• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How to Tell if You're Flogging a Dead Parrot

Axe Elf

Prophet
There doesn't seem to be a forum for discussing the Forum, so I'll put this here.

I've been a member for about three weeks now, and I just wanted to discuss an observation that I initially made within my first week, and which has been gaining steam in my mind along the way as it is confirmed by repeated observations. Hopefully it will help others as it has come to assist me.

You know how sometimes you'll be sitting next to someone in a waiting room or something and you start talking, and they seem really nice and smart and erudite, and you start to feel a little camaraderie, and then they'll say something completely out of left field, like, "And that's how I know the aliens will pick us up before the world ends on Saturday" or something like that, and you just can't get out of the conversation fast enough?

That's happened to me here several times, where I think I'm getting involved in an interesting and thoughtful intellectual discussion, and then suddenly my discussion partner will come up with some nonsense tortured from an abstract concept like blood from a turnip--and more often than not, they can't even see where they've gone off the rails even when I try to walk them through it slowly!

BUT... I'm starting to figure out how to see potential situations like this coming before they actually manifest themselves--and it's hiding in the information the site gives us for free--what I will call our "Rating-to-Post" (RTP) ratio!

Almost every single time I have unknowingly engaged with someone for whom the languages of logic and reason might as well be written in Klingon, I have subsequently noticed that they have a very low "RTP" ratio. Like if a guy has 3,000 posts, but a rating of only 300, it's a pretty good sign that their grasp of rational discourse is going to be tenuous, at best. Someone who has 3,000 posts and a 2,000 rating is going to be a much better choice for meaningful dialogue.

I haven't run any statistical analyses to determine the exact degree of this correlation, but if I had to spitball it based on personal experience, I would say that you have a fair chance of meaningful discourse with anyone whose RTP is over 50%. Between 25%-50%, you may have a chance of getting some semaphore signals through the fog, but you are probably just wasting your time if you are trying to have a rational discussion with someone whose RTP is below about 20%-25%.

The hard part is forcing yourself to pay attention to that when you are considering how (or if) to respond to someone--sometimes even when you see that 12% RTP, you just can't help yourself--NO ONE could possibly not see the logic of THIS, right? Right??? Oh crap, not again...

So I'd be interested in hearing if others may have observed something similar in their own interactions, or if my observation causes you to pay closer attention to RTPs, or any other thoughts along these lines--but be advised that I WILL consider your RTP when I am determining whether or not to take your post seriously, in this or any other thread. I've been burned too many times already not to.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
There doesn't seem to be a forum for discussing the Forum, so I'll put this here.

I've been a member for about three weeks now, and I just wanted to discuss an observation that I initially made within my first week, and which has been gaining steam in my mind along the way as it is confirmed by repeated observations. Hopefully it will help others as it has come to assist me.

You know how sometimes you'll be sitting next to someone in a waiting room or something and you start talking, and they seem really nice and smart and erudite, and you start to feel a little camaraderie, and then they'll say something completely out of left field, like, "And that's how I know the aliens will pick us up before the world ends on Saturday" or something like that, and you just can't get out of the conversation fast enough?

That's happened to me here several times, where I think I'm getting involved in an interesting and thoughtful intellectual discussion, and then suddenly my discussion partner will come up with some nonsense tortured from an abstract concept like blood from a turnip--and more often than not, they can't even see where they've gone off the rails even when I try to walk them through it slowly!

BUT... I'm starting to figure out how to see potential situations like this coming before they actually manifest themselves--and it's hiding in the information the site gives us for free--what I will call our "Rating-to-Post" (RTP) ratio!

Almost every single time I have unknowingly engaged with someone for whom the languages of logic and reason might as well be written in Klingon, I have subsequently noticed that they have a very low "RTP" ratio. Like if a guy has 3,000 posts, but a rating of only 300, it's a pretty good sign that their grasp of rational discourse is going to be tenuous, at best. Someone who has 3,000 posts and a 2,000 rating is going to be a much better choice for meaningful dialogue.

