Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How useful are you?

thett3
Posts: 14,381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 12:43:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let's play a little game. What proportion of your posts do you think are even remotely worthwhile/intellectual?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 12:51:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 12:43:40 PM, thett3 wrote:
Let's play a little game. What proportion of your posts do you think are even remotely worthwhile/intellectual?

100%, as all of my posts help me in my quest to the top of the forums leaderboard, thus making all of them worthwhile.

As for the latter, maybe 1%. LOL
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 12:51:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 12:43:40 PM, thett3 wrote:
Let's play a little game. What proportion of your posts do you think are even remotely worthwhile/intellectual?

22.27%
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 12:58:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 12:43:40 PM, thett3 wrote:
Let's play a little game. What proportion of your posts do you think are even remotely worthwhile/intellectual?

I actually think this is a good question due to the increased popularity of spam posting these days. Some of this takes the form of spammy banter in random threads, or just nonsense spam posts in the misc forum.

I think part of the problem is that some people think there is some inherent respectability that comes from being high up on the forum post leaderboard, and that has resulted in people posting irrelevant spammy posts as much as possible. I think part of the irony of that is that as people gain more and more posts, one can look at the numbers and wonder how many worthwhile threads that individual has been involved in. If not many can be recalled, it has the opposite effect of respectability.

I do believe most of the members high up on the forum post leader board do engage in a lot of decent threads and contribute plenty of decent content, but it certainly is the case that more and more members are simply posting nuisance spam everywhere for less than productive reasons.

Unless someone has a good suggestion for what moderation can do, I think just recognizing that this form of spamming isn't respectable, is the only thing that may reduce it. Though I'm going to consider ways to reduce the amount of necroposting and outright banter spam that seems to take place these days.

As for the actual question, I couldn't say with any confidence what percentage of my posts are of decent quality. These days I tend not to post much, and if I do it's almost always site/moderation related. So if you subtract mafia and random banter I think a very high percentage is site related stuff.

It would be interested to know the percentage of quality posts made by certain accounts, but that's such a subjective thing that it would be impossible to evaluate that without going through every post. In lieu of that, I do otherwise have a good idea of who the post juicing spammers are.
Debate.org Moderator
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 1:20:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 12:43:40 PM, thett3 wrote:
Let's play a little game. What proportion of your posts do you think are even remotely worthwhile/intellectual?

Regrettably too small a number.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz

"No aspect of your facial structure suggests Filipino descent."
~ YYW
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 1:24:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 12:43:40 PM, thett3 wrote:
Let's play a little game. What proportion of your posts do you think are even remotely worthwhile/intellectual?

A smaller proportion than it should be, admittedly, though I'm working on it. For instance, I don't partake in Misc spam anymore, and I've had several substantive essays/posts in just the last week.

My problem, though, is my incentive to actually make substantive OP's falls appreciably when the threads I *do* post go unvisited (e.g., I began, but then pulled the plug on, two almost-OP's just recently). If I wanted to rant to no one, I have a blog for that -- and, heck, a few of my buddies would read that. If I thought people read my threads and actually got something out of it, I would gladly post more.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 1:30:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
For instance, I made a lengthy post on the latest employment report [http://www.debate.org...], and the only person to actually engage the content, though temporarily, was Lannan -- who eventually stopped replying.

Then I made this tri-OP thread on trade deficits [http://www.debate.org...]. Zero replies!

Then this one on the "real" unemployment rate [http://www.debate.org...]. People are willing to opine on this in the polls section as though they understand unemployment statistics (hint: they don't), but no one bothers to engage in this thread where I'm literally calling people out for opining on things they don't understand. Heck, a good amount of research went into this post.

This thread started a bit trollish [http://www.debate.org...], but there was a few substantive posts and then a discussion toward the end which... fell flat, again.

Then there's this lengthy post on why the U.S. isn't Greece [http://www.debate.org...] -- zero replies!

And the list goes on. If people start caring about my stuff -- i.e., if I feel that my contributions are actually valued by *someone* -- I'll post more. It's really a supply and demand issue, lol.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 2:06:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hmm...I haven't participated in a full mafia game in a while...it's been two or three months. I also haven't done misc spam since, like, the first "x post wins" thread. I don't really know how to put a number on this, though - especially "worthwhile" - because I think playing mafia games with other people can be seen as a "worthwhile" interaction.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
XLAV
Posts: 13,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 2:07:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 12:58:52 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 7/11/2015 12:43:40 PM, thett3 wrote:
Let's play a little game. What proportion of your posts do you think are even remotely worthwhile/intellectual?

