Debate talk:CP's biggest idiot 2

Round two, Conservapedia's Biggest Idiot?

The recent burst of mind numbing stupidity from CP has got me thinking, is it time to host another round of voting for CP's biggest idiot? My voucher would have to go to Andy, so blindly denying the obvious flaws in his own paper. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ exemplifying cork soakers!

Nuh uh. Ed is so stupid, he wins the award in perpetuity. Maybe we should have weight classes or something. Ed can compete on his own for the stupidity super heavyweight belt, and let the intellectual flyweights duke it out for the own greater glory. --JeevesMkII 10:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Maybe Ed should be exempt from this round, being such a clear front-runner and previous winner. Jinx _{hi Jinx!} is your man, in that case. Bondurant 10:22, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Speaking of Ed, he's been noticeably absent lately. Could he be shudder teaching? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:27, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Andy's not so much stupid (not that he's, you know. "intelligent," either...) as he is wilfully ideologically blinded to facts and logic. Conservative is your man, hands down. Moron. 10:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Previously, I struggled with the definition of "idiot." I took it to mean somebody who is intelligent, but completely stupid at the same time, and for that my nomination last time was PJR. Clearly an intelligent man, but who completely disregards the higher functions of his brain when it comes to science. Bondurant 10:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

While I agree that Ken should be the winner, they're all such good choices (except Bugler, that man is a masterpiece of parody; I can't believe they still haven't figured it out). Nevertheless, I don't think there's any point in voting again, as it was recently settled in Ed's favor, and the majority decision should stand. Though I do wonder where he is. He's been absent from Wikipedia too. DickTurpis 10:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and as the originator of the previous contest, I was supposing "biggest idiot" to be synonymous with "stupidest". I guess not everyone agreed with that definition. DickTurpis 10:35, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

(EC)Ed won the last one by a considerable margin and that was before the latest mathematics madness, either we make another contest (I suggest Conservapedia's most deluded) or we exclude Ed from this one. NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 10:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Maybe we should do a full-on awards ceremony, with different categories. And then we can swoop on CP en-masse and plant the awards certificates on each user's talk page. Starter for 10: The Colbert award for best parodist: Bugler! Come on down, Bugler and saw a few words for your fans. Bondurant 10:41, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Shouldn't we make it more like school awards day. Everyone gets something, even if it's only a prize for scripture knowledge :D --JeevesMkII 10:47, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Normally I don't like such things, but I think that may not be a bad idea now. We've already chosen an obvious award and decided who most deserved it, if we're going to do any other awards it might be bet to choose the individual and decide what award they most deserve. It could be fun. DickTurpis 10:54, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

To have a "biggest idiot" implies that idiocy only exists in a greater & lesser degree, & ignores the full spectrum of different kinds of idiocy we can see at CP. I am in favour of each of the major players getting their own idiot epithet - e.g. Conservative - fatuous knucklehead; Ed Poor - dysfunctional cretin; Learn Together - simpering dunce; Jinx - gibbering manchild; Andy - deluded megalomaniac idiotic king. And so on. weaseLOId~ 11:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I can get behind the idea of the awards ceremony. Do you get extra points for how long you can make the "award" last on the user:talk page? Armondikov 11:07, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

So if we do host this particulr awards event, there would be individual categories, such as "Master of Delusions" and "Prosecution complex?" I think it's a better idea than what I offered. =)ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ exemplifying cork soakers!

Another possibility is to rate each idiot in several different categories using sliders like RW:AOTW ones (e.g. vanity, prejudice, general stupidity, denial of reality, etc.) weaseLOId~ 11:32, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh man. That's dangerously close to Conservapedia Top Trumps. I'm sure you don't want to go there, believe me I've opened that can of worms before. --JeevesMkII 11:39, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

That's fantastic! weaseLOId~ 11:44, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

If we're going to have another Biggest Idiot Competition, DickTurpis and I are going to be mighty miffed if Kenservative doesn't win. Last time out Conservative's campaign was sunk by the swift-boats of the Ed "Poor At Maths" cabal, and his long-overdue crowning was consigned to the dustbin of history. Let there be no ballot-rigging this time! And if things get dirty, well, you can be sure that the Kenservative campaign will not go down without a fight this time. We live again! DogP 11:50, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)Hi, I'm here again I would like to motion for Biggest Idiot, round two. That will eliminate Ed from the running, but also allow him to keep his original award. With some good planning, this could become the Nobel prize of Conservapedia. Same award, different recipient. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 12:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I believe I already made Conservapedia:Awards, precisely for doing what you all are talking about. Lo, my pages are forgettable. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:18, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Suggestions so far

1. Another round of voting, with Ed eliminated from the ballot. He keeps the original award. (This award becomes a biannual event? The template says "First, second, third etc?)

2. Sliding bars ranking the various candidates in terms of stupidity, arrogance, fear of others, etc, similar to the Article of the Weak.

