Well, thanks for the effort, that seems quite convincing to me, in that it indicates that it neither drives off everyone, nor does it overwhelmingly miss its target.
Thanks! I’ve been wanting someone to do that for a while.
Hopefully someone else will pick up where you left off.
Looks like we’re done here.
Just a quick aside, one of the ‘no longer active’ posters mentioned in @John_DiFool 's excellent review has indeed surfaced today. Specifically azgem posted a link (with no commentary) in the recent QZ thread about Sweden’s experiment being a failure. The discourse reminder that it had been 7 months since the last post caught my eye and my crappy but still functional brain managed the cross-link to this thread.
It does overwhelmingly miss it’s target. 500 posts, 23 bannees, 11 who were cornfielded as they were spammers or more likely socks. That is a 5% hit rate.
Now of those 23, what we need is for a Mod to say how many of them were reported. Of course the LT posters had reports, but of the 11, I would like to see if any of them only were pitted and not reported.
That’s not quite right. Not every one of the 500 posts was a shot. That’s like arguing that “successful shots” our of “shots on goal” is a bad metric in soccer, instead we should compare “successful shots” to “times people touched the ball with their foot”.
Why on Cthulhu’s viridescent Earth would anyone be looking at number of posts, rather than number of individuals pitted, to calculate “hit rate”?
Because he did not specify number of persons pitted, now did he?
Wanna go count?
He literally does. 8 who still post, 23 who were banned, and 8 who allegedly left (but at least 3 of them so far still post)
Yes, that is why his summary is so interesting.
He kind of did, yes. Unless adding 8+23+8 isn’t something that occurred to you.
Or would be, if he didn’t fail to take into account the total number of atoms in the observable universe
Pro-Tip: You gotta remember to carry the one.
8,238? 0.2% hit rate!
Yes, but it took 500 posts to cover under 40 posters.
We could just ask.
So John_DiFool, are we correct in assuming that you are saying that within those 500 posts you have reviewed, 39 individuals were specifically flagged as trolls (of which 23 were banned, eight are still active and eight are not)?
And? Do you not understand how rates work?
Or Pit threads? Were you under the impression it was one post per pitee? 12.5 posts per pittee is pretty run-of-the-mill.
Save the Electrons!
Having a forum called The Pit just encourages aggression.
Rename it “Peaceful Resolution of Differences of Opinion - Always Be Nice” and any problems are solved.