I actually think this is a good question due to the increased popularity of spam posting these days. Some of this takes the form of spammy banter in random threads, or just nonsense spam posts in the misc forum.

I think part of the problem is that some people think there is some inherent respectability that comes from being high up on the forum post leaderboard, and that has resulted in people posting irrelevant spammy posts as much as possible. I think part of the irony of that is that as people gain more and more posts, one can look at the numbers and wonder how many worthwhile threads that individual has been involved in. If not many can be recalled, it has the opposite effect of respectability.

I do believe most of the members high up on the forum post leader board do engage in a lot of decent threads and contribute plenty of decent content, but it certainly is the case that more and more members are simply posting nuisance spam everywhere for less than productive reasons.

Unless someone has a good suggestion for what moderation can do, I think just recognizing that this form of spamming isn't respectable, is the only thing that may reduce it. Though I'm going to consider ways to reduce the amount of necroposting and outright banter spam that seems to take place these days.

As for the actual question, I couldn't say with any confidence what percentage of my posts are of decent quality. These days I tend not to post much, and if I do it's almost always site/moderation related. So if you subtract mafia and random banter I think a very high percentage is site related stuff.

It would be interested to know the percentage of quality posts made by certain accounts, but that's such a subjective thing that it would be impossible to evaluate that without going through every post. In lieu of that, I do otherwise have a good idea of who the post juicing spammers are.

http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 3:16:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 12:43:40 PM, thett3 wrote:
Let's play a little game. What proportion of your posts do you think are even remotely worthwhile/intellectual?

75%
Tsar of DDO
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 3:18:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 1:30:39 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
For instance, I made a lengthy post on the latest employment report [http://www.debate.org...], and the only person to actually engage the content, though temporarily, was Lannan -- who eventually stopped replying.

Then I made this tri-OP thread on trade deficits [http://www.debate.org...]. Zero replies!

Then this one on the "real" unemployment rate [http://www.debate.org...]. People are willing to opine on this in the polls section as though they understand unemployment statistics (hint: they don't), but no one bothers to engage in this thread where I'm literally calling people out for opining on things they don't understand. Heck, a good amount of research went into this post.

This thread started a bit trollish [http://www.debate.org...], but there was a few substantive posts and then a discussion toward the end which... fell flat, again.

Then there's this lengthy post on why the U.S. isn't Greece [http://www.debate.org...] -- zero replies!

And the list goes on. If people start caring about my stuff -- i.e., if I feel that my contributions are actually valued by *someone* -- I'll post more. It's really a supply and demand issue, lol.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 3:19:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 3:18:59 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/11/2015 1:30:39 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
For instance, I made a lengthy post on the latest employment report [http://www.debate.org...], and the only person to actually engage the content, though temporarily, was Lannan -- who eventually stopped replying.

Then I made this tri-OP thread on trade deficits [http://www.debate.org...]. Zero replies!

Then this one on the "real" unemployment rate [http://www.debate.org...]. People are willing to opine on this in the polls section as though they understand unemployment statistics (hint: they don't), but no one bothers to engage in this thread where I'm literally calling people out for opining on things they don't understand. Heck, a good amount of research went into this post.

This thread started a bit trollish [http://www.debate.org...], but there was a few substantive posts and then a discussion toward the end which... fell flat, again.

Then there's this lengthy post on why the U.S. isn't Greece [http://www.debate.org...] -- zero replies!

And the list goes on. If people start caring about my stuff -- i.e., if I feel that my contributions are actually valued by *someone* -- I'll post more. It's really a supply and demand issue, lol.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Case in point.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 3:19:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
60-70% or so. I did go through my spamming period, though it was a pretty short one, I think.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 3:20:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 3:19:38 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:18:59 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/11/2015 1:30:39 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
For instance, I made a lengthy post on the latest employment report [http://www.debate.org...], and the only person to actually engage the content, though temporarily, was Lannan -- who eventually stopped replying.

