Top Trumps - Thread Terminated

Nice! I should do well in this category, I have never ever made a single spelling mistake, nor have I messed up the structure of a sentence.

If you score me low, you are a fool.

Jaxley wrote:Nice! i shuld do wel in this catogary, i ave never ever made a single speling mistake nor ave i mesed up the structare of a sentance.

If youve score me low. you are a fool.

Here is evidence that begs to differ.

The Alchemist Penguin wrote:I've missed out on this, as I've been proper busy and didn't realise the voting was going on, but there seems to be a major flaw in the voting. Surely if someone gives an average 50 for each category it just destroys the system? It's rather irritating reading that people are scoring people even though they admit they "they haven't seen them around". Surely an "N/A" would be better than destroying the score given by people who actually know the poster?

Take for instance Jaxley's decision:

No one is going to score highly here, usually arguments are just the stupid " " then "WTF is your problem" thing.

And then he went on to score nobody higher than 60, while everyone else is voting on a proper scale of 1-100. I've seen a few people with suspiciously identical scores which makes me think people are copying other peoples scores when they don't know the person in question, too.

The humour score seems a bit off too, as people seem to have voted with the criteria "Do you have the same sense of humour as ME?" rather than simply "Do you have a sense of humour?".

I'm nagging, so I'll stop now.

I scored no one higher than a 60 because I felt nobody deserved higher. I was scoring on a 0-100 basis.

FatDaz wrote:

Jaxley wrote:Nice! i shuld do wel in this catogary, i ave never ever made a single speling mistake nor ave i mesed up the structare of a sentance.

If youve score me low. you are a fool.

Here is evidence that begs to differ.

That facepalm is because you took time to actually go through what I wrote and changed it so that it'd look like that.

gooseberry fool has hit the fan this page.

I'll state for the group that I do take all the votes very seriously. For something that seemed so simple on paper, I'll probably have to deal with every permutation of problem before this process is over. Any set of votes that look close to identical to an earlier set are disregarded. There have been zero so far but one or two have come close. My favourite trick is people scoring themselves with something other than 100 hoping I won't notice. Unfortunately, my system is fool proof and no-one has bested me yet, even PsychicSykes who likes to give himself scores of 20.

Any sets that hug a single figure (eg 50) for the majority of their votes with next to no deviation will also be removed, but I have yet to have any jump out at me. But this is something I will review in lieu of your comments.

Apart from those two situations, however, I hope people can respect other forumite's opinions whether positive or negative. As I require at least twenty sets of votes before closing a category, a single person can only affect a maximum of 5% of your final score. This entire process will not work if voters cannot confidently give their opinions. I still accept votes by PM if people feel they'd rather vote in this manner and a number of you are taking up this offer. If you have reason to believe a particular person has altered their score on you as an act of 'revenge', send me a PM and I will review your case even if I don't respond to you personally.

Finally, to show that results have so far not been 'ruined' by any voting, I'll post up the current scores in graphical form.

Humour is the y-axis.

Freak Out Requiem IV wrote:

puppetBoy wrote:

Nook29 wrote:

Lots of low scores including: puppetBoy - 45

Apologies if anyone has a lower than expected score, as I haven't seen everyone post enough to judge their grammar

Being serious for a minute, why did you actually vote then? All you've done is knocked down the average for everyone who isn't a major player on the forum, which isn't really fair. If you weren't sure what to award certain people, but still desperately wanted to participate, you could have quickly flicked through the forumites post history whenever you weren't sure.

I have to agree with this... it doesn't make a lot of sense to push down the scores of people you don't know the posts of, since literacy is a fairly objective trait. I see that I'm receiving some fairly average scores from people I'm not really acquainted with, yet I don't think I've made a single grammatical mistake or spelling error in any of my 636 posts here, bar intentional ones. Hmm.

Roonbastard: sorry I didn't vote on Informative/Helpful as I've been busy the last few days, but I'll try to get my votes in for these two categories tonight or, at the latest, tomorrow midday.

I entered this for a bit of fun, like everyone else. It seems to me like I've been singled out here, as I am not the first to apologise for any low scores given to those I haven't seen enough of. I myself have received plenty of low scores from people, which I wouldn't agree with, yet I haven't complained, and put it down to the fact that they haven't seen enough of me to give a high score.

