Most prolific killers in The Club - a statistical analysis

[notyou2]

NS is at the low end. I think this is because he has so many opponents to what spews from his fingers that people won't let him have the last word.

Haggis, how do you account for personality issues that influence the percentages?

[Funkyterrance]

all right, that's it. i'm gonna start a bunch of dumb threads like you guys do just so i get noticed

WARNING: Starting a thread usually requires at least a minimal amount of effort.

[Neoteny]

NS is at the low end. I think this is because he has so many opponents to what spews from his fingers that people won't let him have the last word.

Haggis, how do you account for personality issues that influence the percentages?

What? You don't. This is statistics. You just use the data to make broad, derogatory generalizations.

[Funkyterrance]

NS is at the low end. I think this is because he has so many opponents to what spews from his fingers that people won't let him have the last word.

Haggis, how do you account for personality issues that influence the percentages?

What? You don't. This is statistics. You just use the data to make broad, derogatory generalizations.

I've analyzed neoteny's posts and found they are typically small and inadequate.

[BigBallinStalin]

NS is at the low end. I think this is because he has so many opponents to what spews from his fingers that people won't let him have the last word.

Haggis, how do you account for personality issues that influence the percentages?

What? You don't. This is statistics. You just use the data to make broad, derogatory generalizations.

Sure, you can. Everyone who is equal to or above 3.3% is an asshole. Those who are below are awesome. Insert labels. Done!

[Funkyterrance]

NS is at the low end. I think this is because he has so many opponents to what spews from his fingers that people won't let him have the last word.

Haggis, how do you account for personality issues that influence the percentages?

What? You don't. This is statistics. You just use the data to make broad, derogatory generalizations.

Sure, you can. Everyone who is equal to or above 3.3% is an asshole. Those who are below are awesome. Insert labels. Done!

I'll buy the first part at least. As far as the second, it's hard telling not knowing.

[Gillipig]

Yay, I'm good at killing/ and or winning threads!



*This thread is now most likely dead.

[AndyDufresne]

I am glad to see I made the list. There are probably a few other variables to consider, such as I suspect a fair number of my thread-killing posts came in say topics outside of the Off Topics, where I could have been posting in topics that weren't interesting or gaining any momentum. That could explain Koolbak too! And I suspect the reasoning regarding those who have a few usual adversaries (I.E. Night Strike, Phattscotty, etc) usually don't get the last word in.

But still glad I am on the list. Do we get any bonus points for being the threadkillerwinner of this topic, whenever it comes around?


--Andy

[Funkyterrance]

And I suspect the reasoning regarding those who have a few usual adversaries (I.E. Night Strike, Phattscotty, etc) usually don't get the last word in.

Interesting, because I figured that those who have regular adversaries would have a higher percentage since they would tend to bicker back and forth well beyond the point where everyone else lost interest lol. The endings would be split between the two rivals, thus giving them a higher percentage of those people who didn't have regular rivals.

[Gillipig]

And I suspect the reasoning regarding those who have a few usual adversaries (I.E. Night Strike, Phattscotty, etc) usually don't get the last word in.

Interesting, because I figured that those who have regular adversaries would have a higher percentage since they would tend to bicker back and forth well beyond the point where everyone else lost interest lol. The endings would be split between the two rivals, thus giving them a higher percentage of those people who didn't have regular rivals.

Guys like NS, scotty, Viceroy have more than a few disagreeing with them. There's something like four times as many people who disagree with them, as there are those who agree with them.

[nietzsche]

To be honest I'm not happy with the results.

TO be honest I suggested this to Haggis in order to show how that Ft kills threads. Yes, I am petty. I had noticed a lot of threads in which Ft had posted last, in pages 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,7 (that's as far as I went and thought I had a pattern)

But Haggis, fair as he is, and truthful, ran the crawler in a neutral way.

He suggested running taking into account the number of posts per user and cross it with the number of killer posts. I suggested that he didn't take into account the last posts in the thread because of Ft's modus operandi. My idea was that he would take each thread, take the killer and if the killer had posted in the first 80% of the thread more than 20%, then he would not be considered the killer, but rather it was normal that he would post last. Then, sum all the killer points and present it in a graph.

But Haggis, fair as he is, and truthful, ran the crawler in a neutral way.

With great power comes great responsibility. That's why I don't know how to write my own fucking crawler.

I'm working with lackattack though, who is mad that El_Jefe hasn't paid in full, and he will get me the database of offtopics, then I will be able to show biased graphs.

[notyou2]

In fairness to FT, I think most have his initial posts have been outside of Ad Hominem. I believe he only started to post a great deal in AH part way through 2012.

Run this again in a year and I bet FT moves up the list. Or run it from say last August to present.