Then I made this tri-OP thread on trade deficits [http://www.debate.org...]. Zero replies!

Then this one on the "real" unemployment rate [http://www.debate.org...]. People are willing to opine on this in the polls section as though they understand unemployment statistics (hint: they don't), but no one bothers to engage in this thread where I'm literally calling people out for opining on things they don't understand. Heck, a good amount of research went into this post.

This thread started a bit trollish [http://www.debate.org...], but there was a few substantive posts and then a discussion toward the end which... fell flat, again.

Then there's this lengthy post on why the U.S. isn't Greece [http://www.debate.org...] -- zero replies!

And the list goes on. If people start caring about my stuff -- i.e., if I feel that my contributions are actually valued by *someone* -- I'll post more. It's really a supply and demand issue, lol.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Case in point.

If you want to make substantive posts, you do so (unless you're talking to Rev or mishap). If you want to have substantive discussions, talk about something more than 0.01% of users can understand.
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 3:22:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 3:20:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:19:38 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:18:59 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/11/2015 1:30:39 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
For instance, I made a lengthy post on the latest employment report [http://www.debate.org...], and the only person to actually engage the content, though temporarily, was Lannan -- who eventually stopped replying.

Then I made this tri-OP thread on trade deficits [http://www.debate.org...]. Zero replies!

Then this one on the "real" unemployment rate [http://www.debate.org...]. People are willing to opine on this in the polls section as though they understand unemployment statistics (hint: they don't), but no one bothers to engage in this thread where I'm literally calling people out for opining on things they don't understand. Heck, a good amount of research went into this post.

This thread started a bit trollish [http://www.debate.org...], but there was a few substantive posts and then a discussion toward the end which... fell flat, again.

Then there's this lengthy post on why the U.S. isn't Greece [http://www.debate.org...] -- zero replies!

And the list goes on. If people start caring about my stuff -- i.e., if I feel that my contributions are actually valued by *someone* -- I'll post more. It's really a supply and demand issue, lol.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Case in point.

If you want to make substantive posts, you do so (unless you're talking to Rev or mishap). If you want to have substantive discussions, talk about something more than 0.01% of users can understand.

Y U HATE MEH
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 3:25:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 3:20:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:19:38 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:18:59 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/11/2015 1:30:39 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
For instance, I made a lengthy post on the latest employment report [http://www.debate.org...], and the only person to actually engage the content, though temporarily, was Lannan -- who eventually stopped replying.

Then I made this tri-OP thread on trade deficits [http://www.debate.org...]. Zero replies!

Then this one on the "real" unemployment rate [http://www.debate.org...]. People are willing to opine on this in the polls section as though they understand unemployment statistics (hint: they don't), but no one bothers to engage in this thread where I'm literally calling people out for opining on things they don't understand. Heck, a good amount of research went into this post.

This thread started a bit trollish [http://www.debate.org...], but there was a few substantive posts and then a discussion toward the end which... fell flat, again.

Then there's this lengthy post on why the U.S. isn't Greece [http://www.debate.org...] -- zero replies!

And the list goes on. If people start caring about my stuff -- i.e., if I feel that my contributions are actually valued by *someone* -- I'll post more. It's really a supply and demand issue, lol.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Case in point.

If you want to make substantive posts, you do so (unless you're talking to Rev or mishap). If you want to have substantive discussions, talk about something more than 0.01% of users can understand.

I don't think it's that hard to understand -- and, even if it is, I have faith that people on this website have reasonably high IQ's and can come along for the ride. I've broken things down before and would gladly do it again -- or as much as is needed -- for anyone who actually cares, and I know there *are* people who care because they opine on this sh1t all the time. Everyone has opinions on this crap; the problem is that many aren't willing to actually express them.

For instance, I've been posting a lot about Greece recently. Greece isn't even an economics issue -- or at least it shouldn't be, because the economics is clear (though not for dipsh1t teabaggers who actually equate UK debt to Greece debt, which I *have* ranted about). The problems in Greece are almost entirely political in nature, so that so few people were willing to weigh in was troubling.

