Debate talk:CP's biggest idiot 2

Round two, Conservapedia's Biggest Idiot?

The recent burst of mind numbing stupidity from CP has got me thinking, is it time to host another round of voting for CP's biggest idiot? My voucher would have to go to Andy, so blindly denying the obvious flaws in his own paper. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ secret trainer of igloos!

Nuh uh. Ed is so stupid, he wins the award in perpetuity. Maybe we should have weight classes or something. Ed can compete on his own for the stupidity super heavyweight belt, and let the intellectual flyweights duke it out for the own greater glory. --JeevesMkII 10:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Maybe Ed should be exempt from this round, being such a clear front-runner and previous winner. Jinx _{hi Jinx!} is your man, in that case. Bondurant 10:22, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Speaking of Ed, he's been noticeably absent lately. Could he be shudder teaching? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:27, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Andy's not so much stupid (not that he's, you know. "intelligent," either...) as he is wilfully ideologically blinded to facts and logic. Conservative is your man, hands down. Moron. 10:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Previously, I struggled with the definition of "idiot." I took it to mean somebody who is intelligent, but completely stupid at the same time, and for that my nomination last time was PJR. Clearly an intelligent man, but who completely disregards the higher functions of his brain when it comes to science. Bondurant 10:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

While I agree that Ken should be the winner, they're all such good choices (except Bugler, that man is a masterpiece of parody; I can't believe they still haven't figured it out). Nevertheless, I don't think there's any point in voting again, as it was recently settled in Ed's favor, and the majority decision should stand. Though I do wonder where he is. He's been absent from Wikipedia too. DickTurpis 10:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and as the originator of the previous contest, I was supposing "biggest idiot" to be synonymous with "stupidest". I guess not everyone agreed with that definition. DickTurpis 10:35, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

(EC)Ed won the last one by a considerable margin and that was before the latest mathematics madness, either we make another contest (I suggest Conservapedia's most deluded) or we exclude Ed from this one. NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 10:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Maybe we should do a full-on awards ceremony, with different categories. And then we can swoop on CP en-masse and plant the awards certificates on each user's talk page. Starter for 10: The Colbert award for best parodist: Bugler! Come on down, Bugler and saw a few words for your fans. Bondurant 10:41, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Shouldn't we make it more like school awards day. Everyone gets something, even if it's only a prize for scripture knowledge :D --JeevesMkII 10:47, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Normally I don't like such things, but I think that may not be a bad idea now. We've already chosen an obvious award and decided who most deserved it, if we're going to do any other awards it might be bet to choose the individual and decide what award they most deserve. It could be fun. DickTurpis 10:54, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

To have a "biggest idiot" implies that idiocy only exists in a greater & lesser degree, & ignores the full spectrum of different kinds of idiocy we can see at CP. I am in favour of each of the major players getting their own idiot epithet - e.g. Conservative - fatuous knucklehead; Ed Poor - dysfunctional cretin; Learn Together - simpering dunce; Jinx - gibbering manchild; Andy - deluded megalomaniac idiotic king. And so on. weaseLOId~ 11:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I can get behind the idea of the awards ceremony. Do you get extra points for how long you can make the "award" last on the user:talk page? Armondikov 11:07, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

So if we do host this particulr awards event, there would be individual categories, such as "Master of Delusions" and "Prosecution complex?" I think it's a better idea than what I offered. =)ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ secret trainer of igloos!

Another possibility is to rate each idiot in several different categories using sliders like RW:AOTW ones (e.g. vanity, prejudice, general stupidity, denial of reality, etc.) weaseLOId~ 11:32, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh man. That's dangerously close to Conservapedia Top Trumps. I'm sure you don't want to go there, believe me I've opened that can of worms before. --JeevesMkII 11:39, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

That's fantastic! weaseLOId~ 11:44, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

If we're going to have another Biggest Idiot Competition, DickTurpis and I are going to be mighty miffed if Kenservative doesn't win. Last time out Conservative's campaign was sunk by the swift-boats of the Ed "Poor At Maths" cabal, and his long-overdue crowning was consigned to the dustbin of history. Let there be no ballot-rigging this time! And if things get dirty, well, you can be sure that the Kenservative campaign will not go down without a fight this time. We live again! DogP 11:50, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)Hi, I'm here again I would like to motion for Biggest Idiot, round two. That will eliminate Ed from the running, but also allow him to keep his original award. With some good planning, this could become the Nobel prize of Conservapedia. Same award, different recipient. SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 12:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I believe I already made Conservapedia:Awards, precisely for doing what you all are talking about. Lo, my pages are forgettable. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:18, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Suggestions so far

1. Another round of voting, with Ed eliminated from the ballot. He keeps the original award. (This award becomes a biannual event? The template says "First, second, third etc?)

