Magere Hein 1,400 Posted October 24, 2005 RFC 616 - The DeathList Rant Index DeathList Technical Working Group Request for Comments: 616 Version: 1.03 Date: 24 October 2005 A Standard for the rating of rants, posted on DeathList Forum Status of this Memo This memo describes a method for the rating of rants on DeathList Forum and its subfora. Readers' comments are invited, either by posting them, or by PM'ing the author. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Overview Rants, defined here as posts written with the purpose of venting anger, are regularly posted on DeathList Forum and its subfora. The quality of those rants varies greatly. The DeathList Rant Index (DLRI) is proposed as a tool for rating a rant. General principles To be a rant, a post must communicate anger about posts published on DeathList Forum or Deathlist as a whole. A post containing just random characters cannot be a rant. On the other hand, a well-reasoned criticism, written in immaculate English, can be, even if it is not recognised immediately. Normally, a rant will be written in anger, a mood in which the writer easily makes mistakes. These mistakes come in the following categories: Content Language and formatting Stupidity Scoring Scoring starts at 0. For each of the listed elements a post is awarded one point if it is present in the post. All points are added and the total divided by the number of elements listed and multiplied by 100 and finally rounded to the nearest whole number. When an element is present more than once, this will not result in more points. All possible DLRI values lie between 0 and 100. To count as a rant an index value of at least 10 is needed. For scoring purposes the name of the ranter, the topic and the topic description are considered part of the post. Signatures are not considered part of the post. Scoring elements Here follows a list of DLRI scoring elements. ContentThe post states that the members of DeathList.net are sick. This includes any presumed diagnosis of physical or mental disease. The post states that a relative or friend of the writer died recently. The post states that a living relative or friend of the writer suffers from cancer or some other terminal disease. If the post is written in a topic about a person, living or dead, the post states or infers that the subject is above criticism. The post states or infers that the poster is morally or intellectually superior to the members of DeathList.net. The post contains one or more obscenities. The post states or infers a wish of a painful or imminent death on the members of DeathList.net. The post states or infers a wish that the members of DeathList.net go to hell. [*]Language and formatting Bad grammar, spelling, interpuction or formatting do not automatically form a DLRI scoring element. Posts in languages other than English cannot be scored for these elements. The post contains five or more misspelt words. Obvious typos do not count as spelling mistakes, nor do accepted spelling variants. The post contains two or more grammatical errors. The post contains one or more instances of misuse of "there / their / they're / there're". The post contains one or more instances of misuse of "your / you're". The post contains one or more instances of "alot" instead of "a lot". The post contains one or more instances of the pronoun "I" in lower case. The post contains five or more instances of bad interpunction and capitalisation. The post contains three or more instances of a multisyllabic word written in ALL CAPS. The post is written in one case only (lower case or capital). The post contains one or more instances of consecutive question marks (??) or exclamation marks (!!). The post contains l33t5PE@K or AOLese. The post speaks about the poster in the third person [*]Stupidity While all rants are stupid, not all stupid posts are rants. The post contains one or more direct contradictions. The post contains one or more statements that are widely agreed on to be false. The post tries to rebut a statement that was not made in a previous post in the topic. The post contains one or more email addresses. The post contains one or more threats of physical violence. Warnings are considered threats. As an example, let's take a recent post: you people are sick!! Miep Gies is a brave women who risked her life to protect the Frank family!! even thinking about her dying is probably the sickest thing i have ever heard! imagine if someone was wondering if you were going to die!!! i bet you wouldn't like it! i recently had a death in my family and it wasn't the best thing in the world. we all knew he was going to die but did we ever talk about it or even cry infront of him?! NO!! I by accident came across this site and i am digusted! i had a family member who lived to 100 so saying someone isold so they will die soon is totally wrong! Miep Gies seems like she was put on this earth for a reason, to save Anne Frank's diary. just because she did her duty doesn't mean a f*****g thing! Go To Hell All Of You! >:0 [1] The post states that the members of DeathList.net are sick. [1] The post states that a relative or friend of the writer died recently. [0] The post states that a living relative or friend of the writer suffers from cancer or some other terminal disease. [1] If the post is written in a topic about a person, living or dead, the post states or infers that the subject is above criticism. [0] The post states or infers that the poster is morally or intellectually superior to the members of DeathList.net. [1] The post contains one or more obscenities. [0] The post states or infers a wish of a painful or imminent death on the members of DeathList.net. [1] The post states or infers a wish that the members of DeathList.net to go to hell. [1] The post contains five or more misspelt words. Obvious typos do not count as spelling mistakes, nor do accepted spelling