3. Nomination of candidates under qualities, and a direct vote for if they meet that category.

4. No, none of the above.

NOTE: see bottom for voting section.

I suppose that we should compile a few more suggestions before opening the above to voting. What do you guys think so far? ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ exemplifying cork soakers!

I support option number 1 with one slight mod. Instead of saying 2nd, 3rd etc. We should make a note that this is simply round 2. Meaning it's not "X was voted second biggest idiot on Conservapedia" but "X was voted biggest idiot on Conservapedia for the second round of voting." I also think we should open further rounds to previous winners. They can't win twice in a row, but Ed should be in the running for round three. I also think we need to just allow that Andy is the ultimate stupidity behind Conservapedia and give some kind of recognition. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 13:36, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't much care for #1, as it's basically a repeat of what we just recently did. Ed won, and Andy was official runner up. I don't think anything has changed enough for any new results to be expected. #2 is interesting, I could maybe go for that. The idea of trying to come up with new awards tailored to each Conservapedian's qualities (or whatever the opposite of quality is) is intriguing too, though I think they would need to go beyond various forms of idiocy. DickTurpis 14:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I floated the idea of "most deluded' award sometime ago I recall. My motivation being Ken claiming he can destroy atheism on the internet. Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 17:35, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm inclined to agree with Ace. They're all idiots over there in way or another - and that includes the peons who allow themselves to be "taught" by Andy. It's just the degree and our perception thereof that varies. We'll just end up haggling again. "Idiot" is also a vague term really, maybe there should be something more specific - Biggst Raving Fundie (PJR), Most Obnoxious (Karajerk), Biggest Hypocrite (Andy), Slimiest Toady (joint between Jinx & Bugler), Most Likely Parodist (Conservative Bugler). ok, I'm out of ideas. I also vote for option 2, with the slider wossnames. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 18:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, it's not voting quite yet, as I am stil lcollecting ideas, but when the time does come to vote, I suppose I know what you will cast yours for =) ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ exemplifying cork soakers!

Lol, oh I dunno... the way that mob carry on, I'll probably have a totally different list tomorrow. Besides, I is fickle and always changing. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 18:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

When you mention the peons who allow themselves to be "taught" by Andy, I believe you are including our very own na-thang (aka Fuzzy Kettleticket) in that group. I believe he is one of the record breaking 51 (or however many it is). I think we need to set up a deprogramming regiment for him every week. Who is our resident expert on American History? DickTurpis 18:53, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

For advanced whizzbangery, it's hard to beat the idea that we get voting with the multiple sliding bar-thingies. Even if the results are confusing or inconclusive, it won't matter, as we'll have had tremendous japes sliding the vote yokeymebobs around the place. So - I vote for any kind of vote at all that involves those slider jobbies. DogP 18:58, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I like the idea of new titles, tailored to specific editors there. Idiot has many synonyms. Shall we come up with one for Kendoll first? ħuman 19:21, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Here are some suggestions

1. Biggest bully with least merit? Karajou?
2. Most Intellectually Dishonest PJR ( he seems to know better)
3. Most just plain dishonest Andy of course
4. Most polished e-peen Conservative
5. Most obvious inferiority complex Conservative
6. Lowest apparent IQ Karajou
7. Lowest measurable IQ Andy (cheap shot on the ka-jerky one, bit still)
8. Best Example of Poe's Law Bugler
9. Worst Copyright violator hmmm
10. Worst plagarist hmmm
11. Most objectively incorrect information posted Andy
12. Most Cowardly and dishonest blocks Karajou

I'm not voting yet either. We should reason about this. I'll start: I demand we all reach a consensus which conforms to my opinion. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 19:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

It's too hard to choose! My nomination is "Conservapedia's Butchest Queen" --JeevesMkII 19:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I propose a Special Rationalwiki Award too:

• Biggest Idiot at Rationalwiki for those who come, visit and "debate" with us. With all due respect for Bohdan and CPAdmin, I nominate Jinxmchue. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 02:37, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Nice try, Liar at M1F#WI, but even Jinx is an inferior selection compared to... TerryH. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 02:42, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Terry may win the Best one-liner at Rationalwiki award, but Jinx's consistency and persistence must be rewarded. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 06:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Surely that "Worst Plagarist" (and possibly "Copyright Violator") could go to whoever is creating 200 stubs a day ripped straight from various dictionaries. Armondikov 10:01, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

You know who's been overlooked, mostly because of his absence, I suspect? RobS. That man is truly, truly a stupid individual. I was looking over some past arguments I had with him, and his reading comprehension skills are zero. I honestly think Ken's might be better. Every time I made a point he would respond with a statement that had nothing to do with what anyone said. Maybe he does it on purpose; you can't argue with someone who responds to everything with a random sentence pulled out of some automatic phrase-generator. He certainly deserves some award, now that he's sort of back. DickTurpis 11:28, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Another category which I put on Wigo TALK instead:

• Best parody by a non-parodist also known as the Poe's Law award: given only to an established non parodist (Aschlafly, Ed Poor, PJR, Conservative, DeanS, Joaquin Martinez, ...; no Buglers please) for the best this-must-be-parody! article or edit. As an example of such an article, see Evolution syndrome. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 03:15, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh and while I'm going on with categories for single edits/articles, let me also add:

• Irony meter award, for the article/edit that broke our most resistant irony meter. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 03:19, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

EZ edit button

From what I am seeing so far, we are favoring categories for individual mind-numbing qualities. Shall I open the article up for voting, or are we pleased with the options so far? Just to refresh 1. Another round of voting, with Ed eliminated from the ballot. He keeps the original award. (This award becomes a biannual event? The template says "First, second, third etc?)

2. Sliding bars ranking the various candidates in terms of stupidity, arrogance, fear of others, etc, similar to the Article of the Weak.

3. Nomination of candidates under qualities, and a direct vote for if they meet that category.

4. No, none of the above.

See bottom for voting section, the red/green arrow created negatives I really did not intend on... ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ exemplifying cork soakers!

If there are no further suggestions, I say we open the voting session. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ exemplifying cork soakers!

WHERE ARE THE SLIDEY BAR THINGIES? I'm not voting unless we can have those, at least three of them. DogP 01:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Red/Green arrows is all you get. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 01:42, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

That is a non-substantive answer. Either give me my slidey bar thingies or find somewhere else to edit. DogP 02:25, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I must say I like 3. We could do it academy award style. We have 5 nomination for each category and we each get a vote (can we disable down arrows for this purpose?). We can end the evening with the biggest idiot award. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 02:40, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

What about simple categories, like those outlined above by Human et al., but without nominations? Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 03:30, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Couple comments... one, there's no rush here. Isn't our deadline CP day? Two, while the sliders are a seductive way to set up the voting, it will be a brutal task to set up (but do-able). If we want to do them, we'll need to carefully pick the categories to "slide" on, and then I could set up a page with the same set of bars for each "nominee". ħuman 14:26, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Lets vote on how to vote

I like #2, it will allow us to build up a profile of the editors on CP. Could be very funny.--Damo^Hi 11:51, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I think "biggest idiot" has been awarded. What we need are other awards for some of the lesser idiots at CP. ħuman 02:28, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Best supporting idiot? $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 02:42, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I like the idea of using categories and assigning winners to each (there can be more than 1 winner of course). That way we get to highlight not only who the biggest idiots are, but also their area of speciality. And if "Most Gratuitous Use of a Double Standard" isn't one of them, I'm going to sulk. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 03:14, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Have we voted on how to vote yet? Can we move onto the Primaries? DogP 22:28, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia Day

I think we should hold off for a bit, vote on numerous awards and present them on Conservapedia Day. Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 18:31, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree on the wait till CP day. We could also make the top award the biggest idiot on CP (nicknamed the Andy) and make whatever other awards we settle on lesser honors (nicknamed the professors). I've also been brainstorming on what I think the award should look like

^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 19:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

We should for sure have The Andy Award but I am less convinced on The Professors. How about The Acolytes Award?

Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 19:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Oooh , Acolytes is better! ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 19:30, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree we should take our time. And, as I said above, I think what we need are other awards for some of the lesser idiots, but still laughable characters, at CP. ħuman 02:29, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I suggest:

• Biggest Idiot of CP - Given to the CP sysop who has demonstrated the most amazing and persistent pattern of profound stupidity.
• Hovind Recognition - Given to the CP sysop who has abused their position and the truth in the most amusingly transparent manner.

• Intelligent Design Award - Given to the CP user who has shown the most egregious disdain for sane page design. I assume Joaquin is an automatic nominee for this one, and probably also Conservative for his recent Main Page displays of foolishness (which rival Joaquin's for their sheer prominence.
• Scientific Consensus Award - Given to the CP user who has demonstrated the most craven obedience to talking points from superiors. Bugler is going to be hard to beat here, but I'm sure that there can be plenty of dark horse candidates.
• Power of Prayer Award - Given to the CP user who has championed their particular flavor of right-wing religious nuttery in the most spectacular fashion. Extra points for denigrating all other religions or for particular offensiveness towards a minority group.

• Honorable Mention of Idiocy - Given to CP users in recognition of single actions or comments that demonstrate gob-smacking idiocy, rather than for persistent patterns. Limit of five per awards ceremony.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 03:47, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmm these are all good points Tom. There are some we can adjust slightly but its a damn good start. Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 03:56, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

100% on doing it on CP day. Is it possible to get RW above CP on the google search for "conservapedia day"? If you really, really make a big deal out of it (remember, RW is actually free to view and edit and they do watch it...) we could cause them to panic and lock down the site for the whole of CP day. It would be beatiful! Armondikov 05:59, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

So are we in agreement that CP day is the best day? I think if this thing is worth doing properly, its worth doing right....if ya know what I mean. Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 06:08, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Absolutely, CP Day will be a wonderful day for the presentation ceremony. When is it again? DogP 11:23, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Nov. 21, I think. See conservapedia:timeline ħuman 17:51, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Voting time

Rules

Each user has two votes, you can use one of them, none of them, or both of them. There are four categories, to vote, use either of the following.