If people really don't want me voting, or indeed in the Top Trumps game, then by all means remove me from it. But don't make it sound like I am the only one who has scored people low because I don't know them.

I can see me!

I really wouldn't want to be that lower left dot!

Roony,are you removing any scores that go way against the grain?

Hexx wrote:I can see me!

How the hell can you see yourself? I don't even know which is me!

Roonmastor wrote:

Hexx wrote:I can see me!

How the hell can you see yourself? I don't even know which is me!

Because one of them's a little bit better than all the others.

Hexx wrote:

Roonmastor wrote:

Hexx wrote:I can see me!

How the hell can you see yourself? I don't even know which is me!

Because one of them's a little bit better than all the others.

You are going to be a very disappointed little boy.

Why are people getting so offended?

A 35, Nook?

Freak Out Requiem IV wrote:

Nook29 wrote:It seems to me like I've been singled out here

Don't flatter yourself.

Nook29 wrote:I myself have received plenty of low scores from people, which I wouldn't agree with, yet I haven't complained, and put it down to the fact that they haven't seen enough of me to give a high score.

The difference is that grammar/literacy is quite literal... people can write quite specifically well or poorly. It's objective and empirical. So, it makes no sense in this particular category to rate someone poorly because you don't know them.

I won't deny that I have given some low scores to people that I don't really know, but those have been subjective categories. Similarly, people have rated me all over the shop, with a surprising number of low votes, but I don't mind that...

Of course it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, but to now single out some of your votes that I find ridiculous:

Drumstick - 50
Memento Mori - 50
Turok - 45
Oh Teh Noes - 55
more heat than light - 55
puppetBoy - 45
Roonmastor - 50
Karlprof - 35

All eight of those members post in at least excellent English, yet the highest marked of them are, apparently, just above average.

If it would make you happier, I will be glad to browse through each members recent posts and post a more informed score for each member.

I am actually offended that some people are voting me low for this category. Literally offended.

Roonmaster, i make all my votes for everyone 100, because despite some people who have problems knowing the difference between 'their' 'they're' and 'there' amongst other things, the standard of English is very good.


Therefore everyone: 100.

Roonmastor*

Albear wrote::lol:

I really wouldn't want to be that lower left dot!

Roony,are you removing any scores that go way against the grain?

Yes, but I usually put them down to typos rather than malice. I'll compare the score to all the scores given by the same voter but if there are a number of single figure/very low votes then I assume they weren't typos. I do the same with the person who received the score to make sure it isn't a shot from the blue.

Sorry this reply took a while, I've been looking through the data making sure it is 'clean'.

Re:Nook29 - His scores for the first three categories are fine in my eyes. His humour scores flagged with me but on inspection they we're varied enough to pass. His Avatar scores are one of the best ranged I've seen.

I won't comment on any data sets still being voted upon, as I compare them with the entire set, but if his, or anyone's votes, strike up with me as wholly unfair or done with no due care then I'll either ignore those votes or ask the user to recast them.

Jaxley wrote:I am actually offended that some people are voting me low for this category. Literally offended.

Roonmaster, i make all my votes for everyone 100, because despite some people who have problems knowing the difference between 'their' 'they're' and 'there' amongst other things, the standard of English is very good.


Therefore everyone: 100.

Jaxley: 0

Good job I don't get to vote, I'd make a search for 'Roonmaster' and make an example of everyone who posted it.

As honourable as that is Jaxley I can't use this for scoring as it achieves nothing. If the scores in a category aren't varied then that category won't be used by players during play. Which makes this whole exercise a little pointless. Please revote.

Freak Out Requiem IV wrote:

Drumstick - 50
Memento Mori - 50
Turok - 45
Oh Teh Noes - 55
more heat than light - 55
puppetBoy - 45
Roonmastor - 50
Karlprof - 35

All eight of those members post in at least excellent English, yet the highest marked of them are, apparently, just above average.

I feel the love, man. :wub:

Prototype wrote:Why are people getting so offended?

Oh look at you, Mr 'I'm above caring what others think of me but cried when I was voted out of the Eliminator because everyone thinks I'm a massive wank stain'. Yeah, this gooseberry fool just got real.