and making borderline racists statements Like Koolaid thing. It is not original and I have made no attempt to hide my ethnicity.

How in the f*ck do you connect kool-aid and racism? Are you out of your mind? Statements about "drinking the kool-aide" come from the Jonestown mass suicide in 1978, when members of the Peoples Temple poisoned themselves with cyanide. "Drinking the kool-aid" as it is called, means that you just take your medicine blindly and without questioning, or just believing whatever someone tells you. It has absolutely no racial significance whatsoever.

Now, with that bullshit out of the way.........

Soloman wrote:The system is much better then the old and it could use improvements but is still a step forward, As long as there are people afraid and resistant to change there will be problems with it as there will be with any system. I understand you want to part of that problem group and even to some degree revel in attention it brings you cool that is your thing. The insults to your intelligence are your own posts with there lack of logical conclusion and by the way they blatantly ignore the facts and information available...

Facts and information available? To whom? Certainly people who actually use these forums are privy to the current conversation, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a significant population on this site that are spiteful in loss and even worse when they win. There is next to nothing in terms of guidelines to explain what average attendance or average fair play might be. These things are subject to individual interpretation, so there will never be a global standard for these ratings.

Those that were involved in designing, building and implementing this new rating system are understandably going to think it is a better system than the old one, otherwise they wouldn't have invested time into this new rating system. Their views on how fair or effective this system can be are completely biased. It should be clear to them by now that a lot of people don't feel the same way and this calls for them to take another look at their creation and view it with an unbiased eye. Can they honestly do this? I can't say one way or another because I don't know these people but from the completely irrational defense being put up some people in this thread, I have a pretty good idea who is involved and it doesn't look like they will review their mess anytime soon.

Hmm then maybe you have no idea about Jokes made in poor taste about Black People and KoolAid if not then I am glad you have never experienced racism on that level I have. That coupled with the fact FlavorAid was used and not KoolAid in Jonestown. Your arguments are pointless after that because it is obvious the educational standards involved and the cultural context is lost on you based on your response to my comment. As far as the system I realize you hate it but it is better and in time if people start using it correctly and acknowledge the design context it will do it's job properly. Even with abuse and misuse the fact it is based off of averages means it will become very accurate over time and aberrations will be easily spotted.

Just stop trying to sound intelligent already. Its quite clear that you aren't.

Am I not intelligent for pointing out your multiple fallacies or for the fact you have no real rebuttal??? I know the truth hurts and cuts deep everything I have said is true, remember you attempted to defend someone else's statement and did not even know what you were talking about not I. I have based my arguments on the facts of the system your arguments are ignorant emotional rants. The rating system is an improvement and if people will use it as it was designed it will be very effective. I keep saying the same thing because the truth does not change no matter how much you do not like it...

Listen, I didn't write the rules for kool-aide references, I was merely explaining the origin of them. Flavor-aide or kool-aide really doesn't matter, what matters is from what this saying was born. I guess if that makes me ignorant and uneducated, then so be it.

You either have a vested interest in the new ranking system and/or you are just a stubborn ass. The ranking system sucks, plain and simple. You just fail to see the flawed logic behind the system and why it will never work the way it was intended to work. Believe me when I say that I would like for the new rating system to work because it is easy to use and looks pretty. It simply will never work properly because, as I stated before, average means different things to different people. There is no "Gold Standard" that is going to be adopted by everyone that plays on CC. Lets take 'fair play' for example:

1.) Player A (P-A) is holding a territory with a bonus of (3) three. His territory borders Player B's (P-B) territory with a bonus of (4) four.
2.) P-A attacks P-B because he feels P-B could be a threat to his bonus within the next few turns.
3.) It just so happens that P-A is fairly inexperienced and didn't see that Player C (P-C) was poised to take an entire continent that would give P-C a huge advantage in the game, and P-A was the only person able to block this move but didn't do so.
4.) Due to this mistake, P-C goes on to dominate the game and wins with ease.
5.) After the game, P-B gives P-A a (1) rating for 'fair play' because felt that P-A attacked him unnecessarily.
6.) Now Player D who was engaged in his own battle might give P-A a rating of (3) because she felt that P-A did nothing unfair, just unwise.
7.) However, Player E feels he might have had a chance to win had P-A blocked the move, so because he is a General and lost a bunch of points, he gets pissed and gives P-A a (1) rating on 'fair play' but also on 'attendance' and 'attitude' just for good measure.