2. Sliding bars ranking the various candidates in terms of stupidity, arrogance, fear of others, etc, similar to the Article of the Weak.

3. Nomination of candidates under qualities, and a direct vote for if they meet that category.

4. No, none of the above.

NOTE: see bottom for voting section.

I suppose that we should compile a few more suggestions before opening the above to voting. What do you guys think so far? ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ secret trainer of igloos!

I support option number 1 with one slight mod. Instead of saying 2nd, 3rd etc. We should make a note that this is simply round 2. Meaning it's not "X was voted second biggest idiot on Conservapedia" but "X was voted biggest idiot on Conservapedia for the second round of voting." I also think we should open further rounds to previous winners. They can't win twice in a row, but Ed should be in the running for round three. I also think we need to just allow that Andy is the ultimate stupidity behind Conservapedia and give some kind of recognition. SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 13:36, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't much care for #1, as it's basically a repeat of what we just recently did. Ed won, and Andy was official runner up. I don't think anything has changed enough for any new results to be expected. #2 is interesting, I could maybe go for that. The idea of trying to come up with new awards tailored to each Conservapedian's qualities (or whatever the opposite of quality is) is intriguing too, though I think they would need to go beyond various forms of idiocy. DickTurpis 14:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I floated the idea of "most deluded' award sometime ago I recall. My motivation being Ken claiming he can destroy atheism on the internet. Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 17:35, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm inclined to agree with Ace. They're all idiots over there in way or another - and that includes the peons who allow themselves to be "taught" by Andy. It's just the degree and our perception thereof that varies. We'll just end up haggling again. "Idiot" is also a vague term really, maybe there should be something more specific - Biggst Raving Fundie (PJR), Most Obnoxious (Karajerk), Biggest Hypocrite (Andy), Slimiest Toady (joint between Jinx & Bugler), Most Likely Parodist (Conservative Bugler). ok, I'm out of ideas. I also vote for option 2, with the slider wossnames. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 18:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, it's not voting quite yet, as I am stil lcollecting ideas, but when the time does come to vote, I suppose I know what you will cast yours for =) ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ secret trainer of igloos!

Lol, oh I dunno... the way that mob carry on, I'll probably have a totally different list tomorrow. Besides, I is fickle and always changing. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 18:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

When you mention the peons who allow themselves to be "taught" by Andy, I believe you are including our very own na-thang (aka Fuzzy Kettleticket) in that group. I believe he is one of the record breaking 51 (or however many it is). I think we need to set up a deprogramming regiment for him every week. Who is our resident expert on American History? DickTurpis 18:53, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

For advanced whizzbangery, it's hard to beat the idea that we get voting with the multiple sliding bar-thingies. Even if the results are confusing or inconclusive, it won't matter, as we'll have had tremendous japes sliding the vote yokeymebobs around the place. So - I vote for any kind of vote at all that involves those slider jobbies. DogP 18:58, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I like the idea of new titles, tailored to specific editors there. Idiot has many synonyms. Shall we come up with one for Kendoll first? ħuman 19:21, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Here are some suggestions

1. Biggest bully with least merit? Karajou?
2. Most Intellectually Dishonest PJR ( he seems to know better)
3. Most just plain dishonest Andy of course
4. Most polished e-peen Conservative
5. Most obvious inferiority complex Conservative
6. Lowest apparent IQ Karajou
7. Lowest measurable IQ Andy (cheap shot on the ka-jerky one, bit still)
8. Best Example of Poe's Law Bugler
9. Worst Copyright violator hmmm
10. Worst plagarist hmmm
11. Most objectively incorrect information posted Andy
12. Most Cowardly and dishonest blocks Karajou

I'm not voting yet either. We should reason about this. I'll start: I demand we all reach a consensus which conforms to my opinion. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 19:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

It's too hard to choose! My nomination is "Conservapedia's Butchest Queen" --JeevesMkII 19:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I propose a Special Rationalwiki Award too:

• Biggest Idiot at Rationalwiki for those who come, visit and "debate" with us. With all due respect for Bohdan and CPAdmin, I nominate Jinxmchue. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 02:37, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Nice try, Liar at M1F#WI, but even Jinx is an inferior selection compared to... TerryH. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 02:42, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Terry may win the Best one-liner at Rationalwiki award, but Jinx's consistency and persistence must be rewarded. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 06:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Surely that "Worst Plagarist" (and possibly "Copyright Violator") could go to whoever is creating 200 stubs a day ripped straight from various dictionaries. Armondikov 10:01, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

