Change Jester so it takes away points instead or give zero points

[Infern]

Since people are obviously making negative comments on forums just to attempt to farm steam points. Would be nice for it to be a bad thing instead of a good thing.

The problem that people brought up is that. If it is used to take away exp it would be used to troll other people by giving jesters to certain people on purpose.
So having it so it only gives zero points is good enough. Since right now it is just an incentive to farm points by saying outlandish things on purpose.

[Brian9824]

Автор сообщения: Porky Pig

I give a Jester award if a post / review makes me smile. if it makes me fall off my chair, I give a hilariously award.

People are so paranoid, get off the weed.

Lies, as stated others know perfectly well what your intent is better then you....

[crunchyfrog]

Автор сообщения: brian9824

Автор сообщения: crunchyfrog

Well where's the peer review for this then?

Someone didn't read the article and only skimmed the title. It actually confirms you can't prove conclusively a negative, and that only certain negative statements are able to be proven.

Like for instance you can prove the statement "my house isn't on fire" by observing my house and seeing its not on fire. You can't prove "there was never a fire in my house" because you don't know the full history of it, or have any way to see what happened in the past.

So not being able to prove a negative still holds true in this context as you have no way to prove what everyone is thinking when they award a reward.

Yup, that's what I got from it.

But I wanted to also make the point that you can throw around claims and evidence, but unless you're showing peer review on claims that upturn the whole of science, then it ain't valid.


As for Pierce's claim about "deinfe extraordinary", well that's another point he hasn't read when I gave him explanations of burden of proof because I explained that to him too. I knew he hadn't read it.

Extraordinary simply mean OUT OF THE ORDINARY. If that sounds vague then it is. That's part of it, It realy depends on whoever is assessing said claim.

It could be you're makinga completely ordinary claim in your neck of the woods but they've never heard of it, and it STILL requires evidence to support it.

If he thinks this is another gotcha or cop out, he's failed again. He'll get it eventually I guess.

[Pierce Dalton]

Автор сообщения: Aachen

Автор сообщения: Pierce Dalton

Oui.

Point being “easily verifiable” is wishful thinking.

Nope, it's easily verifiable if something is funny or not.

[Pierce Dalton]

Автор сообщения: oh man im so freaking cute

Автор сообщения: Pierce Dalton

Can you all answer that question, pretty please?

Why? What will that prove or disprove?

Did I say it will prove anything?

[Aachen]

Автор сообщения: Pierce Dalton

Nope, it's easily verifiable if something is funny or not.

What process is used?

Humor seems rather subjective.

[crunchyfrog]

Автор сообщения: Pierce Dalton

Автор сообщения: Aachen

Point being “easily verifiable” is wishful thinking.

Nope, it's easily verifiable if something is funny or not.

Whih we've been discussing in another thread and so far you've yet to begin to address this but have tried to dodge many times even after explaining how burden of proof works.

So again, how can an aaward which offers ZERO context when given miraculously be worked out as having context.

You asserted in that other thread that a certain post that was awarded was not funny TO YOU. I asked you to demonstrate how you dismissed or knew that it wasn't funny to someone else, as you cannot possibly know every country's native jokes, turns of phrase or anything.

And we never even got to any of the other possiblsiites.

So have at it, DEMONSTRATE how you can tell.

[uncle dane vs khamenei]

Автор сообщения: Pierce Dalton

Автор сообщения: oh man im so freaking cute

Why? What will that prove or disprove?

Did I say it will prove anything?

I have a better question. What if the OP in your link is known for bashing the former volunteer mods and now hes suddenly changed his mind? Could that prompt someone to give him a jester?

Or what if the thread he linked in his post has something to do with it

Or what if the jester was awarded to him by one of his friends?

[Pierce Dalton]

Автор сообщения: crunchyfrog

Автор сообщения: brian9824

Someone didn't read the article and only skimmed the title. It actually confirms you can't prove conclusively a negative, and that only certain negative statements are able to be proven.

Like for instance you can prove the statement "my house isn't on fire" by observing my house and seeing its not on fire. You can't prove "there was never a fire in my house" because you don't know the full history of it, or have any way to see what happened in the past.

So not being able to prove a negative still holds true in this context as you have no way to prove what everyone is thinking when they award a reward.

Yup, that's what I got from it.

But I wanted to also make the point that you can throw around claims and evidence, but unless you're showing peer review on claims that upturn the whole of science, then it ain't valid.


As for Pierce's claim about "deinfe extraordinary", well that's another point he hasn't read when I gave him explanations of burden of proof because I explained that to him too. I knew he hadn't read it.

Extraordinary simply mean OUT OF THE ORDINARY. If that sounds vague then it is. That's part of it, It realy depends on whoever is assessing said claim.

It could be you're makinga completely ordinary claim in your neck of the woods but they've never heard of it, and it STILL requires evidence to support it.

If he thinks this is another gotcha or cop out, he's failed again. He'll get it eventually I guess.

Oh, dear, I know that extraordinary means more than ordinary - which is another word for "common". That's not what I asked. I asked you to define extraordinary. In other words, where is the boudary between ordinary and extraordinary?

Anyway, to say there's nothing funny here is not an extraordinary claim, is it?
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/10/3458221015447817953/

[Pierce Dalton]

Автор сообщения: oh man im so freaking cute

Автор сообщения: Pierce Dalton

Did I say it will prove anything?

I have a better question. What if the OP in your link is known for bashing the former volunteer mods and now hes suddenly changed his mind? Could that prompt someone to give him a jester?