In the above scenario, a well intentioned yet inexperienced player receives an overall rating from that game that he didn't deserve and since there is no feedback, he has no way to explain that he simply didn't realize that P-C was on the verge of dominating the game and that he was the only one who could stop it. Obviously this is just one scenario that P-A encounters during his time on CC, but each time one or more of his opponents feels slighted and gives him a (1) rating, it'll take a (5) rating to balance it out, showing that P-A really is an average player rather than some nincompoop who behaves like a dickwad during games.

P-A could be you, me or any of the random people who enjoy playing Risk on CC. A person who now will end up with a 2.2 overall rating when in reality it should be closer to 3.5 or even higher. Since his rating doesn't accurately depict what kind of player he is, he is stuck with joining games rather than making his own with settings he likes because nobody wants to play with a jackass that has a 2.2 rating. P-A ends up in games with people of similar ratings but a lot of those people actually deserve the 2.0 or whatever rating, and they continue to pile on P-A with unwarranted (1) ratings, further dropping him into the asshole category when he is anything but. Eventually, P-A grows weary of the abusive ratings and the abusive people he is forced to play with, so P-A decides to find a different hobby and doesn't renew his Premium Membership.





Now as for your assertion that my posts are emotionally driven, I can assure you that there is no emotion involved in my posts whatsoever, simply because I don't operate on emotion. In fact, my RL friends have called me Spock for so long now, its almost as if they actually think that is my name. I'm the guy people come to for advice or to use as a sounding board because they know I'm not going to BS them. I'm going to tell them how it is with absolutely no sugar coating. Often times they leave pissed off, mostly because I didn't tell them what they wanted to hear, but they always come back for more advice.

With that said, I'm done discussing this with you because as your signature clearly states, if I don't agree with you then I must be wrong. I'll let you live in your little fantasy world where everything that pops in your head is the gospel and any reference to flavored drinks is somehow a racially charged statement directed towards you because, well because you don't hide your ethnicity (which BTW nobody gives two shits.)

Have a nice day and make sure you chastise all of your online buddies for giving you (5) ratings for attitude

This is where I would typically issue an apology for writing something that was construed as "borderline racist" but screw that. Iron GLE is 100% correct. To anyone not fishing for a reason to be offended, "Drinking the koolaid" means exactly what he said. It is very widely used by any number of people in positions (say radio) who would be skewered by the public for uttering "borderline racist" statements. Of course, "the public" understands exactly what they're saying. Perhaps you're correct that they were drinking "flavor aid" but once you're done reprogramming the entire on-line community (because, again, the 'anything short of 5 is an insult mentality is the default in nearly every on-line forum) on how they view feedback, then you can start in on clearing up this mistake in a widely used metaphor.

To be honest, I had no idea you were black. Now carry on, but I'd suggest you put the shovel down. Which, btw, is merely in reference to the fact that you're continuing to dig yourself a deeper hole, just in case there's any confusion.

detlef wrote:This is where I would typically issue an apology for writing something that was construed as "borderline racist" but screw that. Iron GLE is 100% correct. To anyone not fishing for a reason to be offended, "Drinking the koolaid" means exactly what he said. It is very widely used by any number of people in positions (say radio) who would be skewered by the public for uttering "borderline racist" statements. Of course, "the public" understands exactly what they're saying. Perhaps you're correct that they were drinking "flavor aid" but once you're done reprogramming the entire on-line community (because, again, the 'anything short of 5 is an insult mentality is the default in nearly every on-line forum) on how they view feedback, then you can start in on clearing up this mistake in a widely used metaphor.

To be honest, I had no idea you were black. Now carry on, but I'd suggest you put the shovel down. Which, btw, is merely in reference to the fact that you're continuing to dig yourself a deeper hole, just in case there's any confusion.

The Communities both real world and Online I am a member of know the reference to be racists there have been comments about Barrack Obama and the how Koolaid will need to be served and multiple Jokes about Koolaid and black people in the public Domain care OF Obama(High Profile)as recent as this last week. Another online site I am a member of http://www.allhiphop.com, suffered attacks from other racists hackers with Koolaid black jokes and other racist stereotypes and made national news because of the hacking involved which shut down the boards in this last week. To feign Ignorance is pathetic and not a reasonable defense, to inaccurately reference an event with the improper terminology and try and defend those comments is low class.