You know who's been overlooked, mostly because of his absence, I suspect? RobS. That man is truly, truly a stupid individual. I was looking over some past arguments I had with him, and his reading comprehension skills are zero. I honestly think Ken's might be better. Every time I made a point he would respond with a statement that had nothing to do with what anyone said. Maybe he does it on purpose; you can't argue with someone who responds to everything with a random sentence pulled out of some automatic phrase-generator. He certainly deserves some award, now that he's sort of back. DickTurpis 11:28, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Another category which I put on Wigo TALK instead:

• Best parody by a non-parodist also known as the Poe's Law award: given only to an established non parodist (Aschlafly, Ed Poor, PJR, Conservative, DeanS, Joaquin Martinez, ...; no Buglers please) for the best this-must-be-parody! article or edit. As an example of such an article, see Evolution syndrome. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 03:15, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh and while I'm going on with categories for single edits/articles, let me also add:

• Irony meter award, for the article/edit that broke our most resistant irony meter. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 03:19, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

EZ edit button

From what I am seeing so far, we are favoring categories for individual mind-numbing qualities. Shall I open the article up for voting, or are we pleased with the options so far? Just to refresh 1. Another round of voting, with Ed eliminated from the ballot. He keeps the original award. (This award becomes a biannual event? The template says "First, second, third etc?)

2. Sliding bars ranking the various candidates in terms of stupidity, arrogance, fear of others, etc, similar to the Article of the Weak.

3. Nomination of candidates under qualities, and a direct vote for if they meet that category.

4. No, none of the above.

See bottom for voting section, the red/green arrow created negatives I really did not intend on... ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ secret trainer of igloos!

If there are no further suggestions, I say we open the voting session. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ secret trainer of igloos!

WHERE ARE THE SLIDEY BAR THINGIES? I'm not voting unless we can have those, at least three of them. DogP 01:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Red/Green arrows is all you get. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 01:42, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

That is a non-substantive answer. Either give me my slidey bar thingies or find somewhere else to edit. DogP 02:25, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I must say I like 3. We could do it academy award style. We have 5 nomination for each category and we each get a vote (can we disable down arrows for this purpose?). We can end the evening with the biggest idiot award. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 02:40, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

What about simple categories, like those outlined above by Human et al., but without nominations? Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 03:30, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Couple comments... one, there's no rush here. Isn't our deadline CP day? Two, while the sliders are a seductive way to set up the voting, it will be a brutal task to set up (but do-able). If we want to do them, we'll need to carefully pick the categories to "slide" on, and then I could set up a page with the same set of bars for each "nominee". ħuman 14:26, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Lets vote on how to vote

I like #2, it will allow us to build up a profile of the editors on CP. Could be very funny.--Damo^Hi 11:51, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I think "biggest idiot" has been awarded. What we need are other awards for some of the lesser idiots at CP. ħuman 02:28, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Best supporting idiot? $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 02:42, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I like the idea of using categories and assigning winners to each (there can be more than 1 winner of course). That way we get to highlight not only who the biggest idiots are, but also their area of speciality. And if "Most Gratuitous Use of a Double Standard" isn't one of them, I'm going to sulk. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 03:14, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Have we voted on how to vote yet? Can we move onto the Primaries? DogP 22:28, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia Day

I think we should hold off for a bit, vote on numerous awards and present them on Conservapedia Day. Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 18:31, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree on the wait till CP day. We could also make the top award the biggest idiot on CP (nicknamed the Andy) and make whatever other awards we settle on lesser honors (nicknamed the professors). I've also been brainstorming on what I think the award should look like

^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 19:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

We should for sure have The Andy Award but I am less convinced on The Professors. How about The Acolytes Award?

Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 19:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Oooh , Acolytes is better! ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 19:30, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree we should take our time. And, as I said above, I think what we need are other awards for some of the lesser idiots, but still laughable characters, at CP. ħuman 02:29, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I suggest:

• Biggest Idiot of CP - Given to the CP sysop who has demonstrated the most amazing and persistent pattern of profound stupidity.
• Hovind Recognition - Given to the CP sysop who has abused their position and the truth in the most amusingly transparent manner.

• Intelligent Design Award - Given to the CP user who has shown the most egregious disdain for sane page design. I assume Joaquin is an automatic nominee for this one, and probably also Conservative for his recent Main Page displays of foolishness (which rival Joaquin's for their sheer prominence.
• Scientific Consensus Award - Given to the CP user who has demonstrated the most craven obedience to talking points from superiors. Bugler is going to be hard to beat here, but I'm sure that there can be plenty of dark horse candidates.
• Power of Prayer Award - Given to the CP user who has championed their particular flavor of right-wing religious nuttery in the most spectacular fashion. Extra points for denigrating all other religions or for particular offensiveness towards a minority group.

