The Great "Rank 'Em" Schism

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:20 pm

We all know the perils of making assumptions. It appears there are two camps split over how rank 'em threads have always been done, with the schism going unnoticed until, quite by accident, it was discovered yesterday in this thread. The cause of this rift is that the members of each camp had assumed everyone was using the same method, when in fact this was not the case. This methodological difference has serious ramifications, among them being posters getting unjustifiably accused of being racist, and critical errors being made in the interpretations of the bang-worthiness of animated characters. These unfortunate results MUST be resolved immediately, with an accepted methodology agreed upon, documented, and adopted by all to eliminate faulty assumptions being made. The first step in correcting this abomination is to gauge the relative sizes of each camp. If it's determined that an overwhelming majority of posters assumed one of the methodologies has always been used, that method will be accepted as the approved way going forward. If the camps are found to be nearly equally divided, it may be an issue that requires either a separate poll be conducted to vote on the way ahead, or be turned over to The Deciders as the official arbiters. Cast your vote over the next few days to see where we, as a community, stand on this most important of issues.

Python · Post by **Python** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:23 pm

Can't I just vote for the SEC?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:25 pm

Smackie, you should incorporate a Skype call-in segment to your radio shows to discuss matters such as these.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:26 pm

Python wrote:Can't I just vote for the SEC?

In this case, no. Your options are limited to Big 10 or Pac-12.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:30 pm

Martyred wrote:Smackie, you should incorporate a Skype call-in segment to your radio shows to discuss matters such as these.

Excellent suggestion, Comrade, which reinforces similar recommendations made previously, albeit for different reasons. There are technical and logistical issues that need to be overcome to make this happen, but I may redouble ('sup, Dins) my efforts to effect this enhancement. Being the computer-savvy Canucklehead that you are, I may enlist your assistance in making this dream a reality.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:36 pm

Smackie Chan wrote:
Martyred wrote:Smackie, you should incorporate a Skype call-in segment to your radio shows to discuss matters such as these.
Excellent suggestion, Comrade, which reinforces similar recommendations made previously, albeit for different reasons. There are technical and logistical issues that need to be overcome to make this happen, but I may redouble ('sup, Dins) my efforts to effect this enhancement. Being the computer-savvy Canucklehead that you are, I may enlist your assistance in making this dream a reality.

If for any reason, you have trouble relaying live Skype calls during the show, would you consider pre-recorded "interviews" with selected members on topics of interest?

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:41 pm

Martyred wrote:If for any reason, you have trouble relaying live Skype calls during the show, would you consider pre-recorded "interviews" with selected members on topics of interest?

I'm open to any and all suggestions that will enhance the quality and entertainment value of the show, as long as only minimal effort is required for their implementation. Getting up off my ass and actually working is not my strong suit.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:48 pm

Do you have a Skype account, or will whatever branch of the Department Of Wasted Tax Dollars (or whoever you shill for) allow you to install that on your machine?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:49 pm

man...things turn ugly so fast around here...

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:51 pm

Martyred wrote:Do you have a Skype account, or will whatever branch of the Department Of Wasted Tax Dollars (or whoever you shill for) allow you to install that on your machine?

I have a Skype account on my own computers; the DWTD does not allow Skype installation on their assets.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:53 pm

Smackie Chan wrote:...DWTD...

Sincerely, smackaholic

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 3:09 pm

I think it's fine the way its' been done up until now. Everybody should use their own system and everybody can read everybody elses's rankings however they want. I think it make's for a lot more interesting discussions than if everybody were forced to do it the same way.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 3:14 pm

Mikey wrote:I think it's fine the way its' been done up until now. Everybody should use their own system and everybody can read everybody elses's rankings however they want. I think it make's for a lot more interesting discussions than if everybody were forced to do it the same way.