To me both of your arguments show how limited your scope is, as far as a basic understanding before speaking on a subject. I could be crass and reprint some of the recent offenses and historical references that you both seem oblivious of, but I have no desire to lower myself to reprint racist trash to prove a point. DO a quick search and learn the fallacy of your statement, then after that revelation weigh in your mind what other common fallacies you hold tight to and then maybe you will be able let go of your prejudices against the new system and see it for what it really is and embrace it and help it, instead of throwing a tantrum and making mindless attacks with out regards for all possible implications...

I guess I should be glad you did not ask if I need more rope, so maybe you are starting to get the picture on contexts and implications even tho all the way around so far you have been wrong...

Soloman wrote:

detlef wrote:This is where I would typically issue an apology for writing something that was construed as "borderline racist" but screw that. Iron GLE is 100% correct. To anyone not fishing for a reason to be offended, "Drinking the koolaid" means exactly what he said. It is very widely used by any number of people in positions (say radio) who would be skewered by the public for uttering "borderline racist" statements. Of course, "the public" understands exactly what they're saying. Perhaps you're correct that they were drinking "flavor aid" but once you're done reprogramming the entire on-line community (because, again, the 'anything short of 5 is an insult mentality is the default in nearly every on-line forum) on how they view feedback, then you can start in on clearing up this mistake in a widely used metaphor.

To be honest, I had no idea you were black. Now carry on, but I'd suggest you put the shovel down. Which, btw, is merely in reference to the fact that you're continuing to dig yourself a deeper hole, just in case there's any confusion.

The Communities both real world and Online I am a member of know the reference to be racists there have been comments about Barrack Obama and the how Koolaid will need to be served and multiple Jokes about Koolaid and black people in the public Domain care OF Obama(High Profile)as recent as this last week. Another online site I am a member of http://www.allhiphop.com, suffered attacks from other racists hackers with Koolaid black jokes and other racist stereotypes and made national news because of the hacking involved which shut down the boards in this last week. To feign Ignorance is pathetic and not a reasonable defense, to inaccurately reference an event with the improper terminology and try and defend those comments is low class.

To me both of your arguments show how limited your scope is, as far as a basic understanding before speaking on a subject. I could be crass and reprint some of the recent offenses and historical references that you both seem oblivious of, but I have no desire to lower myself to reprint racist trash to prove a point. DO a quick search and learn the fallacy of your statement, then after that revelation weigh in your mind what other common fallacies you hold tight to and then maybe you will be able let go of your prejudices against the new system and see it for what it really is and embrace it and help it, instead of throwing a tantrum and making mindless attacks with out regards for all possible implications...

So am I to understand that the mere inclusion of the word "koolaid", regardless of the context means that there's a racist undertone?

What if I said, "We could just have a trained monkey just randomly push buttons from 1-5 and end up with just as accurate a rating system." I mean, I included a word that is often used in a derogatory manner towards black people right? Does that mean that I'm attacking black people or simply saying that a an actual, freaking monkey with a bunch of buttons in front of him could do as good a job?

The best way to trivialize the need for people to be respectful of other races, religions, etc is to go fishing for insults where they don't exist. Ask PETA. They're a freaking joke despite the fact that they do many honorable things to protect animals. They're a joke, however, because they're always popping up in the news taking on some lame fight where one doesn't exist.

Ok... so back on subject: are people who drink Kool aid* more likely to vote 3 as an average out of 5 for attitude?


*to clarify, i genuinely have no idea what you are on about .. This is a fairly veiled reference even to a paid up member of the 51st State.
Saying that, i am also drawn to think of Ho Hos; are they synonymous? ... i think i heard about them together on a culturally enlightening episode of Scrubs.

In passing ... as i sometimes try to read up on things i comment on ... just to make sure i had not signed up for the BNP by association.

Kool-Aid

Although i do remember Kool-aide having a connotation of stereotype too.
The reference, though not entirely accurate, has been accepted into Popular American culture to describe blind acceptance.

Incidentally, in my oppinion, the rating system is appalling. Bring on the Community Moderated Comment System!

Here's something we can all try at home.

Type in "drinking the koolaid" into your google search option on the top right of the page. If you have firefox, it will likely auto fill by the time you get to "drinking the".

Hit return and see how many topics reference the intended meaning. See how many definitions of Urban Dictionary refer to what I'm talking about.