For. (signature) Against. (signature)

You do not have to vote for and against, you can vote "For" both of your choices, or "against" both choices... JUST MAKE SURE YOU SIGN. Also make sure to add a # before your choice, and update the score before pressing save. You do not have to vote twice You can vote twice on the same option.

1. Another round of voting, with Ed eliminated from the ballot. He keeps the original award. (This award becomes a biannual event? The template says "First, second, third etc?) Score = 1

1. DogP 11:13, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
2. For-Willis 09:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
3. For - Except I want to elect the biggest idiot each year (or twice a year, perhaps July 4th can be the other date) and have a set of category based awards ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 10:28, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

2. Sliding bars ranking the various candidates in terms of stupidity, arrogance, fear of others, etc, similar to the Article of the Weak. Score = 7

1. For. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:20, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
2. I'm all about the sliding bar widgety bits. DogP 11:13, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
3. For. weaseLOId~ 11:42, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
4. For. ħuman 14:29, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
5. For. symuun^Words! 14:32, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
6. For Damo^Hi 15:48, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
7. For. --ζειαηđδηǐ (τ|ϛ) 19:03, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
8. Against - we are not rational mature enough to assess the relative stupidity of a Conservative vs. Andy vs. Ed etc. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 03:08, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
9. For. I desire, nay, demand slidey things. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 04:27, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
10. Against, because it will be less interesting.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 21:37, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
11. I think I'm sold on the slidey bars. Though I do have some concerns that some people will pick their favorite cretin and give him perfect scores in each category. I want real thought put into these. DickTurpis 22:42, 18 September 2008 (EDT) Thought??? Muahahahahahah! ħuman 00:07, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

3. Nomination of candidates under qualities, and a direct vote for if they meet that category. Score = 10

1. For. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ exemplifying cork soakers!
2. For. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:20, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
3. For (if combined with slidy things too). weaseLOId~ 11:42, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
4. For, weakly (distant second to #2) ħuman 14:29, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
5. For.seventhrib 16:59, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
6. For (but without nominations). Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 03:07, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
7. For.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 21:37, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
8. For-Willis 09:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
9. For - Except I want to elect the biggest idiot each year (or twice a year, perhaps July 4th can be the other date) and have a set of category based awards ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 10:28, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
10. For. When do we vote? --JJ4e^{Andy's writing makes my eyes sad} 20:28, 12 November 2008 (EST)

4. No, none of the above. Score = -1

1. Against. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ exemplifying cork soakers!

WTF? I haz no eye cues

Which option is for giving out a second idiot award as the highest dishonor AND some other less dishonorable ones for various categories . . like the Oscars whatever . . . . The choices given seem vague and menacing ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 18:50, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Vote for 1 and then either 2 or 3. Mention in your vote that you want both. ħuman 19:10, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

And don't be surprised if Florida demands a recount, or Human wins the vote. DogP 21:09, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Slidy things

If we are going to do something like this I should create a one oft generic version similar to the vote tag. Does it look like that is what you guys want to do? tmtoulouse ^frustrate 11:56, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Do bears shit in the woods? Is the Pope a Catholic? Of course we want slidey bar thingies. Frankly, they're more important than the voting. Pointless and unnecessary web user interface technologies are where it's freakin' AT Baby. DogP 21:07, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I was just gonna hack the "article" template thing we use at AotW - make a custom set of traits in a subfile like we do, and then give each nominee their own "section". But if you want to make something slicker, that would probably be even better. Oh yeah, way better, since each use of "article" will transclude all those trait descriptions we use on AotW. Yeah, if you can make a generic version that would be great. ħuman 14:42, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Trent built the generic slider bar so we can do whatever we want when the time comes. ħuman 19:41, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

The Trophy

This has to be it. I can't believe putting "golden goat" into google images brought something up. Armondikov 11:29, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

That is fucking marvelous man. Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 17:41, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

You think we could photoshop this on that?