variants. [0] The post contains two or more grammatical errors. [0] The post contains one or more instances of misuse of "there / their / they're / there're". [0] The post contains one or more instances of misuse of "your/ you're". [0] The post contains one or more instances of "alot" instead of "a lot". [1] The post contains one or more instances of the pronoun "I" in lower case. [1] The post contains five or more instances of bad interpunction and capitalisation. [0] The post contains three or more instances of a multisyllabic word written in ALL CAPS. [0] The post is written in one case only (lower case or capital). [1] The post contains one or more instances of consecutive question marks (??) or exclamation marks (!!). [0] The post contains l33t5PE@K or AOLese. [0] The post speaks about the poster in the third person [1] The post contains one or more direct contradictions. [1] The post contains one or more statements that are widely agreed on to be false. [0] The post tries to rebut a statement that was not made in a previous post in the topic. [0] The post contains one or more email addresses. [0] The post contains one or more threats of physical violence. Warnings are considered threats. The DLRI of this post is (11/25)*100 = 44. regards, Hein Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windsor 2,233 Posted October 24, 2005 [*]Content[*]Language and formatting [*]Stupidity Does this mean that my posts could be graded as rants? Great Post MH. This would give you the upper hand for the admin post that isn't available and that you don't want. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boudicca 702 Posted October 24, 2005 This would give you the upper hand for the admin post that isn't available and that you don't want. Absolutely! Fantastic work, Hein Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grim Reaper 186 Posted October 24, 2005 Does this mean that my posts could be graded as rants? Use of prohibited avatars will also help you score well under my version of rfc616 windsor Great post MH With this sort of precise definition we almost need a script for auto-rating of rants to take the pressure off the Mods. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Banshees Scream 110 Posted October 24, 2005 This thread looks like you spent alot of quality time in it Hein. I'll admit, not many DL members could write such a thing. Unless you copy and pasted? Anyhow why with the numbers 616? Does your Immaculate creation link you with the beast? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grim Reaper 186 Posted October 24, 2005 [*]The post contains five or more misspelled words. Obvious typos do not count as a spelling mistake, nor do accepted spelling variants. Coincidently, I had an argument at work today (mainly with myself I have to admit) about the spelling of misspelt (or misspelled). Turns out that the proper Brit version is "misspelt" but the US corruption is "misspelled". Before I start to dissect rfc616 itself, I'll reluctantly agree that "misspelled" probably counts as an "accepted spelling variant" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magere Hein 1,400 Posted October 24, 2005 What about extra points for ranters who say how much they hate and despise Deathlist, but who keep coming back for more.Like the ranter in the Miep Gies thread yesterday, who posted 8 times. I've given that a thought, or more precisely: I've been thinking about defining a Ranters' Index rather than a Rant Index. I agree that coming back for more makes a ranter appear even sillier, but for an individual rant it doesn't make any difference. I chose my proposal mostly because it makes grading simpler. This thread looks like you spent alot of quality time in it Hein. I'll admit, not many DL members could write such a thing. Unless you copy and pasted? I used this RFC as a template for the format, and The Crackpot Index for the general idea. The rest is a matter of too much time on my hands. Anyhow why with the numbers 616? Does your Immaculate creation link you with the beast? I deny any connection with the Lord of Lies. I just needed a number and didn't want to use 0. Alternatives I considered were 42 and 69. regards, Hein Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Death Watch Beatle 41 Posted October 24, 2005 Nice work MH - alas before I get anywhere near "rate the rant" I tend to lose interest in the post, so I'm afraid it will be a consistent 'nil point' from me everytime! DWB Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
in eternum+ 22 Posted October 25, 2005 How fabulous - snaps! Is there any possibility for having some form of 'wildcard' points for rants that are really really funny? I mean, you know how sometimes you read a rant and it's well, just a rant, and then sometimes you read one and it's SO rantsome that it's actually hilarious? Not sure which threadit was in, but I remember a while ago reading a rant that was just SO random and SO outrageous (and of course met a number of DLRI616 criteria) that it actually made me laugh out loud. Just a thought. Can't go wrong with a bit of humour now and again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Josco 49 Posted October 25, 2005 (edited) Excellent work MH. Are you suggesting that each post deemed worthy of checking for the RI will be edited by a mod and the RI score added at the end in large coloured font? Like the link to the RFC 1149 - Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams on avian carriers, sounds like bird flu to me. EDIT: Having now read the RFC, I think I understand the joke. Edited October 25, 2005 by Josco Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
football_fan 42 Posted October 25, 2005 (edited) Great work MH. It is an excellent way to rate ranters. Regards, ff Edit: Good one guys, but I caught it Edited October 25, 2005 by football_fan Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lady Die 63 Posted October 25, 2005 Hein, this is excellent! Do you work in local government? (something about your post suggests that you might....) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
