So who’s the worst? "Winner" of this tournament would have their name added to the "Other than X, ..." thread for a predetermined period of time. I'm thinking 6 months and then we reassess in a similar manner.

As Duker has pointed out, in order to figure out who Politics’ Official Worst (POW) is we’re not gonna be able to rely strictly on quantitative data. No, instead we’ll need to rely on a mixed methods approach of sorts. My personal opinion is that POW can only be decided by unbiasedly analyzing 1) content quality, and 2) content style.

The tournament will be a single elimination tournament, similar to that of March Madness. I pitch that everyone interested send in their list of the 10 worst posters to Spank (arbitrarily chosen mod) by Tuesday midnight, and that afterwards he rank the most chosen 16 based on number of votes. The most votes will result in a #1 seed, least votes #16. We then structure the first round of matches by pitting the worst/best against each other, the 2nd best/worst against each other, etc., as a way to hopefully avoid heavyweight matches until later rounds.

We are going to need to elect a panel of experts who will be in charge of determining outcomes of head-to-head tournament matches. There will be a rubric that can be used by the judges, but they will be tasked with subjectively determining scores that will eventually lead to determining winners and losers. I propose that anyone interested should PM their 3 candidates to Spank (arbitrary mod choice) by Tuesday midnight, and that the three names that come up most frequently be given the opportunity to judge. If any/all pass, we just continue working down the list until we have our panel of three.

Here’s my proposal for a grading rubric that the judges could use to determine outcomes of our tournament’s matches. Points should typically remain fairly consistent match to match, though if a poster’s quality or quantity improves or decreases when engaging their opponent in discussion ITF, this increased/decreased performance should be reflected in adjusted scores for that match. For example, perhaps Ikes performs better in certain ways when engaging Deuces than he usually does, or worse when engaging Spank. Again, arbitrary and subjective, but we will have to trust the judges assessment.

Higher points directly relates to quality in this system. If you outscore your opponent, then your opponent is seen as worse in that category than you are. The lower average score across the three judges assessments loses the match, and the loser moves on in the competition towards being POW.

Quality

Length (5 points): Does the poster contribute adequate substance to discussions?

This can be mostly determined in a quantitative manner through the use of Duker’s quarterly assessment from awhile back. That said, sometimes posters really bring out the content from each other, and these unique combinations should be noted when judges score. For instance, maybe Dids really brings the content when engaging Jiggs, so in a Dids vs. Jiggs match, this would be reflected in scoring.

Grammar (5 points): Does the poster have a strong grasp of the English language?

This can also be determined by one of Duker’s quantitative assessments, but points can be added to posters who, while struggle with English, perhaps still convey information in a way which is easily digested. For example, maybe SwissMiss struggles as an ESL poster, but the main concepts still readily come across.

Abrasiveness (5 points): Does the poster consistently rub others the wrong way?

This is fairly self-explanatory, though perhaps this category more than most can change depending on the match; i.e., surely there are posters we all respond to better or worse than others. This should be reflected in the judges’ assessment match-to-match.

Expertise (5 points): Does the poster consistently wade into discussions that they don’t belong in?

Knowing the subject at hand matters, and one of the tell tale signs of a ****ty poster is making bold asssertions about **** they know nothing about. This number should mostly stay the same, but perhaps certain posters attract others to wade into conversations where they don’t belong. This can be reflected in judges scoring.

Approachability (5 points): How open is this poster to discussion?

Does the poster respond well to others with differing opinions? If the poster is just antagonizing and unable to listen, this should result in low scores. This too is prone to change match-to-match, though I’d recommend it not be strictly considered based on who the poster is pitted against; a more generalized approachability score should probably be weighted.

Style

Use of humor (5 points): Being funny matters.

This should stay reasonably consistent, though of course there are certain combinations of posters that result in LOLs. This should be reflected in scores.

Independent thought (5 points): Nobody likes parrots.

Does the poster appear to think for themselves, or just repeat what others say or what they read in the MSM? This number should remain consistent match to match.

Open-mindedness (5 points): How open are posters to new ideas or alternative perspectives?

While this definitely changes depending on who the poster is engaging (and as such should be reflected in changing scores match to match), I believe posters who generally are open or closed minded should have this reflected in their scores regardless of who they’re up against.

Formatting (5 points): Bold and blue much, Proph?

Some posters just don’t know how to make their material easy on the eyes. This should result in low numbers that don’t change match-to-match.

self defense (10 points): I propose that, prior to each match, posters have an opportunity to defend themselves. This should not be an attack on their opponent, but a positive-framed defense of themselves. What do they bring to the table in conversations versus their opponents that judges should consider when making their determination? This gives posters a final chance to prove themselves but should be no more than 100 words.


What are your guys’ thoughts?

really dude u typed all that ?

who would have guessed that the least modded² forum would be home to the biggest crybabies and filled with ******s that seek more moderation/infractions

I'm not sure why you'd have a panel of judges. Just open it up to a vote and require something like 500 posts in order to avoid gimmicks.

I guess, but having a panel of (relatively) neutral judges and a grading rubric to follow seems to be a stronger methodology to me, but that said it's more complicated and bogs the process down a bit. You're probably right.

Impossible imo. It doesn't mean it wouldn't be amusing to try, but your proposal (while admirably detailed) is trying to impose a structure on something that's inherently subjective and ethereal. Plus logistically it's a ****load of work for the judges. I'm just not sure anybody cares that much whether Cerveza or Proph is worse than the other.

Simplest would be to pick top 8 or 16 candidates, have runoff threads for a week or whatever where posters can vote as well as present examples and arguments against the competitors. Even with just 16 initial candidates, you're going to have 8 first-round voting threads that might be seen as clogging up the forum and drowning out other serious business, especially by those who think the whole thing is stupid.

Finally, I think the voting threshold should be 300 posts rather than 500.

Noted, and yeah the panel seems more and more like more trouble than it's worth. Duker, thoughts on best way to select the 16 runners?

How many regs are there? Just nominate people ITT and see how many runners there are. If there are too many runners you just have an extra elimination round to weed out the privileged.

But they would need to be seeded.

Still think interested parties submitting a list of around 10 posters they feel are worst, then counting and seeing who the 16 posters were that got the most votes would be best. Seeding would be as easy as counting who had the most votes (#1 seed) and the 16th most (16th seed).

Kind of a bummer that the panel/rubric would be dropped as it made for interesting match-up possibilities. But this could be interesting too.

The REAL Trolly seems to be working toward the same end in his Draft Thread.

If you guys don't collaborate, somebody will have to start a "Who are the bad Bad Posters tournament organizers?" thread, to be followed closely by "The Tragic Death of the Bad Posters Tournament".

I'm not gonna read all that, or any of it really, but I'm pretty sure you just want us to blurt out names??

Jiggs

if anyone nominates chimpstare they automatically get a #1 seed

Was this OP submitted as a case study for why you are the worst?

If so, well played.

God damn he really is.

Lots of brainless snark, zero actual feedback. Standard.

This suggests you just randomly chose a mod to do all the work for you.

dib,

You just made me agree with omni

You are now the second worst person ever, slightly behind cotton hill of course