Keep in mind that we can't use an image unless we know someone with upload rights. (or unless it's already on CP) ħuman 19:11, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

The Human raises a good point. I've had a quick glance through image archives on CP. There's nothing comparable to the golden goat, but this might do for an idiot award. It's a small image, so maybe could be used as tile to make a border for the certificate. weaseLOId~ 06:28, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Ah, and you can't embed can you... damn. But the monkey could be a good one, I like the idea of bordering it. Blanking someone's talk page to replace it with that would be immense. The goat can stay on RW and you can link to it with the phrase "come and collect your trophy!!" (If there's a potential copyright problem I can probably knock a 3D one up in an hour or so). Armondikov 06:35, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Great, you got Lippychimp deleted. Which makes me think of an interesting project ;) What other images over there would be good for the awards? ħuman 17:01, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

How about Ken's Hitler? Can kill 2 birds if they delete that one, plus even if they don't it's applicable to most of the goons over there. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:35, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I dunno - while that is funny in some ways, it's also a bit creepy. However, your suggestion inspires me to say, why not use the Darwin picture? ħuman 17:16, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

What about using one of Kenservative's idiotic stock images, like Desperation Man or Indecisive Guy? (& If mentioning them here gets them deleted, so much the better). weaseLOId~ 17:31, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Even better, those are great! ħuman 17:37, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Fantastic Desperation Man (Face Plant) is perfect for the trophy. Duhhh.....Face, meet palm. DogP 17:42, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

What next?

What's happening about this now? Nothing at the moment, evidently, but should we start organising & voting? weaseLOId~ 10:19, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Bump--Damo^Hi 13:32, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Hey! It's almost time! 72.218.142.51 18:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Ah, that explains Ed and TK coming back. --Kels 18:46, 15 November 2008 (EST)

I should ask Ed to unblock the "cabal" for the CP day festivities. ħuman 19:42, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Qualities

I have put forward 9 qualities they should each be judged by. Thoughts? - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 22:40, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Mostly OK, but I don't think Parody should be on there. If a sysop is a parodist, then they're probably not an idiot. weaseLOId~ 11:19, 17 November 2008 (EST)

& Bigotry should be added. weaseLOId~ 11:21, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Fixed. Any other thoughts or should we kick this off? CP day is only 4 days away. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 15:57, 17 November 2008 (EST)

My vote goes for kicking off, for what it's worth. Time's ticking away.--symuun^Words! 16:57, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Someone agrees with me, I am going to take that as my usual interpretation "almost $\pi$ you are always so right do what you think is best. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 18:09, 17 November 2008 (EST)

I see no flaw in this reasoning. Let there be voting!--symuun^Words! 18:38, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Looks like someone/several did a lot of work. It was nice to just be able to come and play without lifting a finger to help build the toy. Nice work, overall, although one or two "categories" aren't as clear as they could be. I guess the awards at the top kind of correspond to each category? So they eventually will describe what the voting exactly means? Anyway, lots of fun, of course I did enter a few 3 digit votes, mostly for the beloved-by-all TK. I hope reloading the page will show me my votes, so if any get wiped I can re-enter them. Anyway, one more time, very nice work and congratulations on the results. Bravo! ħuman 21:57, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Talk page first

Guess I prolly shoulda place the IOY Award as a suggestion here first. Oops. --MAstEr oF pUPetS^talk! 22:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Definitions?

When I saw Liability, I kinda paused. Is that "lack of", or someone who shows more (10) liability to their actions? Would be nice to clarify the meanings of each quality. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 19:22, 17 November 2008 (EST)

I'm guessing that the person on the left of the scroll bar has less of a certain quality and the person on the right has more of the given quality? Sadly, I don't know all the references (or don't know enough about them).

PS: Someone cheated already. JazzMan 19:29, 17 November 2008 (EST)

I'm taking "Liability" to mean a liability to the site- the source of serious problems that are holding it back or dragging it down, in other words. I misunderstood it once already, though, so having a brief description of each quality would probably give best results. Left means less of a particular quality, though, I'm pretty sure of that.--symuun^Words! 19:31, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Bug report

I forgot to prevent people from "typing in" answers over 10, I will seal up that bug and go back through the data pull out people that did this. Naughty! 130.113.218.226 19:34, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Inaesthetic

Who made the lables for that category, Ed Poor? So you've got a scale from the great design work of Bauhaus to...one of the greatest surrealist painters of all time? WTF? Perhaps "velvet Elvis" on the far right would be better? Or for comics fans, Rob Liefeld? --Kels 20:24, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Change it if you like. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 20:39, 17 November 2008 (EST)

That one was my idea. It wasn't intended to be a critique of the art styles, just a kind of vaguely snarky representation of what the styles stand for. Bauhaus being a marriage of form and function, and Dali doing an excellent line in surreal, trippy madness. My thinking was art and design are as about as subjective as you get, so rather than picking "good" or "bad" artists it would be about the philosophy and ideas behind them. I dunno.--symuun^Words! 21:00, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Predictions

• The Ed Poor Idiot of the Year Award: the Assfly
• Hovind Recognition: Kowardjou
• Intelligent Design Award: BethanyS
• Biggest Bully: Bugly
• The Golden Assfly: Definitely Kenny, for his body of work.

