Changes - Amended!
#21
(01-23-2012, 08:09 AM)Hawaii Five-0 Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 04:17 AM)Tapatio Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 04:06 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 12:24 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 12:16 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: What happened to the Fish Factor?

Looks like it's gone.  :O

:O
Some people were just way too "popular".

Yep, It looks like Vox saved someone from the indignity of being the first Fishie to bat a -1000...   :idea:

Indignity?

How people received fish factor was random.

Mine was always nearly the same ratio (almost 1:1), some were others. I saw no useful correlation of the Fish Factor with anything meaningful. It was basically a random numerical assignment to an account.

For those who mistook it as being meaningful, it could be nothing but frustrating.
Reply
#22
(01-23-2012, 08:29 AM)su Wrote: How people received fish factor was random.

Not quite random.  If I recall correctly, the three posters with the most negative Fishies are somewhat known for espousing neo-cath ideology...
Reply
#23
(01-23-2012, 08:37 AM)tmw89 Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 08:29 AM)su Wrote: How people received fish factor was random.

Not quite random.  If I recall correctly, the three posters with the most negative Fishies are somewhat known for espousing neo-cath ideology...

It was random as a whole. Just because one could justify the score for one, it doesn't mean the same justification could be applied to another.

Also, those with the most negatives could also be ones with the most positives!

Quote:1. Someone1776:  +419
2. Vetus Ordo:  +317
3. Stubborn:  +305
4. Walty:  +200
5. Tim:  +197
6. INPEFESS:  +187
7. Mithrandylan:  +180
8. ggreg:  +169
9. Iolanthe:  +150
10. CollegeCatholic:  +149
11. libby:  +140
12. DevotedKnuckles:  +127
13. JayneK:  +121
14. StrictCatholicGirl:  +82
15. Petertherock:  +81
16. Gerard:  +77
16. Vox Clamantis:  +77
18. Arun:  +72
18. WhollyRoaminCatholic:  +72
20. alaric:  +70
21. DrBombay:  +66
22. Heinrich:  +64
23. cgraye:  +59
24. OCLittleFlower:  +57
25. James02:  +52
26. CanadianCatholic:  +49
27. The_Harlequin_King:  +38
28. miss_fluffy:  +34
29. voxpopulisuxx:  +28
30. ResiduumRevertetur:  +26
31. Jacafamala:  +24
32. jovan66102:  +23
33. PeterII:  +21
34. tmw89:  +13
35. Rosarium:  +12

Keep in mind that during this time, the account "Rosarium" was not used.

Quote:1. JayneK:  -398
2. Someone1776:  -327
3. DevotedKnuckles:  -164
3. Mithrandylan:  -164
5. Vetus Ordo:  -123
6. DrBombay:  -122
7. Stubborn:  -99
8. Iolanthe:  -94
9. alaric:  -91
10. Arun:  -82
11. Gerard:  -62
12. Petertherock:  -59
13. Heinrich:  -55
14. Walty:  -45
15. CollegeCatholic:  -38
16. ggreg:  -33
16. INPEFESS:  -33
18. OCLittleFlower:  -28
18. WhollyRoaminCatholic:  -28
20. Tim:  -26
21. voxpopulisuxx:  -22
22. The_Harlequin_King:  -21
23. StrictCatholicGirl:  -19
24. Vox Clamantis:  -17
25. PeterII:  -16
26. James02:  -11
27. cgraye:  -10
27. jovan66102:  -10
29. CanadianCatholic:  -9
30. Underdog:  -8
31. miss_fluffy:  -5
32. ResiduumRevertetur:  -3
33. Iuvenalis:  -2
33. Rosarium:  -2

As one can see, the total number tracked something, and this is basic visibility on the forum. If a person was active or otherwise highly visible (hence, Rosarium, despite it not being used), then a total score would be higher. The proportion varied depending on social aspects. It was not the virtue of the content of posts.

Why would my (su) score be nearly 1:1, but Jaynek be around 1:4, and Someone1776 be around 4:3? This was a consistent ratio.

Of course, Rosarium had 6:1 for some reason.

And, it is clear that the movement of the masses often goes to a quite irrational populist direction so one could have a person who is in grave error have a negative score, but also one who has no errors.

That was the problem. It was a foolish populism, not an indication of orthodoxy or even usefulness of the posts.

The simplicity of the system is what caused this issue. Unfortunately, a good system, such as one where individual posts were voted on and marked as such, is database intensive and invites corruption (in the database, not in the people).

Reply
#24
Bear in mind, however, that list included only the Top 51 posters.  The poster Old Salt is not in the Top 51, but by the time the Fishies were eliminated he had accrued the most bloody chum of any user.  If I recall correctly, his positive score was not even half that of his negative score.

User SPB had accrued a higher number of bloody chum than his total post count, and roughly twice as much as his positive score.

I think JayneK finished with +225/-836.

A pattern emerges:  all three have defended JP2, the NO, etc. 
Reply
#25
(01-23-2012, 08:55 AM)tmw89 Wrote: Bear in mind, however, that list included only the Top 51 posters.  The poster Old Salt is not in the Top 51, but by the time the Fishies were eliminated he had accrued the most bloody chum of any user.  If I recall correctly, his positive score was not even half that of his negative score.