Or what if the thread he linked in his post has something to do with it

Or what if the jester was awarded to him by one of his friends?

Are you familiar with Occam's razor? I guess not. Basically, it says that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one ;)

[crunchyfrog]

Автор сообщения: Pierce Dalton

Автор сообщения: crunchyfrog

Yup, that's what I got from it.

But I wanted to also make the point that you can throw around claims and evidence, but unless you're showing peer review on claims that upturn the whole of science, then it ain't valid.


As for Pierce's claim about "deinfe extraordinary", well that's another point he hasn't read when I gave him explanations of burden of proof because I explained that to him too. I knew he hadn't read it.

Extraordinary simply mean OUT OF THE ORDINARY. If that sounds vague then it is. That's part of it, It realy depends on whoever is assessing said claim.

It could be you're makinga completely ordinary claim in your neck of the woods but they've never heard of it, and it STILL requires evidence to support it.

If he thinks this is another gotcha or cop out, he's failed again. He'll get it eventually I guess.

Oh, dear, I know that extraordinary means more than ordinary - which is another word for "common". That's not what I asked. I asked you to define extraordinary. In other words, where is the boudary between ordinary and extraordinary?

Anyway, to say there's nothing funny here is not an extraordinary claim, is it?
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/10/3458221015447817953/

And I just told you you don't need to.

Let me point it out again.

EXTRAODINARY cuts both ways.

If I say to you a claim about something I have, and you in the US have never heard of it, it would be extraordinary to YOU. But it would be quite common to anyone living in the UK.

So it's MOOT.

The fact is it doesn't amtter because all that matters is that it's extraordinary to the erpson(s0 ASSESING the claim. And as such it means ANY claim at all should require evidence.

That's the point.

So yet again this isn't the cop out you think it is. In a nutshell, it means if challenged ANY positive claim must meet burden of prroof. It could simply be the person assessing the claim is naive and pretty blinkered.

THe point is if it exists, it can ALWAYS be demosntrated. So it doesn't matter.

[Pierce Dalton]

Автор сообщения: crunchyfrog

Автор сообщения: Pierce Dalton

Oh, dear, I know that extraordinary means more than ordinary - which is another word for "common". That's not what I asked. I asked you to define extraordinary. In other words, where is the boudary between ordinary and extraordinary?

Anyway, to say there's nothing funny here is not an extraordinary claim, is it?
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/10/3458221015447817953/

And I just told you you don't need to.

Let me point it out again.

EXTRAODINARY cuts both ways.

If I say to you a claim about something I have, and you in the US have never heard of it, it would be extraordinary to YOU. But it would be quite common to anyone living in the UK.

So it's MOOT.

The fact is it doesn't amtter because all that matters is that it's extraordinary to the erpson(s0 ASSESING the claim. And as such it means ANY claim at all should require evidence.

That's the point.

So yet again this isn't the cop out you think it is. In a nutshell, it means if challenged ANY positive claim must meet burden of prroof. It could simply be the person assessing the claim is naive and pretty blinkered.

THe point is if it exists, it can ALWAYS be demosntrated. So it doesn't matter.

Naive? Oh, like believing there was good intent there?

[crunchyfrog]

Автор сообщения: Pierce Dalton

Автор сообщения: crunchyfrog

And I just told you you don't need to.

Let me point it out again.

EXTRAODINARY cuts both ways.

If I say to you a claim about something I have, and you in the US have never heard of it, it would be extraordinary to YOU. But it would be quite common to anyone living in the UK.

So it's MOOT.

The fact is it doesn't amtter because all that matters is that it's extraordinary to the erpson(s0 ASSESING the claim. And as such it means ANY claim at all should require evidence.

That's the point.

So yet again this isn't the cop out you think it is. In a nutshell, it means if challenged ANY positive claim must meet burden of prroof. It could simply be the person assessing the claim is naive and pretty blinkered.

THe point is if it exists, it can ALWAYS be demosntrated. So it doesn't matter.

Naive? Oh, like believing there was good intent there?

No like not understnad ing things that other people are well aware of, like say, burdeen of proof :P

See I can make jokes too. But none of this changes anything or creates the dodge you think.

So we're back to you and not understnaidng burden of proof yet again.

[Aachen]

Автор сообщения: Porky Pig

Please don't call me a liar, I give those two awards for the reasons I stated.

Don't tar everyone with the same brush.

I don’t think that was a serious attempt to gainsay you, fWiW.

Автор сообщения: Psymon²

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ classic suggestion/idea thread
https://i.gifer.com/Pb7.gif

I wit it was dead-in-the-water upon creation, anyway.

[Brian9824]

Автор сообщения: Porky Pig

Автор сообщения: brian9824

Lies, as stated others know perfectly well what your intent is better then you....

Please don't call me a liar, I give those two awards for the reasons I stated.

Don't tar everyone with the same brush.

Sorry that was sarcasm if you were unsure.

[uncle dane vs khamenei]

Автор сообщения: Pierce Dalton

Автор сообщения: oh man im so freaking cute

I have a better question. What if the OP in your link is known for bashing the former volunteer mods and now hes suddenly changed his mind? Could that prompt someone to give him a jester?

Or what if the thread he linked in his post has something to do with it

Or what if the jester was awarded to him by one of his friends?

Are you familiar with Occam's razor? I guess not. Basically, it says that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one ;)

Seriously... I'm just gonna assume you're taking the piss at this point. So much for good faith discussion 🙄