JJ4E^{Veritas vincere tenebras} 21:00, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Confused Am

Do I have to click the little 'vote' button for EACH slider? I do not have time for that. Can't I just set the sliders and hit a Big, Red Button? Then BLAMMO! all the values are dispatched to slider bar heaven? I'm a lazy liberal, you see - we don't like to try too hard. DogP 21:48, 17 November 2008 (EST)

I found it relatively deceitful to make all my votes for a given moron, then click "vote" quickly ten or so times. ħuman 21:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)

You can set the sliders then go *blam blam blam blam* and hit all the vote buttons straight down the line. JazzMan 21:53, 17 November 2008 (EST)

We should probably have clarified somewhere that it's rating people out of ten for these qualities. Somebody's buggered it right up by awarding hundreds of points to TK. weaseLOId~ 17:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Human's a dirty cheater! JazzMan 17:34, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Trent says he is going to pull vote over 10 out when he fixes the bug. If not anyone with more than 10 votes will be ignored. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 19:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)

We have to click vote 270 times? I dislike this system since it's so laborious; I thought the vote we had previously had settled on not doing it this way: rating everyone on everything. Why not have nominations for the categories, with a typical CP diff of the nominee, and then straight-out vote?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 23:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

You don't have to put in every slider. I have only voted for people that show "special qualaties". - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 23:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Awards

Anymore award names? - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 21:59, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Yeah, for the puerile one: "Jeffrey Dahmer Understanding of Human Sexuality Award" - it's for Ken

. ħuman 22:21, 17 November 2008 (EST)

I like the one now as I get to use a picture of Ken

's page. So either it will be there or he has to delete it, either way we win. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 22:32, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Uh, ok. Can we just give Ken

my new award by acclamation, then? ħuman 22:36, 17 November 2008 (EST)

I take it those are all valid image names at CP? Kan we haz them uploded here too to admire the awardz moar? Kthxbai... ħuman 22:37, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Most are off Ken

's user page. The Dempski one is on the main page and Ed Poor's is on his user talk page. The Jesse Helm's is on some page called Jess Helms/tribute. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 22:40, 17 November 2008 (EST)

I grabbed them all, uploaded with same titles, so they'll work on the award subpages. ħuman 21:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks Human. Gee that picture of Dempski is ugly. I still undecided about the liability name. Who suggested it? - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 22:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Me. I didn't say it was good, I was just tired of looking at "name". My reasoning was that the more fundie a user is, the bigger the liability to the site they are. Go ahead and can it if you don't like it. JazzMan 23:06, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I see you already changed it. I like mine better, because I like Ann Coulter *runs and hides* JazzMan 23:08, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Like Fred Phelps, Ann Coulter does more harm to her cause than good. I don't mind people expressing view opposite to mine so long as it is well reasoned, well thought out and well written manner. When you are just screaming the first stupid idea that pops into your head and refuse to ever back down or apologise for making a poorly worded statement and instead try to defend it, you make your entire belief system look like it is based on irrationality. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 23:13, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Only if you read her for the politics then sure, she might hurt her cause (then again, I consider her politics "radical fundamentalist conservative", not "conservative"). I read her for the humor :) JazzMan 23:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)

She is perfect than both Andy and her think their politics is "conservative" when it is in fact "radical fundamentalist conservative" and putting moderates off the conservative movement in general. Look at the last US election to see how people that favour moderate politics embarrassed on of the most left candidates in over 30 years because of negative, personal and down right slanderous rhetoric. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 23:27, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Nobody sysops

Does any one object to the scratching of ChrisS, DavidR, Freedom777, Jallen, SharonS, WillN and Ymmotrojam. They are just some of Andy's home-schoolers that were given sysop rights that haven't done anything with them. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 23:59, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I totally voted for Freedom777! I don't think we need to scrap them entirely, especially since it's unlikely any of them will score likely to place. Maybe put them in their own category? But then how do you decide? Jallen is notorious for making the stupid ugly sidebar, and Freedom777 is notorious for really being Ken. DavidR has been back-talking Andy recently. I'd say leave them in, but only allow scores for people who get more than a certain number of votes (depending on how many people actually vote). Then, assuming people don't vote for people they've never heard of, all of our problems are solved without actualy having to make any decisions. JazzMan 02:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Is Jallen a homzkoolar? JJ4E^{Veritas vincere tenebras} 21:39, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Well, since we are a liberal institution we can't have a contest with losers. I say we:

1. give honorable mentions to secound placers in each category, and
2. Make up a new award, The Et al --for not fucking up the status quo--to any sysops that don't win or place.