But obviously people have preferences -- again, supply and demand -- and so do I. If those preferences don't align, someone needs to cave, and there's no reason anyone on either end should have to do that. That will just lead to lackluster posts and frustration.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 3:27:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 3:22:49 PM, RevNge wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:20:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:19:38 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:18:59 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/11/2015 1:30:39 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
For instance, I made a lengthy post on the latest employment report [http://www.debate.org...], and the only person to actually engage the content, though temporarily, was Lannan -- who eventually stopped replying.

Then I made this tri-OP thread on trade deficits [http://www.debate.org...]. Zero replies!

Then this one on the "real" unemployment rate [http://www.debate.org...]. People are willing to opine on this in the polls section as though they understand unemployment statistics (hint: they don't), but no one bothers to engage in this thread where I'm literally calling people out for opining on things they don't understand. Heck, a good amount of research went into this post.

This thread started a bit trollish [http://www.debate.org...], but there was a few substantive posts and then a discussion toward the end which... fell flat, again.

Then there's this lengthy post on why the U.S. isn't Greece [http://www.debate.org...] -- zero replies!

And the list goes on. If people start caring about my stuff -- i.e., if I feel that my contributions are actually valued by *someone* -- I'll post more. It's really a supply and demand issue, lol.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Case in point.

If you want to make substantive posts, you do so (unless you're talking to Rev or mishap). If you want to have substantive discussions, talk about something more than 0.01% of users can understand.

Y U HATE MEH

Listen, you repetitious, monotonous, self-aggrandizing bastard. I've known record players with more variance than you. The standard deviation of all your posts must be 0. The mode is zero. The mean is zero. EVERYTHING IS ZERO. You are a black hole on intellectualism, a Wheatley on a GLaDOS, a rancorous and cancerous tumor on society. An audio recording of everything Nietzsche ever wrote as read by Stephen Hawking would provide me more tonal variance than all your posts combined.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 3:28:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 3:27:14 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:22:49 PM, RevNge wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:20:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:19:38 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:18:59 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/11/2015 1:30:39 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
For instance, I made a lengthy post on the latest employment report [http://www.debate.org...], and the only person to actually engage the content, though temporarily, was Lannan -- who eventually stopped replying.

Then I made this tri-OP thread on trade deficits [http://www.debate.org...]. Zero replies!

Then this one on the "real" unemployment rate [http://www.debate.org...]. People are willing to opine on this in the polls section as though they understand unemployment statistics (hint: they don't), but no one bothers to engage in this thread where I'm literally calling people out for opining on things they don't understand. Heck, a good amount of research went into this post.

This thread started a bit trollish [http://www.debate.org...], but there was a few substantive posts and then a discussion toward the end which... fell flat, again.

Then there's this lengthy post on why the U.S. isn't Greece [http://www.debate.org...] -- zero replies!

And the list goes on. If people start caring about my stuff -- i.e., if I feel that my contributions are actually valued by *someone* -- I'll post more. It's really a supply and demand issue, lol.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Case in point.

If you want to make substantive posts, you do so (unless you're talking to Rev or mishap). If you want to have substantive discussions, talk about something more than 0.01% of users can understand.

Y U HATE MEH

Listen, you repetitious, monotonous, self-aggrandizing bastard. I've known record players with more variance than you. The standard deviation of all your posts must be 0. The mode is zero. The mean is zero. EVERYTHING IS ZERO. You are a black hole on intellectualism, a Wheatley on a GLaDOS, a rancorous and cancerous tumor on society. An audio recording of everything Nietzsche ever wrote as read by Stephen Hawking would provide me more tonal variance than all your posts combined.

Dude, save these lines for angry sex. God damnit...
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 3:28:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 3:25:24 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:20:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:19:38 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:18:59 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/11/2015 1:30:39 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
For instance, I made a lengthy post on the latest employment report [http://www.debate.org...], and the only person to actually engage the content, though temporarily, was Lannan -- who eventually stopped replying.

Then I made this tri-OP thread on trade deficits [http://www.debate.org...]. Zero replies!

Then this one on the "real" unemployment rate [http://www.debate.org...]. People are willing to opine on this in the polls section as though they understand unemployment statistics (hint: they don't), but no one bothers to engage in this thread where I'm literally calling people out for opining on things they don't understand. Heck, a good amount of research went into this post.

This thread started a bit trollish [http://www.debate.org...], but there was a few substantive posts and then a discussion toward the end which... fell flat, again.

