LEADER BOARDS: USER ANALYTICAL STATS on the POLITICS FORUM
-
Notice a trend from left to right among users who are pro-Trump vs those who leave an enormous number of negative marks.
Notice another trend among lefties in their popularity.
Notice another trend among righties.
These are just statistics, there is no opinion behind numbers, so thumbsing down has no effect.
-
The guys on the bottom left seem to go top right when it comes to their reputation vs the negativity they post. :blind:
-
So… the more negative you are, the more your reputation goes down. What a concept! :afr: Too bad you lefties haven't figured that out by now...
-
Sutieday and Drwas have the lowest reputations and the highest number of negative thumbs to give. Notice that Wafflez is also up their in higher numbers of negative remarks given, but his reputation isn't that low (002), because he doesn't post much.
-
Why is there a disproportionately higher number of thumbs down from progressives?
I'd say it has a lot to do with the disproportionately higher number of uncivil and off-topic posts, and other Forum rules violations, by conservatives.
This is backed up by the Warnings – given out only after repeated, repeated infractions -- and which tips heavily in the conservatives' direction.
What a shame you did all this pretty cut-and-pasting, and tabulating, when the conclusions were already as clear as your "Obama Is A Satanic Whore," or if you prefer, "The New World Order Can Suck My D-ck."
Thanks, mhorndisk, for enriching our political discussions with these downward, thumb-bending contributions, and so many, many others by you and your peers.
-
All this shows is that many of us would prefer to agree or disagree using the thumbs up and thumbs down icons than waste time debating with people who name-call most of the time. Why should we get into pointless discussions that have absolutely nothing to do with politics that are somehow allowed to be put in the P&D section? Mhorndisk, you have more thumbs down from me because your posts (1) usually have nothing to do with politics, (2) are 100% uncivil and filled with childish name-calling, (3) are based in often times debunked, unproven or outlandish conspiracy theories, and (4) are so awful that you are given a WARNING time after time. I know for myself, I do not go directly into your posts and automatically give a thumbs down, I read what you write. I do the same with Frederick and Raphjd, I read their posts before giving a thumbs up, a thumbs down or leaving the post alone. There have been posts where I've agreed with them and have actually given them thumbs up, especially whenever they criticize Facebook and YouTube or call out the left for being silent on its violence in relation to free speech. If your post is a direct deflection, consists of mass generalizations, makes wholly irrational arguments, is 100% uncivil in tone, and makes no real effort to engage in an adult conversation then you should not be surprised to get a thumbs down.
-
Why is there a disproportionately higher number of thumbs down from progressives?
I'd say it has a lot to do with the disproportionately higher number of uncivil and off-topic posts, and other Forum rules violations, by conservatives.
This is backed up by the Warnings – given out only after repeated, repeated infractions -- and which tips heavily in the conservatives' direction.
What a shame you did all this pretty cut-and-pasting, and tabulating, when the conclusions were already as clear as your "Obama Is A Satanic Whore," or if you prefer, "The New World Order Can Suck My D-ck."
Thanks, mhorndisk, for enriching our political discussions with these downward, thumb-bending contributions, and so many, many others by you and your peers.
I'd say you're full of it.
You moonbats are almost always wrong, hypocritical, and downvote other posts without even reading them. You reap what you sow. -
Now the moonbats are complaining that Mhorndisk is not playing fair because he revealed the actual, factual, statistics of the members of the forum.. and they prove what negative nellies they are.
-
Yea so what if I say Obama is a Satanist? That isn't uncivil… It's his religion. He obviously wants America to fall and he's plotting with globalists to take the country down to be ruled by a global cabal of child molesting devil-worshippers. And so what if you guys agree that Mika's dad was the creator of the Trilateral Commission and so I say they can suck ma dick? That's how I feel. And if you don't realize that people in power have been trying to take control of the planet for a long time than you aren't paying attention.
-
Yea so what if I say Obama is a Satanist? That isn't uncivil… It's his religion.
No not going to do it… I'm not going to sink to that level. I feel bad for employing the same tactics.
Hence the edit of this post.
Let this be a post where I can explain that by wording things in a certain way, I can twist around openly calling someone a shitty human being and get away with a ton of unsavory stuff, while dancing the fine line of slandering and libelling someone.
"I believe..."
"I think..."
"I'm not saying you are..."
"Allegedly..."I will not go so low to prove a point. Though it is so goddamn appealing and easy to do.
-
Yea so what if I say Obama is a Satanist? That isn't uncivil… It's his religion. He obviously wants America to fall and he's plotting with globalists to take the country down to be ruled by a global cabal of child molesting devil-worshippers. And so what if you guys agree that Mika's dad was the creator of the Trilateral Commission and so I say they can suck ma dick? That's how I feel. And if you don't realize that people in power have been trying to take control of the planet for a long time than you aren't paying attention.
I don't agree because you have no evidence that Obama is not a Christian
-
My personal testimony of what I have seen is enough evidence for me, and in court, eye witness testimony is the most important piece of information to a jury. I don't care to spend time arguing with you about it. It's what I believe and what I know because it is obvious that he is trying to destroy this nation by selling us out to a global banking dictatorship run by big in your face organizations like the UN that are openly declaring their government to be the global world order and he is one of their spokespeople. You are talking about the end of America. It would take all day to educate you on the Maritime Admiralty System and how the law actually works, so I'm not going to bother, because you guys don't read or care about the Truth, you only care to thumbs down anything from anyone that doesn't fit the rainbows and butterflies lala land dream world that you want to pretend exists because it makes you feel better. And also devken Trump never said that, you are weaving a story like saying you caught a fish and it was THIS big, THAT is why you edited it.