That way everyone who has participated in CP gets recognized ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 22:13, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Close of Counting

When does counting close and how do we pick a winner given the liberal deceit that has taken place with the voting. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 19:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I can "fix" the liberal deceit. tmtoulouse 19:53, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Counting probably closes at the end of Conservapedia Day, right? Or maybe at the start of CPD. JazzMan 20:35, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks, Trent it was annoying seeing some of those numbers, it made a mockery of our partially democratic process. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 21:30, 19 November 2008 (EST)

What day is Conservapedia Day? I haven't purchased my virgin goat yet. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 22:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

21st of November. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 23:08, 19 November 2008 (EST)

(EC) November 21st. You'll be lucky to find a virgin goat this close to the holiday. You might have to settle for a "born again virgin" goat. JazzMan 23:10, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Adding a closed="yes" parameter will turn off voting, so when you want it closed you can do that. tmtoulouse 21:57, 20 November 2008 (EST)

skewed results-- liberal bias favors mediocrity

Taking the average value ( I assume) doesn't take into account the absolute volume of votes (forgive any bad maths vocab -- I've a liberal arts background). So, if 20 people vote that Andy's liability is a 8 and one person votes that TerryH's (to name a pertinent example) is a 9, TerryH is the most liable. Absolute points might the way to go in the event that it is not too late. Even if we don't change it I don't think it will impact the integrity of the results nor the public's trust in them. All of the names I recognize deserve to win. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 10:07, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Oh, from your intercom I thought we were having conservative deciet thrown at it, but no, the figures still look vaguely realistic! But yes, not everyone can comment on every user or sysop because you may not have encountered them or know enough to feel you should vote. Therefore there'll be plenty of people voting in ASchlafly, but there are none for Freedom777. I assume there is a way to record the number of votes as it does only let you do it once per user. ArmondikoV^theist 10:13, 20 November 2008 (EST)

I live near the edge of Hysteria on Hyberbole street in a mad house surrounded by an overwrought iron fence. Forgive me if I over reacted a bit. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 11:17, 20 November 2008 (EST)

I can generate a report of the results when they close. tmtoulouse 12:12, 20 November 2008 (EST)

I suggested above that we should only count users who have at least certain number of votes. Maybe we need a special award for users who don't make the cuttoff: The "Who are you again, and how are you a Sysop?" Award for Not Ever Participating. :) JazzMan 13:33, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Hehe at Jazzguy. Anyway, Trent, when you fix the liberal deceits, can you convert votes that are "over ten" to ten? Otherwise some votes will disappear and we (the deceivers) won't know which votes to recast. And, yes, I agree, rather than the average it should be based mostly on totals. ħuman 16:09, 20 November 2008 (EST)

One step ahead of you. 130.113.218.226 16:31, 20 November 2008 (EST)

The only problem I have with absolute totals is that the data could be nonrepresentative of what people actually thought, simply by a fluke in how the numbers came out. I don't think that it necessarily will happen, but if it does, people will be miffed.

Really super simplified example of what I'm talking about: everyone knows that person A is a nice guy, and most people know that person B is a total douche. So maybe 10 people give person A a 6 rating, and 6 people give person B a 9 rating. Then the scores come out person A: 60, person B: 54. Person B is most likely the actual winner, but adding up the scores makes it look like person A won. Again, I don't think it's likely, but it adds an additional variable. If we wanted to go total of votes, we should have gotten rid of the scale, or vice versa. JazzMan 17:04, 20 November 2008 (EST) PS: I'm only invested in this because I blocked myself from Conservapedia and have nothing to do. Feel free to ignore me ;-)

Ack, Jazzman is a conservative sabateur! ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 18:54, 20 November 2008 (EST)

There are multiple statistical techniques that can be applied that take into account mean, variance and number of votes. Shouldn't be a problem. 130.113.218.226 20:30, 20 November 2008 (EST)

I am only invested in this to the extent that it's fun, that I am enjoying playing on something I didn't have to do a damn thing to build (thanks folks, nice work!), and that any winners of any of these awards deserve them, no matter how deceitful our statistical analysis may be. I hope no one actually gets "miffed" over any of the outcomes. (After all, they can always create their own awards go give them to their recipients on CP!) ħuman 20:50, 20 November 2008 (EST)

I am miff free and equally greatful for the effort to put on this award. I just think the voting thing is funny and wanted to add to the hoopla is my own way. Though wouldn't really like it if Andy decided, based on these results, that he was a lot like Ghandi or whatever. 72.218.142.51 10:48, 21 November 2008 (EST)

skewed results-- liberal bias ignores mediocrity

I've just noticed the labels on the left side of the sliders are all occupied by a representative of some virtue set as an opposite of the vice that slider is named for. Shouldn't the baseline be an unremarkable quality of the vice in this case? Does a zero ( no vote) count as angelic or as a null value? When I gave SoAndSo a zero in, say, liar I wasn't calling them Abe Lincoln I was saying I've never noticed them lying. In sum, zero's shouldn't count (I bet they don't now) and ones should display an unremarkable amount of the pertinent vice, not some virtue. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 15:04, 20 November 2008 (EST)