Then there's this lengthy post on why the U.S. isn't Greece [http://www.debate.org...] -- zero replies!

And the list goes on. If people start caring about my stuff -- i.e., if I feel that my contributions are actually valued by *someone* -- I'll post more. It's really a supply and demand issue, lol.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Case in point.

If you want to make substantive posts, you do so (unless you're talking to Rev or mishap). If you want to have substantive discussions, talk about something more than 0.01% of users can understand.

I don't think it's that hard to understand -- and, even if it is, I have faith that people on this website have reasonably high IQ's and can come along for the ride. I've broken things down before and would gladly do it again -- or as much as is needed -- for anyone who actually cares, and I know there *are* people who care because they opine on this sh1t all the time. Everyone has opinions on this crap; the problem is that many aren't willing to actually express them.

That's probably because you make us feel stupid. :-)

For instance, I've been posting a lot about Greece recently. Greece isn't even an economics issue -- or at least it shouldn't be, because the economics is clear (though not for dipsh1t teabaggers who actually equate UK debt to Greece debt, which I *have* ranted about). The problems in Greece are almost entirely political in nature, so that so few people were willing to weigh in was troubling.

The Euro was a brilliant political maneuver though, from my understanding. Bad economics, perhaps, but good politics.

But obviously people have preferences -- again, supply and demand -- and so do I. If those preferences don't align, someone needs to cave, and there's no reason anyone on either end should have to do that. That will just lead to lackluster posts and frustration.
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 3:30:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 3:27:14 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:22:49 PM, RevNge wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:20:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:19:38 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:18:59 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/11/2015 1:30:39 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
For instance, I made a lengthy post on the latest employment report [http://www.debate.org...], and the only person to actually engage the content, though temporarily, was Lannan -- who eventually stopped replying.

Then I made this tri-OP thread on trade deficits [http://www.debate.org...]. Zero replies!

Then this one on the "real" unemployment rate [http://www.debate.org...]. People are willing to opine on this in the polls section as though they understand unemployment statistics (hint: they don't), but no one bothers to engage in this thread where I'm literally calling people out for opining on things they don't understand. Heck, a good amount of research went into this post.

This thread started a bit trollish [http://www.debate.org...], but there was a few substantive posts and then a discussion toward the end which... fell flat, again.

Then there's this lengthy post on why the U.S. isn't Greece [http://www.debate.org...] -- zero replies!

And the list goes on. If people start caring about my stuff -- i.e., if I feel that my contributions are actually valued by *someone* -- I'll post more. It's really a supply and demand issue, lol.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Case in point.

If you want to make substantive posts, you do so (unless you're talking to Rev or mishap). If you want to have substantive discussions, talk about something more than 0.01% of users can understand.

Y U HATE MEH

Listen, you repetitious, monotonous, self-aggrandizing bastard.

Mmm, kinky.
I've known record players with more variance than you. The standard deviation of all your posts must be 0. The mode is zero. The mean is zero. EVERYTHING IS ZERO.

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net...
You are a black hole on intellectualism, a Wheatley on a GLaDOS,

roflmao
a rancorous and cancerous tumor on society. An audio recording of everything Nietzsche ever wrote as read by Stephen Hawking would provide me more tonal variance than all your posts combined.

...

Y U HATE MEH
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 3:31:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 3:30:05 PM, RevNge wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:27:14 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:22:49 PM, RevNge wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:20:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:19:38 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:18:59 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/11/2015 1:30:39 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
For instance, I made a lengthy post on the latest employment report [http://www.debate.org...], and the only person to actually engage the content, though temporarily, was Lannan -- who eventually stopped replying.

Then I made this tri-OP thread on trade deficits [http://www.debate.org...]. Zero replies!

Then this one on the "real" unemployment rate [http://www.debate.org...]. People are willing to opine on this in the polls section as though they understand unemployment statistics (hint: they don't), but no one bothers to engage in this thread where I'm literally calling people out for opining on things they don't understand. Heck, a good amount of research went into this post.

This thread started a bit trollish [http://www.debate.org...], but there was a few substantive posts and then a discussion toward the end which... fell flat, again.

Then there's this lengthy post on why the U.S. isn't Greece [http://www.debate.org...] -- zero replies!