OK, now just type in koolaid. After all, I merely referenced koolaid, rather than actually saying "drinking the koolaid". Surely there you'll find all the racist rants that Soloman speaks of. Well, actually you don't. Besides portals to the actual Koolaid website and handy things you can do at home, like dying yarn, you see links to references to...are you ready for this?... "drinking the koolaid". Wow, imagine that?! There's one thing that is missing, I might add. Well, at least on the first 5 pages of the search, and that is any ethnic reference at all. Imagine that. I guess google is racist as well.

I should add, that I am, in fact aware of the association of Kool aid and black culture.

detlef wrote:Here's something we can all try at home.

Type in "drinking the koolaid" into your google search option on the top right of the page. If you have firefox, it will likely auto fill by the time you get to "drinking the".

Hit return and see how many topics reference the intended meaning. See how many definitions of Urban Dictionary refer to what I'm talking about.

OK, now just type in koolaid. After all, I merely referenced koolaid, rather than actually saying "drinking the koolaid". Surely there you'll find all the racist rants that Soloman speaks of. Well, actually you don't. Besides portals to the actual Koolaid website and handy things you can do at home, like dying yarn, you see links to references to...are you ready for this?... "drinking the koolaid". Wow, imagine that?! There's one thing that is missing, I might add. Well, at least on the first 5 pages of the search, and that is any ethnic reference at all. Imagine that. I guess google is racist as well.

No quite the opposite Google does its best to not promote racism thus any of the racist comments not being at the top of a search, type in Koolaid and Barrack or Koolaid Jokes in general you will see different results for a more specific search, when you use a condescending introductory statement and say I was right about the Koolaid thing to a black Person, that imply's ethnic Stereotypes.

Your continued justification of the statement further drives my points about you and others like you with the system not only do you not realize the full depth of the system nor of your statement, you refuse to see the ways in which it is applied especially when you spread further then your immediate circle. You believe everyone will use it and interpret it the same way and thus like your statement you justify your misuses of it. All those defending you I must say share your limited and unrealistic scope on both matters and seem to be dumb as in the sense of incapable of learning something new or complex.

See, while you're busy working yourself into a froth about how we're all being too emotional about this and saying that we're too stupid to understand the system, you've been missing the fact that I've said repeatedly that I actually agree with you 100% that 3 should be the rating that we all start with. See, I understand what you are saying, I actually possess the intellect to comprehend what average is OK. So, at least in terms of me, you're going to have to find another argument rather than simply digging into your bag for another handful of 'you're too stupid to understand'.

Now, be a f'ing dear and actually address the actual issues at hand.

1) Any system that relies on defying human nature is bound to fail. It is abundantly clear, not only at CC but in every on-line rating system that I've encountered, that anything but praise is an insult. Go back and read my bit about e-bay if you need another example outside of the fact that the vast majority of the tens of 1000s of people here on CC have obviously fallen entirely in-line with that mentality.

2) Even if we do get everyone to agree with 3 being average, there's a ton of versions of what that means. In just the last few pages alone, there have been two great examples of this. Only, rather than addressing these rather valid points, you just go back to the, 'you're too stupid to get it'.

See, that's the thing, we're not, actually, too stupid to get it. In fact, here's a little something to keep in mind. When a number of people are throwing a bunch of arguments at you that you're not prepared (or unable) to answer with anything better than 'you're too stupid to understand', you might actually have it backwards.

Then again, based on the quote in your sig-line, I'm guessing this is not a lesson you're prepared to learn.

detlef wrote:See, while you're busy working yourself into a froth about how we're all being too emotional about this and saying that we're too stupid to understand the system, you've been missing the fact that I've said repeatedly that I actually agree with you 100% that 3 should be the rating that we all start with. See, I understand what you are saying, I actually possess the intellect to comprehend what average is OK. So, at least in terms of me, you're going to have to find another argument rather than simply digging into your bag for another handful of 'you're too stupid to understand'.

Now, be a f'ing dear and actually address the actual issues at hand.

1) Any system that relies on defying human nature is bound to fail. It is abundantly clear, not only at CC but in every on-line rating system that I've encountered, that anything but praise is an insult. Go back and read my bit about e-bay if you need another example outside of the fact that the vast majority of the tens of 1000s of people here on CC have obviously fallen entirely in-line with that mentality.

2) Even if we do get everyone to agree with 3 being average, there's a ton of versions of what that means. In just the last few pages alone, there have been two great examples of this. Only, rather than addressing these rather valid points, you just go back to the, 'you're too stupid to get it'.

See, that's the thing, we're not, actually, too stupid to get it. In fact, here's a little something to keep in mind. When a number of people are throwing a bunch of arguments at you that you're not prepared (or unable) to answer with anything better than 'you're too stupid to understand', you might actually have it backwards.

