Garrulous Glaahk AethirWeb Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 As the title says, I'm wondering. When d you get the newt few forum titles. I want to look BAWSS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk nikki. Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 If you click on the FAQ link at the top of the screen, you'll see this (among other things): Quote: 0 Initiate 50 Warrior 100 Watcher 150 Monitor 200 Shaman 400 Sorceress 600 Shadowwalker 800 Blademaster 1000 Hand of Avadon 2500 Eye of Avadon 4000 Heart of Avadon 6000 Hero 8000 Legend 10000 Postmaster General 15000 Your Postliness 25000 Postaroni, Pizzabella! Some people also have custom titles, which are handed out for whatever the administration feel like. There is only one rule: ask for one, and you'll never recieve one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 there is also another rule: do not post a lot just to get a new title Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dantius Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Originally Posted By: Lilith there is also another rule: do not post a lot just to get a new title Protip: It doesn't really apply once you get around a one or two thousand posts. Most of the top posters post around 10 to 20 posts a day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Originally Posted By: Dantius Protip: It doesn't really apply once you get around a one or two thousand posts. Most of the top posters post around 10 to 20 posts a day. most of the top posters already have custom titles and thus cannot be posting just to get a new title Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dantius Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Originally Posted By: Lilith Originally Posted By: Dantius Protip: It doesn't really apply once you get around a one or two thousand posts. Most of the top posters post around 10 to 20 posts a day. most of the top posters already have custom titles and thus cannot be posting just to get a new title I was thinking manly of Alorael when I made that post, since right now he's only like 600 posts away from a new title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast keira Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Seriously, can we put this in a sticky or something. This is like the millionth time this has been asked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Originally Posted By: Sylae Seriously, can we put this in a sticky or something. This is like the millionth time this has been asked. if people don't read the faq why would they read a sticky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Randomizer Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Alorael needs 5667 posts to make the next level or about 2 years at his current rate. Lilith crossed over to Alorael's level title a few days ago so congratulations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Originally Posted By: Nikki Edit Reason: Although, I asked Drakey for one at least twice, and probably moaned about it in a couple of threads,.. Well, at least we forget about the important stuff around here. Originally Posted By: Dantius Protip: It doesn't really apply once you get around a one or two thousand posts. Most of the top posters post around 10 to 20 posts a day. Your own math proves you false. Posters who are almost always around have an average rate of 4-5 posts per day. Top posters have just been around and posting frequently for a long time. That said, if someone wants to post 10 times a day in order to get a new title and all of those posts are of high quality, Dikiyoba couldn't care less. It's just really hard to make 5 quality posts a day, let alone 10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk nikki. Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba ...could care less. Gah, I hate when people use that expression, because they almost always use it when they mean they "couldn't care less". And I don't want to be elitist about it, but it's predominantly Americans who do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dantius Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba Your own math proves you false. Posters who are almost always around have an average rate of 4-5 posts per day. Top posters have just been around and posting frequently for a long time. That said, if someone wants to post 10 times a day in order to get a new title and all of those posts are of high quality, Dikiyoba could care less. It's just really hard to make 5 quality posts a day, let alone 10. Not really. That math is just an average over the total registered time, which as Slarty so helpfully pointed out for me, often belies long periods of absence or inactivity. I'd be willing to bet that if you went over the average post s per day made over the past year for those users, the number would be from 5-10 instead of 1-5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast keira Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Originally Posted By: Nikki. And I don't want to be elitist about it, but it's predominantly Americans who do it. you just remember who's ass the french helped us kick back in the late 1700's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unflappable Drayk ĐªгŦĦ Єяŋϊε Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Originally Posted By: Dantius Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba Your own math proves you false. Posters who are almost always around have an average rate of 4-5 posts per day. Top posters have just been around and posting frequently for a long time. That said, if someone wants to post 10 times a day in order to get a new title and all of those posts are of high quality, Dikiyoba could care less. It's just really hard to make 5 quality posts a day, let alone 10. Not really. That math is just an average over the total registered time, which as Slarty so helpfully pointed out for me, often belies long periods of absence or inactivity. I'd be willing to bet that if you went over the average post s per day made over the past year for those users, the number would be from 5-10 instead of 1-5. true that. on days that i post it can be up to 15 then there can be several days to weeks of no posts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Originally Posted By: Dantius That math is just an average over the total registered time, which as Slarty so helpfully pointed out for me, often belies long periods of absence or inactivity. That's why I specifically excluded anyone who has been absent for an extended period of time. Randomizer hasn't really ever been absent. Alorael, to my knowledge, is gone only on very rare occasions. You haven't ever been absent that I can remember, and I've only missed a few months here and there. None of our posts-per-day averages will change much if we're calculating only the time we've been present instead of the entire time since we've registered. Dikiyoba. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall A less presumptuous name. Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Originally Posted By: Sylae Edit Reason: true to SW form, this topic will now be about politics, philosophy, and/or science, with many gigantic posts every five seconds The one redeeming factor is that most of those posts are either highly technical, in which case you can ignore them, or they consist of quotes, which you have already ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Sarachim Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Originally Posted By: Nikki. Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba ...could care less. Gah, I hate when people use that expression, because they almost always use it when they mean they "couldn't care less". And I don't want to be elitist about it, but it's predominantly Americans who do it. http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm Quote: Taken literally, if one could care less, then one must care at least a little, which is obviously the opposite of what is meant. It is so clearly logical nonsense that to condemn it for being so (as some commentators have done) misses the point. The intent is obviously sarcastic — the speaker is really saying, “As if there was something in the world that I care less about”. . . . There’s a close link between the stress pattern of I could care less and the kind that appears in certain sarcastic or self-deprecatory phrases that are associated with the Yiddish heritage and (especially) New York Jewish speech. Perhaps the best known is I should be so lucky!, in which the real sense is often “I have no hope of being so lucky”, a closely similar stress pattern with the same sarcastic inversion of meaning. There’s no evidence to suggest that I could care less came directly from Yiddish, but the similarity is suggestive. There are other American expressions that have a similar sarcastic inversion of apparent sense, such as Tell me about it!, which usually means “Don’t tell me about it, because I know all about it already”. These may come from similar sources. So it’s actually a very interesting linguistic development. But it is still regarded as slangy, and also has some social class stigma attached.[Emphasis added.] Put that in your pipe and smoke it, you elitist! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dintiradan Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Honestly, I have never once heard anyone use the phrase "I could care less" before. The correct phrase is always used instead. That's right. I said "correct". It's on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Originally Posted By: Sarachim Put that in your pipe and smoke it, you elitist! i do not find the etymological argument entirely convincing but it's also beside the point: idioms don't have to make logical sense, and at this point the "could" form of the expression is used widely enough that the meaning is understood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrulous Glaahk AethirWeb Posted September 2, 2011 Author Share Posted September 2, 2011 Hmmm....17 posts till Watcher........ Post on ALL THE THINGS!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Sarachim Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Originally Posted By: Lilith Originally Posted By: Sarachim Put that in your pipe and smoke it, you elitist! i do not find the etymological argument entirely convincing but it's also beside the point: idioms don't have to make logical sense, and at this point the "could" form of the expression is used widely enough that the meaning is understood Neither do I, but my point was basically the same as yours. I only included the other stuff because I found it interesting, and also because it provided an alternative to Nikki's apparent belief that Americans can't speak his language without supervision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Student of Trinity Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 No doubt for most people the 'could care less' form is just a mistake, but I don't think there's ground to stand on for people who want to call it wrong. It makes perfect sense as a sarcastic statement, damning with faint praise: "I could (in principle) care less about this (just not very much)." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 really, as sarachim's article touches on, the important difference is not the meaning but the metre. "i could care less" reads most naturally as a minor ionic foot, while "i couldn't care less" is usually an amphibrach and an iamb. i'd suspect that differences in usage have more to do with a preference for a particular rhythm of conversation than an analysis, correct or otherwise, of the individual words comprising the idiom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk nikki. Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Originally Posted By: Sarachim ...and also because it provided an alternative to Nikki's apparent belief that Americans can't speak his language without supervision. Haha. On the other hand, we all know that Americans do not get sarcasm. Seriously, I suppose it never occured that to me that it could be sarcasm. I guess if I wanted to save face I'll point out that I did say "most" people get it wrong, but really I'm beat. (It is still going to annoy me, I'll just be less vocal about it now ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Student of Trinity Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Originally Posted By: Lilith really, as sarachim's article touches on, the important difference is not the meaning but the metre. "i could care less" reads most naturally as a minor ionic foot, while "i couldn't care less" is usually an amphibrach and an iamb. i'd suspect that differences in usage have more to do with a preference for a particular rhythm of conversation than an analysis, correct or otherwise, of the individual words comprising the idiom I agree that prosody probably rules. The consonant cluster in the middle of 'couldn't care' is also more awkward than the transition in 'could care', in which the 'd' is easily elided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 also a minor ionic foot sounds like the sort of thing one should really see a podiatrist about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Student of Trinity Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Or an electrician. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Triumph Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Someone should defuse the highly charged rhetoric of this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Perhaps it's a chemical burn? —Alorael, whose posting rate is indeed between five and ten posts per day. It has been in that range for years. It was higher for about the first two years he was on Spiderweb, but he's been posting slowly and steadily. He'd argue that the same is true for most of the big posters. Look at how long everyone has been here, and there really aren't that many sustained spree posters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Cairo Jim Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 I should spam more then. I always get excited when I know I'm close to a new title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Goldengirl Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 Originally Posted By: Cairo Jim I should spam more then. I always get excited when I know I'm close to a new title. It really is true that if you post enough, you will get a new title. That title may very well end up being BANNED, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Callie Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 Oh those good ol' days when people would get CANNED. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Cairo Jim Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 I was being sarcastic you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Trenton. Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 Banned? Canned? How would one get these titles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk nikki. Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 The administration used to give them out. Canned was given to spammers (because, see, Spam comes in a can). People who continued to spam, or were idiots in other ways, got banned, and the title that went with that status. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Trenton. Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 Ha Ha! ... Where did the term "Spammer" come from anyway? what does spam have to do with computers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 Wikipedia is your friend. Dikiyoba. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Trenton. Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 My teachers dont trust wikipedia, they say it gives false information Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast keira Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 They also say that glass is a slow-moving liquid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Sudanna Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 . . . It does? I mean, I've seen glass left in a spot for at least 80 years that has begun to visibly sag and run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Trenton. Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 ...Maybe if molten lava melted it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast keira Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 Originally Posted By: Space Between . . . It does? I mean, I've seen glass left in a spot for at least 80 years that has begun to visibly sag and run. That's because of how they made glass back then--one side was thicker, and they'd usually put the thick part of the pane down to prevent rain leakages or some such. So it just looks saggy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dintiradan Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba Wikipedia is your friend. Dikiyoba. Originally Posted By: Trenton Uchiha, rebel servile. My teachers dont trust wikipedia, they say it gives false information So do friends. But like most friends, Wikipedia gives correct information more often than false information, and there are these nifty things called citations as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 Wikipedia isn't absolutely correct, but it's actually pretty good at being mostly correct most of the time. I wouldn't go to it for minor details or highly specific information, but for general knowledge it's great. —Alorael, who also finds it great for very different reasons for highly technical information. Generally, the information is either clearly too sparse to be useful, too technical to be usable to a layperson, or obviously lovingly explained by an expert. And you can find those loving experts in some surprisingly abstruse fields. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Harehunter Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Spam spam spam Spam spam spam Wonderful spam Wonderful spam Ack!! Now I'll have that stupid tune in my head the rest of the week! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall The Ratt Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Someone had to do this. It turns out that glass is technically a super-cooled liquid, but it does not flow. Neat. Edit: However, polystyrene and polypropylene do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unflappable Drayk Nicothodes Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Originally Posted By: Harehunter Spam spam spam Spam spam spam Wonderful spam Wonderful spam Ack!! Now I'll have that stupid tune in my head the rest of the week! should get it out for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Harehunter Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Thank you. I appreciate the effort, but now I've got it worse; both songs playing incessantly side by side. BTW My dad considered spam a four letter word, never to be uttered. Apparently he had had enough of the stuff in WWII to fill an LST. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Harehunter Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Originally Posted By: The (Armored) Ratt Someone had to do this. It turns out that glass is technically a super-cooled liquid, but it does not flow. Neat. The fact that glass flows, but slowly, is readily seen in windows of homes that were built 100+ yrs ago. Visit places like Mount Vernon, Monticello or The Hermitage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall The Ratt Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Did you even look at the link, Harehunter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.