-
No one here, and especially not mhorndisk and Frederick seem to know how reputation power works. It is not related at all by how we cast our votes, but depends totally on the votes we receive. Since we all have very low to negative reputation power, our votes do nothing to improve or decrease the reputation power of someone with a positive value. It also does nothing to improve the negative values of our colleagues when we give them up votes. Yet one down vote by one of you guys decreases our reputation by 60-70 points at a clip ( single vote by raphjd counts 475 in either direction).
Therefore, as long as we hang around this forum, we will always be in the negative. Unless we start participating in other board and get upvotes from fair members our reputation power will not improve, unless we flood every board with posts, which I'm sure is not appreciated. Yet the users already with positive reputation power can continue to grow their buddies score by simply upvoting. Even if they are not in collusion, their similar views will perpetuate this trend.
Any suggestion that a red bar indicates a troll is simply false. In the fact the worse trolls on this board have long green lines.
I realize that reputation power is part of the third-party bulletin board module used by the site and probably can't be changed, but perhaps reputation power can be hidden except for moderators. -
No one here, and especially not mhorndisk and Frederick seem to know how reputation power works. It is not related at all by how we cast our votes, but depends totally on the votes we receive. Since we all have very low to negative reputation power, our votes do nothing to improve or decrease the reputation power of someone with a positive value. It also does nothing to improve the negative values of our colleagues when we give them up votes. Yet one down vote by one of you guys decreases our reputation by 60-70 points at a clip ( single vote by raphjd counts 475 in either direction).
Therefore, as long as we hang around this forum, we will always be in the negative. Unless we start participating in other board and get upvotes from fair members our reputation power will not improve, unless we flood every board with posts, which I'm sure is not appreciated. Yet the users already with positive reputation power can continue to grow their buddies score by simply upvoting. Even if they are not in collusion, their similar views will perpetuate this trend.
Any suggestion that a red bar indicates a troll is simply false. In the fact the worse trolls on this board have long green lines.
I realize that reputation power is part of the third-party bulletin board module used by the site and probably can't be changed, but perhaps reputation power can be hidden except for moderators.Thanks for your explanation, pppuccci, and after considering exactly how Reputation works, I would be perfectly happy to climb up (or down? lol…) the ranks.
I was rather pleased to be in "negative third place" for Reputation after a relative short stay on this gulag, and there's a good chance I may pick up more points tonight, from one of this purgatory's most "point-rich" neo-cons.
They would like progressives to feel that these points are shameful, or some kind of victory on their part. Honesty, why should we care a whit? Their sweaty efforts are pretty funny, though.
You know what? I'll take all your lousy points. I embrace them, for they are a confirmation that I'm making these small-minded thinkers uncomfortable.
-
Since we all have very low to negative reputation power, our votes do nothing to improve or decrease the reputation power of someone with a positive value. It also does nothing to improve the negative values of our colleagues when we give them up votes. Yet one down vote by one of you guys decreases our reputation by 60-70 points at a clip ( single vote by raphjd counts 475 in either direction).
I never understood how that worked. Seems like a pretty crappy system.
-
I never understood how that worked. Seems like a pretty crappy system.
Yes, sutieday, it is a marvelously crappy system – but look out, I am hot on your tail! As pppucci described -- and I thank him for the explanation -- Reputation may be part of GT and its Forums' "third-party bulletin board module," and difficult to modify.
What needs to be remembered is that Reputation, as practiced in Politics & Debate, is an easily gamed system, where some would have us
...strive for better scores, impossible once in the red? LOL.
...applaud those who have artificially jacked their numbers high into the green? Double LOL.To get a bit literary, wear your red like a badge of courage, proof that you are stronger than the obscene name-calling, or the flaming rants, and the sea of nonsensical, alternative facts that often reign here.
Yeah, I'm good and red, perhaps a little redder tomorrow, and sleeping very well tonight.
-
Why is there a disproportionately higher number of thumbs down from progressives?
I'd say it has a lot to do with the disproportionately higher number of uncivil and off-topic posts, and other Forum rules violations, by conservatives.
This is backed up by the Warnings – given out only after repeated, repeated infractions -- and which tips heavily in the conservatives' direction.
What a shame you did all this pretty cut-and-pasting, and tabulating, when the conclusions were already as clear as your "Obama Is A Satanic Whore," or if you prefer, "The New World Order Can Suck My D-ck."
Thanks, mhorndisk, for enriching our political discussions with these downward, thumb-bending contributions, and so many, many others by you and your peers.
Actually, you are wrong about the high number of downvotes, at least from the 3 biggest offenders; DrWas, Sutie and wafflez.
They searched out posts from their enemies and downvoted them not matter the content.
RoyalCrown (think it was him) gave me a link and I thanked him; downvoted. "Thanks :hug: " got me downvoted.
-
RoyalCrown (think it was him) gave me a link and I thanked him; downvoted. "Thanks :hug: " got me downvoted.
In a situation like that, if you had put your policeman's cap on, called out the user and warned him not to abuse the voting system, no one would have objected, You obviously cannot downvote a post that contains no opinion.
-
That is the situation we've been in for months.
Even "good" posts by the non liberals get downvoted.
Liberals hate the idea of using my admin powers to out one of them when they think they are being sneaky. That's why Sutie has twice accused me of using my admin powers to "dox". I'm too lazy for that crap. I use the same info available to every registered users.