I haven't run any statistical analyses to determine the exact degree of this correlation, but if I had to spitball it based on personal experience, I would say that you have a fair chance of meaningful discourse with anyone whose RTP is over 50%. Between 25%-50%, you may have a chance of getting some semaphore signals through the fog, but you are probably just wasting your time if you are trying to have a rational discussion with someone whose RTP is below about 20%-25%.

The hard part is forcing yourself to pay attention to that when you are considering how (or if) to respond to someone--sometimes even when you see that 12% RTP, you just can't help yourself--NO ONE could possibly not see the logic of THIS, right? Right??? Oh crap, not again...

So I'd be interested in hearing if others may have observed something similar in their own interactions, or if my observation causes you to pay closer attention to RTPs, or any other thoughts along these lines--but be advised that I WILL consider your RTP when I am determining whether or not to take your post seriously, in this or any other thread. I've been burned too many times already not to.
You are quite correct... except for few ppl. who gets lots lots of funnies for their great jokes. :)
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
You are quite correct... except for few ppl. who gets lots lots of funnies for their great jokes. :)
Well, some of us do try to be serious -- sometimes. It's just that's usually when people think we are trying to be funny. *sigh*
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
The 50% seems a little high. If you go to the members page you can check out the top members is several categories and most don't have 50%.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
There doesn't seem to be a forum for discussing the Forum, so I'll put this here.

I've been a member for about three weeks now, and I just wanted to discuss an observation that I initially made within my first week, and which has been gaining steam in my mind along the way as it is confirmed by repeated observations. Hopefully it will help others as it has come to assist me.

You know how sometimes you'll be sitting next to someone in a waiting room or something and you start talking, and they seem really nice and smart and erudite, and you start to feel a little camaraderie, and then they'll say something completely out of left field, like, "And that's how I know the aliens will pick us up before the world ends on Saturday" or something like that, and you just can't get out of the conversation fast enough?

That's happened to me here several times, where I think I'm getting involved in an interesting and thoughtful intellectual discussion, and then suddenly my discussion partner will come up with some nonsense tortured from an abstract concept like blood from a turnip--and more often than not, they can't even see where they've gone off the rails even when I try to walk them through it slowly!

BUT... I'm starting to figure out how to see potential situations like this coming before they actually manifest themselves--and it's hiding in the information the site gives us for free--what I will call our "Rating-to-Post" (RTP) ratio!

Almost every single time I have unknowingly engaged with someone for whom the languages of logic and reason might as well be written in Klingon, I have subsequently noticed that they have a very low "RTP" ratio. Like if a guy has 3,000 posts, but a rating of only 300, it's a pretty good sign that their grasp of rational discourse is going to be tenuous, at best. Someone who has 3,000 posts and a 2,000 rating is going to be a much better choice for meaningful dialogue.

I haven't run any statistical analyses to determine the exact degree of this correlation, but if I had to spitball it based on personal experience, I would say that you have a fair chance of meaningful discourse with anyone whose RTP is over 50%. Between 25%-50%, you may have a chance of getting some semaphore signals through the fog, but you are probably just wasting your time if you are trying to have a rational discussion with someone whose RTP is below about 20%-25%.

The hard part is forcing yourself to pay attention to that when you are considering how (or if) to respond to someone--sometimes even when you see that 12% RTP, you just can't help yourself--NO ONE could possibly not see the logic of THIS, right? Right??? Oh crap, not again...

So I'd be interested in hearing if others may have observed something similar in their own interactions, or if my observation causes you to pay closer attention to RTPs, or any other thoughts along these lines--but be advised that I WILL consider your RTP when I am determining whether or not to take your post seriously, in this or any other thread. I've been burned too many times already not to.
Well engage me in a conversation and see if that holds true. I promise I won't tell the reptilians where you are hiding. Lol.

