Because the only other place with a decent climate is California.

You're saying the... south has a good climate?

Is this something that bothers you about Spank, or a trait that you really admire?

Because Dids, if anyone is "tragically butthurt" around these parts, it's not Spank bud.

I never want to see snow ever.

I'm too lazy to find it but there was an amazing exchange (maybe in an ATF thread?) where LK tried to make fun of someone because of how much time they spent on a reply. So LK was sitting there the whole time refreshing the other guy's profile to like keep tabs of his activity.

I see keed doesn't understand the forum software, or he'd get that you only have to look once, not over and over.

This is wrong. And I've stood up for you before Deuces. There are others who may have ideas on specifically bad things you have posted. For me, it feels to me for years 90% of your posts have been arguing with others about why you're not as bad as they think you are. I can't even comment about whether or not you've made particularly bad arguments anymore because all I think of you is someone who writes novels worth of posts arguing about why you're not as bad as other people say you are. Its boring and unreadable. If you want to argue that it takes two to tango, that's fine. But I mostly skip so many of your posts because the whole subject is played out.

I think bahbah is under represented. The thing with Bahbah when he used to be allowed to post in the main forum (which is noteworthy in itself) is that he was the guy who would post something wrong... multiple people would cite references as to why what he posted was completely wrong.... then he would post the exact wrong thing again a few days later (possibly in a new thread, or even again in the same thread) as if the previous exchange never happened. Inevitably others who hadn't addressed his stupidity previously would foolishly try to point out the error of his posting not realizing that it was pointless.

In this vein, I recall him also asking people to prove things that they had already proven to him previously. Its as if he had no ability to form any new memories.

So he not only posted things that were dumb and/or just easily proven wrong - he was impervious to learning.

Yup, perfect description, plus his points were usually chain e-mail type one liners from dubious sources. He can't even characterize his own past arguments correctly. When the sixth or seventh explanation isn't as polite as the first few, he goes into martyr mode.

Luckily his volume is way, way down so he doesn't degrade the forums like before.

My primary metric when voting was: is this person even capable or interested in debating a point, or are they here to just spew, troll, etc.?

So I agreed that bahbahmickey fails more on this measure than Gamblor. I think my votes are generally consistent using this measure except for my vote for ikestoys over Jiggs. That was made due to volume of bad ikes posts made in such a smug style, and the fact that Jiggs is rather confined to only a few threads. To be fair, ikestoys can at least debate points on occasion and he is thus a better poster than many in the field. I expect DudeImBetter to take his side of the bracket, in the end.

No way. Too many haters for the big two on my side of the bracket. Ikes and Fly both have at least 10 posters each who will angrily vote for them without even seeing who they're pitted against.

When the justice league come rolling in you will have a tough time against one of their members.

Who's in the justice league? Giz/LK/Fly/Goofy/etc? Might make Fly tougher to advance against than Ikes.

Fly is bad on purpose and doesn't care.

A lot of these other posters don't even know why they are bad.

this is a pretty important distinction to make. Lack of self-awareness is the worst type of bad (exhibit A: deuces)

Deuces is so bad that he is at least a bit entertaining, sort of a forum clown like LirvA, but with fewer dark (suicidal, homicidal) undertones.

I think the worst type of bad is reserved for types like AlexM and spank, who combine lack of self-awareness with persecution complex and incessant concern-trolling (thanks to whoever invented that term).

You're free to whine about my "persecution complex and concern trolling", but my self-awareness is just fine.

That's probably true, I do at least still read deuces posts when I see them.

These are interesting perspectives. I agree with the first, but I think my bar for "bad" is probably higher than most. As long as somebody is comprehensible and reasonable (in the sense that his argument is at least somewhat logical) I have a hard time thinking the forum would be better off without him.

"Will I be wasting my time trying to engage with this person?" is a question I find myself asking before I push the submit button. Just being annoying or wrong isn't enough, but being unreasonable, arrogant, excessively dickish is.

Sometimes I feel like the cardinal sin is superficiality. I was surprised that Cerveza69 didn't make the top 16 - for me he's the worst kind of bad. Drive-by talking points, name-calling, complete lack of nuance and depth. Utterly superficial and a complete waste of time. Totally uninterested in learning or being challenged. That's the poster that should be taken out to sea and left in a small dinghy. Anybody who's at least trying to learn, understand, and grow should (in general) be encouraged.

Remember that old Twilight Zone episode where the guy who loves to read survives nuclear war in a bank vault and happily accumulates a huge stack of books to occupy him in a depopulated world? I kinda vote that way, imaging that the plot twist at the end isn't that I break my glasses but that I discover all the books are written by one of the bad posters, and I'm deciding which of them I least want to be the author.

Who was the guy who used to post in a really strange style but never responded to other people?

neg3?

alan lawson?

steelehouse?

redman?

Redman!