And the list goes on. If people start caring about my stuff -- i.e., if I feel that my contributions are actually valued by *someone* -- I'll post more. It's really a supply and demand issue, lol.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Case in point.

If you want to make substantive posts, you do so (unless you're talking to Rev or mishap). If you want to have substantive discussions, talk about something more than 0.01% of users can understand.

Y U HATE MEH

Listen, you repetitious, monotonous, self-aggrandizing bastard.

Mmm, kinky.
I've known record players with more variance than you. The standard deviation of all your posts must be 0. The mode is zero. The mean is zero. EVERYTHING IS ZERO.

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net...

Lol, I knew it.

You are a black hole on intellectualism, a Wheatley on a GLaDOS,

roflmao
a rancorous and cancerous tumor on society. An audio recording of everything Nietzsche ever wrote as read by Stephen Hawking would provide me more tonal variance than all your posts combined.

...

Y U HATE MEH

*flips table*
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 3:31:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 3:28:44 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
That's probably because you make us feel stupid. :-)

That's doubtful.

The Euro was a brilliant political maneuver though, from my understanding. Bad economics, perhaps, but good politics.

I agree with this entirely. The EU was intended as a political institutions from its inception, and the benefits afforded to member countries -- e.g., favorable trade conditions -- is why so many Greeks don't want to leave. But, as an economic idea, the lack of an independent monetary policy, borrowing limits, and a single currency... terrible.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 3:32:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 3:31:19 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:30:05 PM, RevNge wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:27:14 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:22:49 PM, RevNge wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:20:53 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:19:38 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:18:59 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/11/2015 1:30:39 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
For instance, I made a lengthy post on the latest employment report [http://www.debate.org...], and the only person to actually engage the content, though temporarily, was Lannan -- who eventually stopped replying.

Then I made this tri-OP thread on trade deficits [http://www.debate.org...]. Zero replies!

Then this one on the "real" unemployment rate [http://www.debate.org...]. People are willing to opine on this in the polls section as though they understand unemployment statistics (hint: they don't), but no one bothers to engage in this thread where I'm literally calling people out for opining on things they don't understand. Heck, a good amount of research went into this post.

This thread started a bit trollish [http://www.debate.org...], but there was a few substantive posts and then a discussion toward the end which... fell flat, again.

Then there's this lengthy post on why the U.S. isn't Greece [http://www.debate.org...] -- zero replies!

And the list goes on. If people start caring about my stuff -- i.e., if I feel that my contributions are actually valued by *someone* -- I'll post more. It's really a supply and demand issue, lol.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Case in point.

If you want to make substantive posts, you do so (unless you're talking to Rev or mishap). If you want to have substantive discussions, talk about something more than 0.01% of users can understand.

Y U HATE MEH

Listen, you repetitious, monotonous, self-aggrandizing bastard.

Mmm, kinky.
I've known record players with more variance than you. The standard deviation of all your posts must be 0. The mode is zero. The mean is zero. EVERYTHING IS ZERO.

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net...

Lol, I knew it.

You are a black hole on intellectualism, a Wheatley on a GLaDOS,

roflmao
a rancorous and cancerous tumor on society. An audio recording of everything Nietzsche ever wrote as read by Stephen Hawking would provide me more tonal variance than all your posts combined.

...

Y U HATE MEH

*flips table*

(:D)
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 3:35:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 3:31:29 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:28:44 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
That's probably because you make us feel stupid. :-)

That's doubtful.

Economics just does not stay in my head. I've somehow wrapped my head around terms directly applicable to governments, like expenditures, discretionary spending, (hyper)inflation, etc. But many of the things in your posts have me running to Google. I'm just more suited to thinking of economics in political terms, which oftentimes is bad economics. Heck, I barely understood the Washington (and post) Consensus at the time I learned about them.

The Euro was a brilliant political maneuver though, from my understanding. Bad economics, perhaps, but good politics.

I agree with this entirely. The EU was intended as a political institutions from its inception, and the benefits afforded to member countries -- e.g., favorable trade conditions -- is why so many Greeks don't want to leave. But, as an economic idea, the lack of an independent monetary policy, borrowing limits, and a single currency... terrible.