But on a side note, I think that your maths are off base. I think the majority of likes, funnies and winners come from witty replies, or bandwagon cheers. We had a poster @Nietzsche who had perhaps one of the best RTP ratios of all. While he was certainly very intelligent it was his biting wit that earned the majority of his ratings. While counting frubals is certainly worth noting, I think that you will find in users like @LegionOnomaMoi and @Meow Mix @Mestemia and @Alceste some of the most well thought posts for which one could hope.

Conclusion: I wouldn't be too quick to judge based on frubals count. Sometimes the truth isn't as well received.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
The 50% seems a little high. If you go to the members page you can check out the top members is several categories and most don't have 50%.
You have been here longer than I, perhaps some of those counts are a little off because they used to limit frubals something fierce due to a couple of frubals orgies I believe @Revoltingest and @Sunstone were encouraging.
 

Axe Elf

Prophet
The 50% seems a little high. If you go to the members page you can check out the top members is several categories and most don't have 50%.

You may be right. I visited the Members page as you suggested, and noted that not many of them have a 50% RTP--even among those who have the most positive ratings. Admittedly, my sample size is small, and I tend to run into several of the same people in the threads that draw most of my attention. I also noticed on the Members page that I have not personally tried to engage with many of the posters listed there, although I have seen a few of their names here and there.

But hey, setting the bar high never hurt anyone... :)
 

Axe Elf

Prophet
Well engage me in a conversation and see if that holds true. I promise I won't tell the reptilians where you are hiding. Lol.

LOL indeed, as you were probably one of the first victims of my developing suspicion in my thread "All Facts Are Based In Faith." I had been defending this basic epistemological principles from a variety of angles, some of which were relevant, and many of which were not, and near the end of Page 6 things had just started to settle down a little when you came along and responded to my quoted OP with:
Is not a fact that "something exists?"

This is indisputably true.

I read it slowly. I contemplated the missing word(s?). I considered the meaning of "indisputably true." I wondered if you had read any of the posts in the thread, or if you had just decided to start from scratch in contesting the OP... and then I noticed your RTP was about 16.7%, and I was like, I just can't...

So if I missed out on something stimulating there, my bad.

But on a side note, I think that your maths are off base. I think the majority of likes, funnies and winners come from witty replies, or bandwagon cheers.

See, here we go again. Your best attempt to express criticism is that my "maths" are "off base"? What does that even mean? What are "maths"? You mean statistics? Yeah, well, I said I was just spitballing. Maybe you think my interpretation of the statistics is unfounded--that I shouldn't assume that the funniest bandwagoners are also the most erudite posters? Maybe not, but you go on to say...

We had a poster @Nietzsche who had perhaps one of the best RTP ratios of all. While he was certainly very intelligent it was his biting wit that earned the majority of his ratings.

Fine, but you just said that a guy with a great RTP was very intelligent--so much so that he was able to formulate pithy responses that resonated with people in the way he intended--he was a good thinker and a good communicator--and that's exactly what I've been saying. You find those things quite often from posters with good RTPs, and less often from posters with poor RTPs.

While counting frubals is certainly worth noting, I think that you will find in users like @LegionOnomaMoi and @Meow Mix @Mestemia and @Alceste some of the most well thought posts for which one could hope.

I don't recognize any of those names, but I am looking to increase my sample size over time... :)
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
LOL indeed, as you were probably one of the first victims of my developing suspicion in my thread "All Facts Are Based In Faith." I had been defending this basic epistemological principles from a variety of angles, some of which were relevant, and many of which were not, and near the end of Page 6 things had just started to settle down a little when you came along and responded to my quoted OP with:


I read it slowly. I contemplated the missing word(s?). I considered the meaning of "indisputably true." I wondered if you had read any of the posts in the thread, or if you had just decided to start from scratch in contesting the OP... and then I noticed your RTP was about 16.7%, and I was like, I just can't...