Anarchy is not the answer.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:26 pm

88 wrote:This is truly a shocking development. I had always assumed, incorrectly it now appears, that there was only one way to post a response in a Rank 'Em thread, and that was simply to re-order the number assigned to the ladies shown in the photo from 1 to n beginning on the left based upon your boning preference. I had no idea that some posters were assigning rankings as numbers in left to right order. The implications of this are profound.

Profound indeed. It may be years before an accurate assessment of the damage can be made. This makes the BP oil spill seem like a leaky faucet by comparison.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:41 pm

Sam, what the hell is up with that spring break photo from 1986?

Further how the hell did that dude get in there on the second row from the bottom third from the left?

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:47 pm

I kind of like miley's rank'em anarchy approach going forward.

As for the past, I think we (Mgo, sam, 88, everybody not named Van, myself, etc....) know what the accepted method is. I think perhaps Van may just be pulling off the best troll job since LTL's infamous fatal disease of .....what year was that? '01?

I think maybe the board sleuth needs to scour the rank'em archives for Van posts. That should flush any trolls from the brush, if there is one.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:51 pm

smackaholic wrote:I think perhaps Van may just be pulling off the best troll job since LTL's infamous fatal disease of .....what year was that? '01?

2, 1

My Homie LTL2 has been MIA for quite some time... maybe karma caught up, and he died of some nasty disease.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 5:01 pm

smackaholic wrote:Van may just be pulling off the best troll job since LTL's infamous fatal disease of .....what year was that? '01?

Doubtful. Van has repeatedly asserted his pride in having never done drugs, drank alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or trolled. Call me gullible, but I believe him.

I think maybe the board sleuth needs to scour the rank'em archives for Van posts. That should flush any trolls from the brush, if there is one.

Said sleuth better pack a few...

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 5:07 pm

Smackie Chan wrote:
Mikey wrote:I think it's fine the way its' been done up until now. Everybody should use their own system and everybody can read everybody elses's rankings however they want. I think it make's for a lot more interesting discussions than if everybody were forced to do it the same way.
Anarchy is not the answer.

But it does make life more fun.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 5:09 pm

88 wrote:This is truly a shocking development. I had always assumed, incorrectly it now appears, that there was only one way to post a response in a Rank 'Em thread, and that was simply to re-order the number assigned to the ladies shown in the photo from 1 to n beginning on the left based upon your boning preference. I had no idea that some posters were assigning rankings as numbers in left to right order. The implications of this are profound.

This could be a good indication of Type A vs. Type B personality traits.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 5:10 pm

Mikey wrote:But it does make life more fun.

You think we're here to have fun?!? You need an attitude adjustment, Mister!

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 5:37 pm

Sorry...

:cry:

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:19 pm

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:30 pm

Papa Willie wrote:

Any random order would suffice.

FTFY

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:39 pm

I'm with Van on this one.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:41 pm

Well, the poll is closed, and by any measure the result is a landslide. Neither I nor anyone else can force rank 'em participants to adopt any particular method, but this clearly shows how an overwhelming majority interpret participants' responses. So unless you want to risk having posters believe you'd rather do Rosie O'Donnell than Megan Fox, you might wanna stick to the method chosen more than 3-1 in this highly scientific survey. Or maybe you would actually rather do a whole lotta Rosie.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 4:15 pm

Thanks for fukking up my favorite AC/DC tune, asshole. :x

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Tue Mar 19, 2013 8:44 pm

17 to 5? Guess we can shut the door on this one.

I'm actually surprised it was that close.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:02 pm

does this mean we will now see foot notes on rank 'em threads?

IE, using the Mgo method or using the van method.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:22 pm

Left Seater wrote:IE, using the Mgo method or using the van method.

No. Make the 5 clueless morons adjust.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:40 pm

more than likely, 12 of the 17 are lemmings simply following the crowd.

I shall take the path less traveled by, especially since it means I won't be following in cockaholics footsteps.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:14 am

Not to mention that both Mgo and Smackie agree that "my" method actually makes more sense and is easier to follow.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:45 am

Van wrote:Not to mention that both Mgo and Smackie agree that "my" method actually makes more sense and is easier to follow.

