T1B

Martyred wrote:Smackie, your Rank 'Em method is "long division".

Thanks for giving me credit, but it's not my method. It's simply the way it's always been done. I didn't make it up.

This is nowhere near over...you're dealing with Van. Given enough time he could convince Francis I that he was really Francis the talking mule.

Don't disappoint me, boy!

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Van wrote:If that's not how it's supposed to be done, show me how it ought to be listed using that same example.

2, 3, 1.

Going from left to right, the first girl represents girl #1 since she is pictured first. The second girl represents girl #2 since she is pictured second, etc. If you think girl #2 is the hottest, then you would list her assigned number first in your ranking order. If you think girl #3 is the second hottest, you would list her number second. So on and so on. This has always been the standard system, and that doesn't change just because a few other dickslaps have their own method.

Okay, I see what you're doing there but no, that isn't how it's usually done here. Funny, that no one has ever tried to correct me or anyone else here who has always done it the right way. In fact, smackaholic has long done it the way I did it, or else this debate would have come up before.

Only at T1B can a thread about bad TV quickly morph into ranking teenage cartoon charachters by fuckability and a lively debate on the mechanics of left to right.

Van wrote:I see what you're doing there but no, that isn't how it's usually done here.

Yes, it is, and always has been, despite Marty's contention.

The fact that Marty & Van are aligned on this against everyone else is the REAL headline here.

Van wrote:Okay, I see what you're doing there but no, that isn't how it's usually done here. Funny, that no one has ever tried to correct me or anyone else here who has always done it the right way. In fact, smackaholic has long done it the way I did it, or else this debate would have come up before.

I don't know what to tell you other than you're flat out wrong. For the record, I actually prefer your method, but I just used the standard I've always seen before. Maybe nobody corrected you because that didn't crack their top 100 things to give a shit about that day.

We need a seasoned, expert ranker from .net to get in here and set the record straight.

Quick, someone shoot off a PM to Go Squat On A Dick.

It saddens me to say that what we are witnessing here is the dawn of a "great Rank 'Em schism".

Brother pitted against brother...roll of Bounty pitted against bottle of Jergens...

:(

Like Martin Luther, Van has nailed his Rank 'Em proclamation up in full view of the heretics. Let history be the judge...

...and may God have mercy on us all.

Smackie Chan wrote:

Van wrote:I see what you're doing there but no, that isn't how it's usually done here.

Yes, it is, and always has been, despite Marty's contention.

uhhh...I'm on your side, dude...

:?

Smackie wrote:

I see what you're doing there but no, that isn't how it's usually done here.

Yes, it is, and always has been, despite Marty's contention.

Nope. Not even close. If that's how it's always been done, then why has no one ever corrected me or any of the multitudes of others who have always done it the right way? This is literally the first time you, smackie or Mgo have ever raised a stink about it, and I and most others have been doing it the same way since Day One.

Martyred wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:

Van wrote:I see what you're doing there but no, that isn't how it's usually done here.

Yes, it is, and always has been, despite Marty's contention.

uhhh...I'm on your side, dude...

:?

Oh, wait...I meant I'm on Van's side...

Smackie Chan wrote:The fact that Marty & Van are aligned on this against everyone else is the REAL headline here.

For realz. It's also highly indicative that the two of us are in fact "everyone else," while you and Mgo are in the minority.

Van wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:The fact that Marty & Van are aligned on this against everyone else is the REAL headline here.

For realz.

For really realz, my esteemed colleague.

Sudden Sam wrote:WOw! So Van and Marty (and maybe others) have been doing the rankings in a totally differnt way than everyone else for years?!

No, only Van has. Marty is just stirring the pot as per usual.

how DARE you

:|

Sudden Sam wrote:True dat.

As a test:

This one is too easy. Let me show you how it works:

3, KC Scott, 1, 2

Van wrote:

Smackie wrote:

I see what you're doing there but no, that isn't how it's usually done here.

Yes, it is, and always has been, despite Marty's contention.

Nope. Not even close. If that's how it's always been done, then why has no one ever corrected me or any of the multitudes of others who have always done it the right way? This is literally the first time you, smackie or Mgo have ever raised a stink about it, and I and most others have been doing it the same way since Day One.