[nietzsche]

In fairness to FT, I think most have his initial posts have been outside of Ad Hominem. I believe he only started to post a great deal in AH part way through 2012.

Run this again in a year and I bet FT moves up the list. Or run it from say last August to present.

The stats posted only count the total number of posts and the final posts, and have nothing to do with dates.

What I suggested it's on Haggis wall, and my proof of it consisted only of the first pages of Off-Topics, where he appeared a lot as the final poster in threads.

It was my theory that he joins a thread and people suddenly stop wanting to post, he gets in 1vs1 with someone and at some point that 1vs1 is all that survives, until the other guy gets bored and simply don't respond.

May I be biased? Of course.

[Funkyterrance]

In fairness to FT, I think most have his initial posts have been outside of Ad Hominem. I believe he only started to post a great deal in AH part way through 2012.

I also tend to bump up threads that are not nescessarily "hot" but are personally more interesting to me than the more current topics. My tolerance for levity is actually pretty low and once a thread starts getting silly, unless I am in rare form, I tend to move to something more substantive. If all that is available is an older thread, I don't hesitate to attempt to revive it even if the majority of posters have become bored with it. Basically I'm amusing myself.
At any rate, the data is pretty much inconclusive as to the merit of a poster being a "topic killer" anyway. In other words, it could actually be coincidence or even a positive influence(discussion was settled). I happen to think a medal suggestion is in order...

[nietzsche]

My eyes were closing and I yawned a couple of times but I read it.

It's true, the stats are inconclusive and can only show a tendency. Depending on how the experiment is designed, how the data is collected and organized and analyzed, you can show anything in a graph.



But I do think they show a tendency. However, each case should be analyzed independently. For instance, BBS arguments are many times long and conclusive, and some (like me) just don't have the energies to answer him in the way he just did. That would account for many of the times he's the last poster. In my case I think is that I post random stuff all the time, some times someone like it or simply has something to add, many times I'm ignored and the thread continues. Other times my comments are so random people don't even smirk.


But the tendencies are there.

Koolbak seems to belong to another era of Off-Topics, that's why he posts little and shows higher tendency.

EDIT: I had misunderstood Neoteny.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Wouldn't you just have to filter out any topic titles with [Locked] in them? That'd likely get most of them.

Don't think that's standard practice anymore. The locked threads on page 4 don't seem to have it.

Also @Andy. This data is only looking at posts in off-topics in the last year or so. So posts in other forums don't count.

I'll try to do niet's fancy schmancy method in a couple days, if I have time.

[Haggis_McMutton]

NS is at the low end. I think this is because he has so many opponents to what spews from his fingers that people won't let him have the last word.

Haggis, how do you account for personality issues that influence the percentages?

What? You don't. This is statistics. You just use the data to make broad, derogatory generalizations.

Correct.

Though I suppose you could do some kind of multiple regression shenanigans if you really wanted you, but I have no idea how you'd go about that exactly.

Anyone good with statistics know more about this shit? (Loot ?)
Could you do something like seeing how many opponents someone has in a thread (# people quoting him) and then see how much of the variation in the data you can explain with that?

[Funkyterrance]

Why can't the data be suggesting,like many times in real life, that the last words are usually the killing blow AKA victory? Why can't it be suggesting that people shut up because they've seen the error in their ways? I think the truth is just too hard for some to face: shieldgenerator 0wnz all our asses.

[2dimes]

NS is at the low end. I think this is because he has so many opponents to what spews from his fingers that people won't let him have the last word.

Haggis, how do you account for personality issues that influence the percentages?

What? You don't. This is statistics. You just use the data to make broad, derogatory generalizations.

Sure, you can. Everyone who is equal to or above 3.3% is an asshole. Those who are below are awesome. Insert labels. Done!

Ouchie.

[muy_thaiguy]

Right smack in the middle in the largest group. This is that one guy's fault, whose name no one can ever remember unless you think of toilets.

[BigBallinStalin]

NS is at the low end. I think this is because he has so many opponents to what spews from his fingers that people won't let him have the last word.

Haggis, how do you account for personality issues that influence the percentages?

What? You don't. This is statistics. You just use the data to make broad, derogatory generalizations.

Sure, you can. Everyone who is equal to or above 3.3% is an asshole. Those who are below are awesome. Insert labels. Done!

Ouchie.

As a consolation prize, allow me to present you this:

[2dimes]

Well, thanks.

[Funkyterrance]

Wtf, are those cats clones or something?

[Neoteny]

Might a thread killer have an effect on post frequency? Perhaps a significant drop off from a certain level of activity?

[thegreekdog]

Hmm... I need to train in thread killing clearly.

Either that or go back to moderating so I can lock threads indiscriminately after making the last post.