Then again, based on the quote in your sig-line, I'm guessing this is not a lesson you're prepared to learn.

Your Arguments contradict yourself as does your various posts so whatever you say this posts and nice dodge at facts yet again...

Soloman wrote:

detlef wrote:See, while you're busy working yourself into a froth about how we're all being too emotional about this and saying that we're too stupid to understand the system, you've been missing the fact that I've said repeatedly that I actually agree with you 100% that 3 should be the rating that we all start with. See, I understand what you are saying, I actually possess the intellect to comprehend what average is OK. So, at least in terms of me, you're going to have to find another argument rather than simply digging into your bag for another handful of 'you're too stupid to understand'.

Now, be a f'ing dear and actually address the actual issues at hand.

1) Any system that relies on defying human nature is bound to fail. It is abundantly clear, not only at CC but in every on-line rating system that I've encountered, that anything but praise is an insult. Go back and read my bit about e-bay if you need another example outside of the fact that the vast majority of the tens of 1000s of people here on CC have obviously fallen entirely in-line with that mentality.

2) Even if we do get everyone to agree with 3 being average, there's a ton of versions of what that means. In just the last few pages alone, there have been two great examples of this. Only, rather than addressing these rather valid points, you just go back to the, 'you're too stupid to get it'.

See, that's the thing, we're not, actually, too stupid to get it. In fact, here's a little something to keep in mind. When a number of people are throwing a bunch of arguments at you that you're not prepared (or unable) to answer with anything better than 'you're too stupid to understand', you might actually have it backwards.

Then again, based on the quote in your sig-line, I'm guessing this is not a lesson you're prepared to learn.

Your Arguments contradict yourself as does your various posts so whatever you say this posts and nice dodge at facts yet again...

Exactly which facts am I dodging?

Oh wait, let me guess, I'm too dense to figure that part out as well.

You know what, never mind.

detlef wrote:

Soloman wrote:

detlef wrote:See, while you're busy working yourself into a froth about how we're all being too emotional about this and saying that we're too stupid to understand the system, you've been missing the fact that I've said repeatedly that I actually agree with you 100% that 3 should be the rating that we all start with. See, I understand what you are saying, I actually possess the intellect to comprehend what average is OK. So, at least in terms of me, you're going to have to find another argument rather than simply digging into your bag for another handful of 'you're too stupid to understand'.

Now, be a f'ing dear and actually address the actual issues at hand.

1) Any system that relies on defying human nature is bound to fail. It is abundantly clear, not only at CC but in every on-line rating system that I've encountered, that anything but praise is an insult. Go back and read my bit about e-bay if you need another example outside of the fact that the vast majority of the tens of 1000s of people here on CC have obviously fallen entirely in-line with that mentality.

2) Even if we do get everyone to agree with 3 being average, there's a ton of versions of what that means. In just the last few pages alone, there have been two great examples of this. Only, rather than addressing these rather valid points, you just go back to the, 'you're too stupid to get it'.

See, that's the thing, we're not, actually, too stupid to get it. In fact, here's a little something to keep in mind. When a number of people are throwing a bunch of arguments at you that you're not prepared (or unable) to answer with anything better than 'you're too stupid to understand', you might actually have it backwards.

Then again, based on the quote in your sig-line, I'm guessing this is not a lesson you're prepared to learn.

Your Arguments contradict yourself as does your various posts so whatever you say this posts and nice dodge at facts yet again...

Exactly which facts am I dodging?

Oh wait, let me guess, I'm too dense to figure that part out as well.

You know what, never mind.

In all these pages of information and the recent exchanges if you are to obtuse to acknowledge your own fallacies and the details of the thread then how am I going to convince you otherwise. To date the mentality that you are prevailing whether acknowledging that 3 is average or not has been counter productive and dodge how the system was designed and the facts involved with averages. You have helped to assuage the premise and design of the system and in these same posts you continue to contradict yourself and basic sense. When any fallacy is pointed out you and others retreat to attack and emotional rant mode based upon your own collective disdain for the system. This new system when used correct and with a few tweaks give a more rational and accurate portrayal then the old of competition, the beauty is the fact math is used to gage individuals as math does not Lie but people do. This system relies on the premise most people are not going to abuse by lying at every chance and for the most part I see that as holding true, now the only thing left is to get everyone on the same page as to what average is and the few abusers will slowly with time have no impact any longer...