The reason no one has corrected anyone else is because it was assumed everyone was doing it the same way. Only now is it coming to light that not everyone has been. Mgo & I would say that "I and most others have been doing it the same way since Day One," and that you've been doing it "wrong." I agree w/ you, Marty, & Mgo that your way might be "better," but it's not the way it's always been done, and if one were to go through and read the comments in the various rank 'em threads, I think you'd find that most people have been doing it the way Mgo & I describe.

Sudden Sam wrote:4, 3, 1, 2 would be how I would see it. Meaning the girl at the far right would be my first choice and so on.

That would be close to how I see it. Mine would be 4,3,1.

Sudden Sam wrote:I don't care for the guy's haircut, so he's out.

Fag! Umm...what?

The fact that Sam ranked the dude would confirm that he farts rainbows. What this thread has taught me is that the level of Sam's faggotry is intrerpreted differently based on if Smackie or Van read his post.

Sudden Sam wrote:I was trying to make the point...to clarify the way the ranking is done...

I'm doomed.

:cry:

"It's not so bad! Life goes on."

Sincerely, Jsc810

Martyred wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:I was trying to make the point...to clarify the way the ranking is done...

I'm doomed.

:cry:

"It's not so bad! Life goes on."

Sincerely, Jsc810

Sin,
IndyFrisco

And to think I was this close to posting a picture from Good Luck Charlie.

R-Jack wrote:Only at T1B can a thread about bad TV quickly morph into ranking teenage cartoon charachters by fuckability and a lively debate on the mechanics of left to right.

Pretty much what I was thinking.

I have never seen any posted rules here, but more than a few years of participating in rank'ems has made it fairly clear that Smackie and SS are right and Van is wrong. And, yes that pot stiring canuck bastard is just doing what he does!!!!!

4, 2

Roach wrote:

Mikey wrote:4, 2

4 ?

Please describe your ranking method.

"LEAVE HIM ALONE, YOU VILLAIN! CAN'T A MAN EXPRESS AN OPINION?"

:x

Sincerely, DiS

Roach wrote:

Mikey wrote:4, 2

4 ?

Please describe your ranking method.

Come on, if you saw #4 from the left standing outside of Bubba's Chicken Shack on one of your motorcycle odysseys you'd be drooling all over yoursbadself trying to get a snapshot.

Are you confusing Roach with Sam?

:?

Martyred wrote:Are you confusing Roach with Sam?

:?

Yes I was. The orange avatars had my addled brain confused.

Python wrote:And to think I was this close to posting a picture from Good Luck Charlie.

I noticed that the few that had th estones to actually rank this pic, put up 4 in their answer. From the angle I am viewing it. 4 is the baby.

Fukkin' pervs.

Anyway, according to the official IRGB rank'em rules, you gotta do a complete ranking, so, here goes....

3,2,1,6,5,4

My rational is, it is slightly less sick to fukk a grown man than a boy. Better to be a fag, than a pedo, I guess.

You're even sicker than I thought.

Mikey wrote:You're even sicker than I thought.

Anyone contributing to this trainwreck of a thread is plenty sick.

smackaholic wrote:
I noticed that the few that had th estones to actually rank this pic, put up 4 in their answer. From the angle I am viewing it. 4 is the baby.

I think they were going clockwise, but ignored the teenage boys and left in the baby and the grown man.

Dr_Phibes wrote:

smackaholic wrote:
I noticed that the few that had th estones to actually rank this pic, put up 4 in their answer. From the angle I am viewing it. 4 is the baby.

I think they were going clockwise, but ignored the teenage boys and left in the baby and the grown man.

There is no guesswork in rank'em. There are concrete rules laid out in the IREGB guide. L to R is the default method. If you want to use the clockwise rule, your rank'em must have the CW suffix. ie. 134265 CW. Of course, it also brings up the question of starting point of the CW rotation.

smackaholic wrote:
There is no guesswork in rank'em. There are concrete rules laid out in the IREGB guide. L to R is the default method. If you want to use the clockwise rule, your rank'em must have the CW suffix. ie. 134265 CW. Of course, it also brings up the question of starting point of the CW rotation.

Please, 'holic...stay within the framework of the IREGM's accepted guidelines!

:x

You're not "going rogue" are you?

goddamn it, marty, a few posts back it was IREGB. WTF is this IREGM nonsense? Before you know it, rank'em will be like boxing with 47 organizations and we really don't need that.

I'm sorry. It's just that...when people play fast-and-loose with Rank 'Em canon orthodoxy, I get frustrated.

Now that I step back and look at it this should really be changed to the Van method.