User SPB had accrued a higher number of bloody chum than his total post count, and roughly twice as much as his positive score.

I think JayneK finished with +225/-836.

A pattern emerges:  all three have defended JP2, the NO, etc. 

Defended them against what?

St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and other doctors wrote a certain way which many may take to support heterodoxy but that is because they were addressing a specific error. For example, a hypothetical person advocating worship of Mary to the extent of offering sacrifice to her, would invite many responses showing the errors of such a proposition to the exclusion of much discussion of hyperdulia because it is not about degrees of honour, but a clear line about "worship" and "not worship". The responses may therefore seem to indicate hyperdulia is wrong too merely because they are so clear in condemning an error.

If people here attack a Pope or the Roman Rite as promulgated by the Church, then a Catholic has no choice but to defend them (mentally or actually) which may exclude critical discussion. If someone is improperly accusing the Pope of something, then one cannot discussion actual errors or misconduct of the Pope before defending the absolute authority of the Church established by God.

It is easy to label people as "Neo" anything, but it is an error, possibly a grave one.

My advocation of spiritual rigorism could give others grounds for accusing me of having heretical ideas, and it could also give me grounds for attacking others for being worldly or otherwise infected with error. The truth is of course that there are different callings. Prudence is necessary, and sometimes difficult (although, in that example, it seems to be good, because I avoid discussing myself too much because of how easily it could be mistaken).

That I think is the point of much of St. Paul's writings on being charitable with others, especially those with different callings.
Reply
#26
(01-23-2012, 09:17 AM)su Wrote: Defended them against what?

Against their own dubious words and apostate activities would be my guess...
Reply
#27
(01-23-2012, 10:01 AM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 09:17 AM)su Wrote: Defended them against what?

Against their own dubious words and apostate activities would be my guess...

I don't want your guesses. It was a serious charge.

The fact that Catholics would be attacked for possibly defending the Church is troubling. So if they are attacked for "defending" the Roman Rite and a Pope then it should be very clear what is meant.

It is wholly anti-Catholic to be held to demonising anything of the Church.

Reply
#28
(01-23-2012, 10:10 AM)su Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 10:01 AM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 09:17 AM)su Wrote: Defended them against what?

Against their own dubious words and apostate activities would be my guess...

I don't want your guesses. It was a serious charge.

The fact that Catholics would be attacked for possibly defending the Church is troubling. So if they are attacked for "defending" the Roman Rite and a Pope then it should be very clear what is meant.

It is wholly anti-Catholic to be held to demonising anything of the Church.

I'm sure the "defenders" will pipe-in to explain themselves and precisely what it is they defended and so put you at your ease.
And the use of the word demonizing (with a z) is somewhat dramatic.Criticizing and discussing obvious acts of heresy,apostasy and modernism is fair game.Saints of the Church have been at it for centuries.
Reply
#29
(01-23-2012, 10:30 AM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: I'm sure the "defenders" will pipe-in to explain themselves and precisely what it is they defended and so put you at your ease.
And the use of the word demonizing (with a z) is somewhat dramatic.Criticizing and discussing obvious acts of heresy,apostasy and modernism is fair game.Saints of the Church have been at it for centuries.

Since you have addressed spelling variations, it is evident that you are not really interested in discussing this topic.

And obvious acts of heresy, apostasy, and modernism would be to replace the Church with one's own thoughts and to take it upon oneself to be the Pope and all the bishops.

The crisis in the Church is not unique. There have been many times when widespread heresy caused much confusion, even tainted the Mass and had many bishops fall, but the Church overcame. Each attack draws some away from the Church and each time those people think they are justified. What is the difference between a heretic of ancient times, of Luther, and a person who forsakes the authority of the Church? Nothing. They are all in error and they all think they are justified.

Just because some, in their living a Catholic life, do not take it upon themselves to strongly protest what they cannot influence, it does not mean they are a part of it. What good is it to be able to identify all the shortcomings of the Novus Ordo, identify every imprudent act or word of the Pope, when one is not living any better? Would it not be better to have the simplicity of faith common to all saints and speak one's words according to one's calling?

Any claim of error must be clearly identified. It cannot be this vague accusation of general error. That is very uncharitable. If there is error, then it should be addressed according to the teachings of the Church and the will of God. Fraternal Correction is not public attacks on a person's faith and character.
Reply
#30
(01-23-2012, 10:50 AM)su Wrote: Since you have addressed spelling variations, it is evident that you are not really interested in discussing this topic.

Which,in your case is usually code for "I will not continue to engage you on this issues because I am starting to look bad.I'll just name-call instead."

(01-23-2012, 10:50 AM)su Wrote: And obvious acts of heresy, apostasy, and modernism would be to replace the Church with one's own thoughts and to take it upon oneself to be the Pope and all the bishops.

Sorry,but this sentence makes no sense  :shrug:

(01-23-2012, 10:50 AM)su Wrote: What is the difference between a heretic of ancient times, of Luther, and a person who forsakes the authority of the Church? Nothing. They are all in error and they all think they are justified.

Ah,now I get it. Your one of those folk who think the Church is infallible in everything She says and does.....despite Popes and Saints telling us the opposite.Ok then.I'll not be wasting my time on this...
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)