[Brad]

Originally Posted by Ebby The whole blue-on-blue action forces a squint out of me.

I actually started working on a high-contrast theme variation a while ago that would resolve this problem. I never got around to finishing it, but it is still on my distant to-do agenda.

[Ebby]

Yea, I think I noticed that maddox theme a while back. I can't tell for sure since everything in Internet Explorer looks the same.

J/K Take your time.

[drewprops]

I remember this one time when I saw this post from somebody and I thought "wow, what a lamer" and then I saw they had a big post count and then I realized that they were kidding and then I thought "wow, they are funny".

Good times.

[billybobsky]

True story.

[psmith2.0]

This is funny: in less than four hours yesterday, I got five green rep points (with very nice comments attached) for my little observation in that "minimum wage" thread.

I was prepared to be drawn and quartered for being so blunt and "WTF?!?" in my tone, but apparently it went over better than I expected.



Speaking circuit, here I come (I got nicer legs than Ann Coulter too)!

[Windowsrookie]

Congrats. I got -16 points after being banned.

[psmith2.0]

That's just how things go sometimes.

[turtle]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 This is funny: in less than four hours yesterday, I got five green rep points (with very nice comments attached) for my little observation in that "minimum wage" thread. I was prepared to be drawn and quartered for being so blunt and "WTF?!?" in my tone, but apparently it went over better than I expected. Speaking circuit, here I come (I got nicer legs than Ann Coulter too)!

You really did earn them there too!

[drewprops]

WAIT!!!!
I've got the SOLUTION to this 'problem' !!!
First off, it is helpful to gauge a person in some manner, the only problem up until now is that the tools we've had up until now have been pointed more at quantification than qualification. There's been no 'universal constant' of qualification.

Now, we could tackle this problem by creating a 'smart' formula to sift through everything we know about a person. This formula would consider:

• Registration Date
• Number of Posts
• Frequency of Posts
• Forums Frequented (on a weighted basis to be determined later)
• Number of Reputation Points Earned
• Number of Reputation Points Dispensed
• Number of Warnings
• Number of Times Banned
  ---
• Secret Sauce

A person's profile need never display any of the single qualities listed above. Instead, it would use the aforementioned formula (and the 'secret sauce' factor(s)) to generate some badge or token that lists the person's 'quality to the board'. The 'secret sauce' is something to defy people trying to fudge with their rating. I'm saving that for any curious admins who want to PM me....


OR

You could just let me rate everyone.

[Banana]

Sorry. You can't quantize quality.

[turtle]

I like the formula. It has merit, then again I still wouldn't mind post counts and stuff being back. It really does change the way I answer a person too. Now I have to open their profile on another tab to see how new or active they are.

[turbulentfurball]

drewprops, you forgot:-

• Number of smilies used per post

[psmith2.0]

Uh oh...

[turtle]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 Uh oh...

[drewprops]

Here's the formula:

Where 'a' represents CITIZENSHIP (represented in units of DAYS):
a=(Current Date)-(Registration Date)

Where 'b' represents PARTICIPATION (represented in units of DAYS):
b=(Number of Posts)/(Frequency of Posts)

Where 'c' represents TRUE ACTIVITY (represented in pure number):
c=a/b

Yet to be determined how this is applied:
Forums Frequented (on a weighted basis to be determined later)

Where 'd' represents reputation points EARNED (represented in pure number):
d=Reputation Points Earned

Where 'e' represents number of times BANNED (represented in pure number):
e=Number of Times Banned

Where 'f' represents HONOR (represented in pure number):
f=d/e

Where 'g' represents WARNINGS (represented in pure number):
g=Number of Warnings

Where 'h' represents ADJUSTMENTS (represented in pure number):
h=f-g

Where 'i' represents HONORABLE ACTIVITY (represented by pure number):
i=f*h

Where 'j' represents REP POINTS EARNED (represented by pure number):
j=Reputation Points Earned

Where 'k' represents REP POINTS GIVEN (represented by pure number):
k=Reputation Points Given

Where 'm' represents REP PARTICIPATION LIMITER (represented by pure number):
m=j/k

FINALLY,
Your final tally, represented by 'n', would be determined thusly:

n=i+m


Recall then too that there are further, 'secret sauce', computations yet to be done to the person's stats to determine their 'citizenship' score.

Also, it's kind of late and I didn't proof my formula... can anybody figure out your theoretical rating from this formula and let me know what you get??

[Banana]

Drewprops-

Your formula can be tossed away, and you can simply give everyone an undefined result, because that's what they'll get since you have defined Honor= how many reputation earned/times of bannination, and if bannination is zero...

A division by zero. Classical.

[scratt]

I think we should just go with the results of the poll...

Oh look... Most people (even with the silly options added in a futile attempt to cloud the issue) want post count back where it was..

EDIT - Even BEER could not beat the return to the thread view option.. Now that's worrying!

[Brad]

Originally Posted by scratt (even with the silly options added in a futile attempt to cloud the issue)

Ah, thanks for reminding me. Silly votes are now consolidated. The "no"s have it!

[scratt]

Fix!

[turbulentfurball]

Coruption!

[FFL]

We use Diebold voting machines, ya know...

[scratt]

Originally Posted by FFL We use Diebold voting machines, ya know...

We already suspected, but were hoping it was not true...

[Maciej]

If you elect me I promise free lap dances for all!

[Banana]

A phrase that will keep you up all night sweating....


Bush and Cheney 2008!

[scratt]

Thank God it's not possible...

But then again...

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by scratt Thank God it's not possible... But then again...

I think they are roughdrafting the amendment right now

[alcimedes]

Originally Posted by Banana A phrase that will keep you up all night sweating.... Bush and Cheney 2008!

It's the only way to stop the terrorists you know. You don't love terrorists do you?

[turbulentfurball]

I must be sleeping. Or did alcimedes just write a political post?

[drewprops]

Originally Posted by Banana Drewprops- Your formula can be tossed away, and you can simply give everyone an undefined result, because that's what they'll get since you have defined Honor= how many reputation earned/times of bannination, and if bannination is zero... A division by zero. Classical.

Hey it was late, and ALL of these calculations are to rely on some IF EXISTS situations.
<head shaking side-to-side>
I don't see YOU makin' no FOR-MULE-UHHHs
</head shaking side-to-side>


EDIT: Didn't figure in lap dances..... will need a few to know how to qualify their value

[Banana]

Originally Posted by drewprops I don't see YOU makin' no FOR-MULE-UHHHs

Gotta do something about that speech impediment of yours.

Beside, I never said I'd make a formula. In fact, I don't want any formula.

Originally Posted by Banana You can't quantize quality.