So if I missed out on something stimulating there, my bad.
I gave up posting by computer a long time ago. I can understand the confusion. Sometimes my autocorrect function slips in words or edits out words. But in the instance you mentioned, "it" was the missing word. No worries, though. If I can't be bothered to edit my words, I can hardly blame someone for not bothering to respond to them.
See, here we go again. Your best attempt to express criticism is that my "maths" are "off base"? What does that even mean?
Lol it means your calculations are poor.
What are "maths"? You mean statistics?
Maths is a word in the English lexicon. It means mathematics which of course generally means 2+2 and notions of such a sort.
Yeah, well, I said I was just spitballing. Maybe you think my interpretation of the statistics is unfounded--that I shouldn't assume that the funniest bandwagoners are also the most erudite posters? Maybe not, but you go on to say...
don't take it too hard. It was a humorous way of pointing out that your conclusion doesn't necessarily flow from your premises. Perhaps it was a tad sardonic, but I thought you might be able to follow. On occasion, I overestimate people.

Fine, but you just said that a guy with a great RTP was very intelligent--so much so that he was able to formulate pithy responses that resonated with people in the way he intended--he was a good thinker and a good communicator--and that's exactly what I've been saying. You find those things quite often from posters with good RTPs, and less often from posters with poor RTPs.
And he was. But that doesn't entail that his posts were the most learned or knowledgeable. I agree that messages that resonate will generally receive more accolades, but does that equate to truth or knowledge?
I don't recognize any of those names, but I am looking to increase my sample size over time... :)
It is okay. Perhaps I would have been better off letting you know not to take yourself or your RTP too serious.
 

Axe Elf

Prophet
Maths is a word in the English lexicon.

If, by "English," you mean in the British sense, yeah, ok. The only reference I can find to it in American dictionaries is as an informal British noun. So if you're British, I'll cut you some slack on that one, but at best it's still kind of slangy.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Are you suggesting you can't tell a lunatic unless you first take a gander at their ratings to posts ratio?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
You have been here longer than I, perhaps some of those counts are a little off because they used to limit frubals something fierce due to a couple of frubals orgies I believe @Revoltingest and @Sunstone were encouraging.

You are quite wrong about my encouraging any frubal orgies. At least not intentionally. I never participated in even one of them.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
If, by "English," you mean in the British sense, yeah, ok. The only reference I can find to it in American dictionaries is as an informal British noun. So if you're British, I'll cut you some slack on that one, but at best it's still kind of slangy.
As English as your dead parrot allusion. Sorry if you couldn't follow. If I had thought maths was too intense of a word then I would have instead used a different phrase.
 

Axe Elf

Prophet
Are you suggesting you can't tell a lunatic unless you first take a gander at their ratings to posts ratio?

Not at all, but I'm saying that way can save you some time over the longer customary process of actually engaging with one.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Not at all, but I'm saying that way can save you some time over the longer customary process of actually engaging with one.

If you say so, but the "customary process" seems to be a much longer process for you than for me.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
You are quite wrong about my encouraging any frubal orgies. At least not intentionally. I never participated in even one of them.
I was actually under the impression that you and rev were not part of the scene and have memories of both of you feeling uninspired by them. Hence you were the targets. It's alright though, I wouldn't have faulted you guys for peeking-in.
 
Last edited:

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Almost every single time I have unknowingly engaged with someone for whom the languages of logic and reason might as well be written in Klingon, I have subsequently noticed that they have a very low "RTP" ratio. Like if a guy has 3,000 posts, but a rating of only 300, it's a pretty good sign that their grasp of rational discourse is going to be tenuous, at best. Someone who has 3,000 posts and a 2,000 rating is going to be a much better choice for meaningful dialogue.
It should be noted that among the diehards here 3,000 posts is like the @Revoltingest average before breaking for haggis and whiskey. Heck, the man is still in his bathrobe at that point. But seriously, the rating is generally on a downward slant the more one posts. High rating is good for the quality aspect of the forum, but the banter is what keeps RF alive. Let's try not to forget that.

Not at all, but I'm saying that way can save you some time over the longer customary process of actually engaging with one.
Sounds like a great recipe to destroy a vibrant forum.
If you choose to stick around you may begin the appreciate that.
 
Last edited:
Top