Why would a single currency be terrible? Or do you mean lack of one?
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 3:44:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 3:35:48 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:31:29 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 7/11/2015 3:28:44 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
That's probably because you make us feel stupid. :-)

That's doubtful.

Economics just does not stay in my head. I've somehow wrapped my head around terms directly applicable to governments, like expenditures, discretionary spending, (hyper)inflation, etc. But many of the things in your posts have me running to Google. I'm just more suited to thinking of economics in political terms, which oftentimes is bad economics. Heck, I barely understood the Washington (and post) Consensus at the time I learned about them.

That's fair -- I mean, if you know the difference between discretionary and mandatory spending, you're already way ahead, lol.

But, yeah, I've noticed *a lot* of people think of economics in political terms and it bugs me. It creates boxes (into which I'm not sure you fit) whereby people on one side must hammer facts X, Y, and Z but deny facts B, C, and D, and the converse for the other side. That's not intended as a false equivalency, of course, but the degree to which people are actively willing to deny realty without even engaging the other side of an issue (and politicians do this all the fcking time, and some -- like Elizabeth Warren -- actually have the gall to point the finger and accuse *others* of being intellectually dishonest) or informing themselves of the valid trade-offs borne out by reality.

I mean, the political amphitheater is very one-dimensional: follow the party and the money. Economists, regularly, are known for having to elucidate "their other hand." If you ask a politician, for instance, the impact of a MW increase is, a Democrat will tell you it creates jobs and a Republican will tell you it's worse then the ACA, which apparently is already on par with slavery. No one is actually willing to engage the trade-offs because those don't make good 30-second sound bytes or attack ads.

/rant

The Euro was a brilliant political maneuver though, from my understanding. Bad economics, perhaps, but good politics.

I agree with this entirely. The EU was intended as a political institutions from its inception, and the benefits afforded to member countries -- e.g., favorable trade conditions -- is why so many Greeks don't want to leave. But, as an economic idea, the lack of an independent monetary policy, borrowing limits, and a single currency... terrible.

Why would a single currency be terrible? Or do you mean lack of one?

I can't imagine a country having no currency at all -- I mean, even I.O.U's could serve as a temporary currency in Greece.

But, yeah, the 19 eurozone countries share a currency, and it's horrible because it deprives them of an independent monetary policy and the ability to depreciate. For instance, monetary easing is necessary in Greece but not in Germany. Germany objects to stimulus, and thus Draghi loses political capital if he passes something like QE, anyway (which he did, it bears mentioning). Add to that borrowing limits that circumvent fiscal stimulus, which is really the only other option amid a demand shortfall, and you get calls for "internal devaluation" as the "best worst" palliative.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 3:53:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 1:30:39 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
For instance, I made a lengthy post on the latest employment report [http://www.debate.org...], and the only person to actually engage the content, though temporarily, was Lannan -- who eventually stopped replying.

Then I made this tri-OP thread on trade deficits [http://www.debate.org...]. Zero replies!

Then this one on the "real" unemployment rate [http://www.debate.org...]. People are willing to opine on this in the polls section as though they understand unemployment statistics (hint: they don't), but no one bothers to engage in this thread where I'm literally calling people out for opining on things they don't understand. Heck, a good amount of research went into this post.

This thread started a bit trollish [http://www.debate.org...], but there was a few substantive posts and then a discussion toward the end which... fell flat, again.

Then there's this lengthy post on why the U.S. isn't Greece [http://www.debate.org...] -- zero replies!

And the list goes on. If people start caring about my stuff -- i.e., if I feel that my contributions are actually valued by *someone* -- I'll post more. It's really a supply and demand issue, lol.

Dude, you don't need to justify your posts. I think you post excellent content and even if it doesn't get a lot of responses, it's still good stuff. I assure you that people read it, and lurkers see it also - so keep up the good work.

The issue here really is with how likely you are to post random nonsense in threads... Yes it's nice that you post good content, but I don't think anyone really wants to be also known for constantly creating random spontaneous mafia games in nearly every thread they post in.

It's ok to have fun and goof off occasionally, but this thread is all about proportionality. If you believe that too high of a percentage of your posts are just random nonsense, then you may need to consider decreasing that.

In any case, I like your posts that are substantive, but I'm not a big fan of anyone's spammy posts that have nothing to do with anything.
Debate.org Moderator