football_fan 42 Posted October 25, 2005 Hein, this is excellent! Do you work in local government? (something about your post suggests that you might....) He is probably working in I.T. I remember him mentioning something about programming in a previous thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lady Die 63 Posted October 25, 2005 Hein, this is excellent! Do you work in local government? (something about your post suggests that you might....) He is probably working in I.T. I remember him mentioning something about programming in a previous thread. But he's obviously a person who writes lots of memos at work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magere Hein 1,400 Posted October 25, 2005 Do you work in local government? (something about your post suggests that you might....) He is probably working in I.T. I remember him mentioning something about programming in a previous thread. No, I don't work in local government. In the past I did work against local government, but the pay was awful, i.e. none. Yes, I'm a computer programmer, but my business card says "IT consultant", because that pays more. I spend a considerable part of my time writing technical specification. I suppose it shows. But he's obviously a person who writes lots of memos at work. What a terrible thing to say about somebody. Indeed, but I don't complain, as long as I'm paid for IT. regards, Hein Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slave to the Grave 26 Posted October 25, 2005 A very thorough piece of work Hein. . I love the idea of rants getting a score in big red letters, just hope it doesn't discourage some of the really good rant deconstructions we've enjoyed lately. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tuber Mirum 125 Posted October 25, 2005 How fabulous - snaps! Is there any possibility for having some form of 'wildcard' points for rants that are really really funny? I mean, you know how sometimes you read a rant and it's well, just a rant, and then sometimes you read one and it's SO rantsome that it's actually hilarious? Not sure which threadit was in, but I remember a while ago reading a rant that was just SO random and SO outrageous (and of course met a number of DLRI616 criteria) that it actually made me laugh out loud. Just a thought. Can't go wrong with a bit of humour now and again. In eternum+ has a point. Perhaps we should consider awarding points for Overall Artistic Impression (or its opposite), Involuntary Humour and General Impression of Insanity. Perhaps a system of special awards or bonuses would work, because otherwise the scoring system could be screwed up by having attributes which exclude one another, thus making it imposssible to get the maximum number of points. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tuber Mirum 125 Posted October 25, 2005 You F*****g sick c**ts, making fun of a heroine for having dementia. If any of you worthless, stupid freaks had a relavtive with Alzheimer's you would be laughing on the other side of your face. If you ever said any of this crap to me in person I would break your F*****g neck. This is the sickest site ever, it should be closed down immediately. May you all suffer for your evil and stupid comments. You sad, pathetic losers sitting behind a computer screen wishing death on great men and women. And now Rosa is dead and it is because of f*****g c**ts like you. F**k you all, cowards. f**k you all. c**ts. Quite a literate rant this, apart from giving us all one neck and one computer screen between us. This ranter wishes us suffering, though doesn't directly wish us death or Hell as stipulated in section 1 elements 7 & 8. "This site should be closed down immediately" comes once in a while, and should be worth a point. Then we have a case of "How would you like it if one of your relatives...." but not directly saying that a relative of the Ranter is in that position. Another thing not explicitly covered by the rules as they stand. Anyone care to hazard a score for this rant? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grim Reaper 186 Posted October 25, 2005 Anyone care to hazard a score for this rant. Already had a shot at it http://www.deathlist.net/forums/index.php?...160entry34690 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magere Hein 1,400 Posted October 26, 2005 Good points were raised. There's obviously room for improvement[1] in the DLRI. It's late and I'm pissed now, so I put off writing up my ideas a bit. Notes: [1] Q: What's the smallest room in the world? A: A mushroom. Q: What's the largest room in the world? A: Room for improvement. regards, Hein Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobTheChicken 0 Posted January 10, 2006 [*]The post contains one or more instances of misuse of "there / their / they're / there're".[*]The post contains one or more instances of misuse of "your / you're". Can I suggest that you add the following to the list: [*]The post contains one or more instances of misuse of "could have / would have / should have" by replacement with "could of / would of / should of"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Four Horsemen 26 Posted January 10, 2006 I blame Beverley Knight....... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest en passant Posted January 6, 2013 If you are going to score for language usage, you may wish to look into the common imply/infer error several examples of which reside in the 616 document and require correction or the document of itself is in danger of qualifying as a rant. Yes thanks I'm aware it's a six year old thread, but hey one has to start somewhere. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