I pretended that the whole scale was shifted by 5. So a 5 for me was a neutral vote, a 0 (1, really, because I didn't realize you could vote 0 at the time) was like a negative vote and a 10 was like a positive vote. Sorta. JazzMan 17:06, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Another thing: thinking about it this way only works if you ignore qualities that you don't know anything about. Otherwise, your "neutral" 5 vote is actually adding to their score. Yeah, I think I overthough the scoring a little too much. JazzMan 17:07, 20 November 2008 (EST)

The way I look at it is to only vote zero or very low if you think that person isn't much of a liar/idiot/whatever. If you're not sure, either don't vote at all on that person or quality, or vote for about the same as the consensus number you can see. If you think the consensus is too high or too low, use your vote to shift it a little. & If you think you've already voted some people too high or too low, you seem to be able to change your vote - try it. weaseLOId~ 17:50, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Next time, we should try just throwing darts at them. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 18:55, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Weasel: that's more or less what I did... except that I opened the page right after the scores were set to 0, so I couldn't base it on the consensus number :) JazzMan 20:36, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Sub-pages

Sorry guys, I had to unilaterally act on this page, with upwards of 30-40 votes on a 100+ sliders the number of sql queries needed to render the whole page was far past what our existing server could handle. So I have moved the voting to sub pages which should be much easier on the server. The old page was inaccessible and leading to site wide slow downs. tmtoulouse 15:28, 21 November 2008 (EST)

We need to close the voting anyway, don't we, so we can run some deceitful stats on the results and present the awards today? ħuman 15:59, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Yea. tmtoulouse 16:04, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Stats coming soon

I am putting my education to good use and will have reports on results soon. Stay tuned. tmtoulouse 17:01, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Stats, you got N which is number of votes, mean, standard deviation, and a confidence interval which is the +/- for the mean at 95 percent confidence. So we can be 95 percent confidence that the mean is somewhere between the mean on the sheet +/- the confidence value. From my first glance it looks to me like most categories have a couple clear winners who are "statistically tied." tmtoulouse 18:23, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Graphs at Debate:CP's biggest idiot 2/Results. tmtoulouse 20:24, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Awards 2

Are we ever going to decide who won the awards. Also I rolled back the larger witting it made it too shouty. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 21:48, 22 November 2008 (EST)

But it drew attention to what the awards are for. Here the fact that it's an award for arrogance is lost at the end of a massive & fairly irrelevant capslock blockquote (How is that not already shouty?) The larger text on arrogance highlighted the point of it. weaseLOId~ 21:57, 22 November 2008 (EST)

It is your baby :). I have provided all the data to parse it out. tmtoulouse 21:49, 22 November 2008 (EST)

The way I am reading it at the moment is;

• Arrogance - TerryH (slight win)
• Bigotry - Ed Poor
• Delusions of Grandeur - RobS (surprise I was shore Ken would take that one)
• Heavy-handed - TK
• Idiocy - Ed Poor
• Inasthetic - Conservative (actually Freedom 777 and Jallan got perfect 10 but they only received 1 vote each and Ken deserves recognition.)
• Liability - Bugler
• Liar - TerryH
• Power crazed - Bugler
• Conservative - Purility

This still leaves To sort out. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 21:54, 22 November 2008 (EST)

I say we give Idiot to the runner-up, Jinx. To spread the wealth, as it were. Also, can the awards be rewritten to mention that the they are the Second Anniversary awards in some way? If necessary, I will sacrifice my editing "privileges" there to post the awards on the luser's talk pages. Or maybe people will just use stockings? ħuman 22:11, 22 November 2008 (EST)

We need Trent to "analyze" the data for liablity and anesthetic? ħuman 22:13, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Don't worry I'll sock up. I have a few ideas about where to put the awards. I think Jinx deserves the Golden Assfly. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 01:19, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Would the Golden Assfly be decided based on who averaged the highest score across all the categories, or do we put it to a separate vote?--symuun^Words! 12:46, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Surely Aschlafly himself deserves some sort of award - possibly for "chivalry"? Or for insisting that Obama is a Muslim? weaseLOId~ 12:50, 23 November 2008 (EST)

I'm amazed he didn't win anything, actually. But then he's had some seriously tough competition over the last few weeks.--symuun^Words! 12:57, 23 November 2008 (EST)

And what about Karajou? I bet on him to take home a couple awards. His strategy of keeping a lower profile during the CP's biggest idiot 2 voting time paid off! Editor at CP^{Oh, Finland! Why?} 13:03, 23 November 2008 (EST)

I have to say I'm surprised by the results. I can't say that I even know anything about TerryH, and he won two awards! And Rob won an award without even being around. Pretty impressive. JazzMan 16:52, 23 November 2008 (EST)

I agree with Jazz... isn't TerryH like MIA? The only stuff he's doing is his bot. I doubt he's even been on CP in months. Our awards should have been limited to actions post-awards of the biggest idiot 1. There's no point in awarding RobSmith with anything when I frankly think he'll never return to even see it. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:58, 23 November 2008 (EST)