Not sure I'd go that far. Since no method was ever explained, or at least I've never seen an explanation, I interpreted and used the method that seemed easiest and most intuitive, which was the other one. Hardly a case of a lemming following a crowd, Wags, since we all assumed the rest of the "crowd" was doing the same thing irrespective of which method each of us used - kind of an essential element of stuff like this. It just appears that considerably more of us had intuition similar to mine than not. Doesn't mean one method is more "right" than the other. Could be those of you in the minority are just waaaaaay smarter.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:14 am

'Look at girl, see her ranking' is easier than 'see ranking, locate corresponding girl.' Either way works just fine but assigning each girl her rank is just plain simpler than listing ranks and searching for the matching position in line.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:21 am

Van wrote:'Look at girl, see her ranking' is easier than 'see ranking, locate corresponding girl.' Either way works just fine but assigning each girl her rank is just plain simpler than listing ranks and searching for the matching position in line.

Why do people gotta make things so difficult?

RACK ~ The Van Method

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:21 am

War Wagon wrote:more than likely, 12 of the 17 are lemmings simply following the crowd.

Without trying or intending to, you may have raised an interesting point. The way the poll question is worded lends itself to a critical assumption - that each person who votes will do so in favor of the method that person has been using. Conceivably, a poster could have such low self of steam that the system he or she uses must not be the one that has always been used, and vote accordingly.

Anybody do that?

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:22 am

Smackie Chan wrote:
Van wrote:Not to mention that both Mgo and Smackie agree that "my" method actually makes more sense and is easier to follow.
Not sure I'd go that far.

You already did. So did Mgo. You both told me that "my" method is easier and makes more sense even though you don't think it's the most common way to do it.

Or maybe I'm just imagining these things and you two didn't actually say any of that to me.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:26 am

Van wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:
Van wrote:Not to mention that both Mgo and Smackie agree that "my" method actually makes more sense and is easier to follow.
Not sure I'd go that far.
You already did. So did Mgo. You both told me that "my" method is easier and makes more sense even though you don't think it's the most common way to do it.

What Imma do here is attribute my saying it to the awe and amazement at the time that accompanied the discovery that there was a different way of doing these simple rank 'em thingies that I hadn't even considered. It seemed all shiny & new compared to the old method I'd been using. The novelty has since worn off.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:01 am

Van wrote:'Look at girl, see her ranking' is easier than 'see ranking, locate corresponding girl.' Either way works just fine but assigning each girl her rank is just plain simpler than listing ranks and searching for the matching position in line.

Sorry, but, that is bullshit.

If we had a photo and were writing in their rank underneath each girl (or dude, if you're marty), your method would make sense, but we are typing them, l to r. And the way my feeble mind works, the natural and easy way to write them is in decending order from most to least bangable with each subject being labeled as #n starting from the left. Doing it your way just seems like more math.

i am waiting for mikey to come up with a new improved engineer method using derivatives and pi and stuff.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:34 am

smackaholic wrote:
Van wrote:'Look at girl, see her ranking' is easier than 'see ranking, locate corresponding girl.' Either way works just fine but assigning each girl her rank is just plain simpler than listing ranks and searching for the matching position in line.
Sorry, but, that is bullshit.

If we had a photo and were writing in their rank underneath each girl (or dude, if you're marty), your method would make sense, but we are typing them, l to r. And the way my feeble mind works, the natural and easy way to write them is in decending order from most to least bangable with each subject being labeled as #n starting from the left. Doing it your way just seems like more math.

Yeah, the difference in complexity between the two methods is completely negligible. Even the most retarded among us ('sup, Dee Snutz?) can master either one within a matter of seconds. OK, maybe minutes for the slow ones. Trying to defend either method based on relative complexity is an exercise rooted in desperation.

How have "Rank 'em" threads always been done?