• Honorable Mention of Idiocy - Given to CP users in recognition of single actions or comments that demonstrate gob-smacking idiocy, rather than for persistent patterns. Limit of five per awards ceremony.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 03:47, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmm these are all good points Tom. There are some we can adjust slightly but its a damn good start. Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 03:56, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

100% on doing it on CP day. Is it possible to get RW above CP on the google search for "conservapedia day"? If you really, really make a big deal out of it (remember, RW is actually free to view and edit and they do watch it...) we could cause them to panic and lock down the site for the whole of CP day. It would be beatiful! Armondikov 05:59, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

So are we in agreement that CP day is the best day? I think if this thing is worth doing properly, its worth doing right....if ya know what I mean. Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 06:08, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Absolutely, CP Day will be a wonderful day for the presentation ceremony. When is it again? DogP 11:23, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Nov. 21, I think. See conservapedia:timeline ħuman 17:51, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Voting time

Rules

Each user has two votes, you can use one of them, none of them, or both of them. There are four categories, to vote, use either of the following.

For. (signature) Against. (signature)

You do not have to vote for and against, you can vote "For" both of your choices, or "against" both choices... JUST MAKE SURE YOU SIGN. Also make sure to add a # before your choice, and update the score before pressing save. You do not have to vote twice You can vote twice on the same option.

1. Another round of voting, with Ed eliminated from the ballot. He keeps the original award. (This award becomes a biannual event? The template says "First, second, third etc?) Score = 1

1. DogP 11:13, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

2. Sliding bars ranking the various candidates in terms of stupidity, arrogance, fear of others, etc, similar to the Article of the Weak. Score = 7

1. For. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:20, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
2. I'm all about the sliding bar widgety bits. DogP 11:13, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
3. For. weaseLOId~ 11:42, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
4. For. ħuman 14:29, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
5. For. symuun^Words! 14:32, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
6. For Damo^Hi 15:48, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
7. For. --ζειαηđδηǐ (τ|ϛ) 19:03, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
8. Against - we are not rational mature enough to assess the relative stupidity of a Conservative vs. Andy vs. Ed etc. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 03:08, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
9. For. I desire, nay, demand slidey things. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 04:27, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
10. Against, because it will be less interesting.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 21:37, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
11. I think I'm sold on the slidey bars. Though I do have some concerns that some people will pick their favorite cretin and give him perfect scores in each category. I want real thought put into these. DickTurpis 22:42, 18 September 2008 (EDT) Thought??? Muahahahahahah! ħuman 00:07, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

3. Nomination of candidates under qualities, and a direct vote for if they meet that category. Score = 6

1. For. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ secret trainer of igloos!
2. For. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:20, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
3. For (if combined with slidy things too). weaseLOId~ 11:42, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
4. For, weakly (distant second to #2) ħuman 14:29, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
5. For.seventhrib 16:59, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
6. For (but without nominations). Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 03:07, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
7. For.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 21:37, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

4. No, none of the above. Score = -1

1. Against. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ secret trainer of igloos!

WTF? I haz no eye cues

Which option is for giving out a second idiot award as the highest dishonor AND some other less dishonorable ones for various categories . . like the Oscars whatever . . . . The choices given seem vague and menacing ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 18:50, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Vote for 1 and then either 2 or 3. Mention in your vote that you want both. ħuman 19:10, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

And don't be surprised if Florida demands a recount, or Human wins the vote. DogP 21:09, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Slidy things

If we are going to do something like this I should create a one oft generic version similar to the vote tag. Does it look like that is what you guys want to do? tmtoulouse ^nettle 11:56, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Do bears shit in the woods? Is the Pope a Catholic? Of course we want slidey bar thingies. Frankly, they're more important than the voting. Pointless and unnecessary web user interface technologies are where it's freakin' AT Baby. DogP 21:07, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I was just gonna hack the "article" template thing we use at AotW - make a custom set of traits in a subfile like we do, and then give each nominee their own "section". But if you want to make something slicker, that would probably be even better. Oh yeah, way better, since each use of "article" will transclude all those trait descriptions we use on AotW. Yeah, if you can make a generic version that would be great. ħuman 14:42, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

The Trophy

This has to be it. I can't believe putting "golden goat" into google images brought something up. Armondikov 11:29, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

That is fucking marvelous man. Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 17:41, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

You think we could photoshop this on that?

Keep in mind that we can't use an image unless we know someone with upload rights. (or unless it's already on CP) ħuman 19:11, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

The Human raises a good point. I've had a quick glance through image archives on CP. There's nothing comparable to the golden goat, but this might do for an idiot award. weaseLOId~ 06:28, 19 September 2008 (EDT)