Want to Frost up a contest? Give someone anything less than a fiver to set their average lower.
 

Shell Belle 77,143 25
08/08/2010 01:12 PM

Ouch. My head hurts. Brain overload!


I have noticed that flaw too. I was wondering if I was the only one.

Chix daily fix day 27 286,642 61
08/08/2010 01:16 PM

That was a lot of work to say "It's RIGGED!"

Most of us figured that one out when we switched from pee tubes, and the great clickie wipeout of the mid ninties.

Remember, they don't matter.


Chix

Trophy whoreing since the days of the "helpful tool" (you won't get it if you haven't been hear at least 10 years.)

Jeeni 47,815 51
08/08/2010 01:45 PM

Remember, they don't matter.

They don't matter until money is involved. Then, they matter.

KChikita - The Girl From Ipanema! 128,446 98
08/08/2010 03:18 PM

I was with you until the bananas showed up. It was like someone flashing their boobs. My mind was completely blown. I think I have a crush on the bananas.

Under the covers with Diana 101,398 77
08/08/2010 03:31 PM

Wait, are you trying to take my winnings away from me? Because, that's like all I have left in life.

Nooooooooooooooo!

pram 80,728 42
08/08/2010 03:32 PM

I don't understand the focus on "hilarious votes". You say No One You Know hypothetically got a 5-orber, which is "side-splitting", not "hilarious".

Other than that, it's a well-thought out idea, and it will probably be considered at least several times before being ultimately abandoned in favor of a rating system where instead of a smiley for orbs, we get boobs.

I mean, everyone wants boobs, am I right fellas? Women want big ones and men want their women to have bigger ones.

KChikita - The Girl From Ipanema! 128,446 98
08/08/2010 03:34 PM

I've become pretty happy with my small boobs.

(/Devil's Advocate)

pram 80,728 42
08/08/2010 03:36 PM

Personally, I like smaller boobs. I've only ever dated fatties who were proud of their gigantic breasts, not taking into account that the only reason they're so big is that they have cake and icecream stored in each one.

Jeeni 47,815 51
08/08/2010 03:40 PM

Whoops. Good catch, Pram.

Jeeni 47,815 51
08/08/2010 03:56 PM

Undies, you still have my vote!

Straw-ra-ra-boom-de-ay 98,023 37
08/08/2010 04:04 PM

I thought in contests it was your total number of orbs. It's not? It's really how yellow your smiley faces are?

Drewcifer aka JackyMaille 46,366 58
08/08/2010 05:26 PM

Yeah, I could get into some sort of Boob-Banana-Boob rating system.

...Phla? 131,068 34
08/08/2010 05:36 PM

That's nice. Totally worksafe now. Thanks.

pram 80,728 42
08/08/2010 06:37 PM

I respectably disagree; he could have also bleeped out her gross belly button and the SOL bottles.

Then it would be work-safe.

pram 80,728 42
08/08/2010 06:37 PM

...and made the banana bigger.

pram 80,728 42
08/08/2010 06:42 PM

Hmmmmm...did anyone else notice the girl looks like Lobster?

Drewcifer aka JackyMaille 46,366 58
08/08/2010 06:47 PM

Sorry, my MS Paint skills aren't what they could be.

Manhole 21,658 29
08/08/2010 09:13 PM

Don't worry about Phla, she dislikes inline pictures. And nOobs.

Shell Belle 77,143 25
08/08/2010 09:27 PM

I mean, everyone wants boobs, am I right fellas? Women want big ones


Women who have small ones want big ones. Women who have big ones want small ones. I would gladly trade my bigger ones with one of you who has smaller ones. I guarantee that you'd want your smaller ones back within a week.


What this all has to do with the article, I have no idea. Sorry, Jeeni.

Analog 9,608 19
08/08/2010 11:19 PM

Awesome thread!!!! Like Jeeni, I've always wrestled with the ratings, epspecially when you consider the fact that it used to be a "like/dislike" ratings system that was converted to a 5 orb system.
It boils down to this, If you have a thread that one out of two people gave 5 stars to it and another thread that two out of two people gave a 4 stars two it, which is better?

Believe it or not, John has been talking about the ratings system a lot lately so now is the perfect time for this thread.

Redwing 3,887 30
08/08/2010 11:56 PM

Bring back the pee-tube!

Thud 68,525 19
08/08/2010 11:56 PM

How about going back to the otto and the maha?

...Phla? 131,068 34
08/09/2010 12:08 AM

I just tried to give Manhole a banana but it smushed all over my monitor.

Also, I think he liked it.

Jay Stevens 1,010 16
08/09/2010 09:14 AM

Ok.

Honestly guys this has been a problem with the system 4EVAR! I'm saying this as the guy who invented all of the schemes and algorithms that have come and gone and are here now. I've been out of "the ZUG game" for a while now so I can't say with any certainty what's in place now, but...

I will say this:

a) I freaking love this suggestion (mostly because it's kind of similar to alternative scoring algorithms I've proposed in the past).
b) This is a hard problem... it just plain is. Namely, that of balancing quality and quantity. Is something empirically funnier because MORE people think it's "Funny hmm" or is it funnier because FEWER people think it's "Funny haha"?

On top of these considerations, surprisingly, things get even MORE crazy when you start thinking about calculating ratings for individual people vs. individual threads vs. individual posts. In the end, it's a balancing act. It always has been. However, I will tell you from experience that this is NOT something that is done capriciously or without a GREAT deal of thought and debate and discussion and simulation and testing.

In the end, John has always come down on the side of a simpler system (even when I wrote up a proposal to change the Funny algorithm as recently as a year or two after I stopped being the developer). The concern is for people to focus, as much as is possible, on the FUNNY and NOT on the FORMULA for calculating the funny. Based on this thread, there is at least one instance, where this is no longer the case.

My first thought on the subeject is that John is MUCH more likely to consider a change that comes from deep inside the community than one that comes from an ex-ZUG stats geek. And this proposal is as good a place to start as any.

Really awesome article btw!

Dogs Akimbo 211,626 32
08/09/2010 11:31 AM

How about just adding the numeric total after the orbs?

Dogs Akimbo 211,626 32
08/09/2010 11:31 AM

Sorry about the lack of bananas and boobs.

Jeeni 47,815 51
08/09/2010 11:43 AM

Thanks for commenting, Jay.

You are right, people should be able to focus on the funny without thought of the programming that is supporting the site. It should not interfere with anyone's decision whether to click or not to click but I know that is not the case for myself as well as others on-board, at times. (Specifically with contests.)

From my past experiences, I have come to the decision not to get involved with contests because of the screwy rating system. I'm no stand-up comedian nor would I ever want to be, but the rating system has stifled my interest in thinking of and posting creative ideas to add to the community of funny in the context of contests. "Why bother, I'm gonna lose anyway." has been my motto.

I didn't come to the board to gritch. I have no ill-will towards anything in the past. I'm simply hoping a solution will be considered so everyone can focus on enjoying more funny.

/Not funny>

kChiki, so the banana in the rating system is a no-go? Try this recipe instead, it's delicious! Like, omg!

Jeeni 47,815 51
08/09/2010 11:44 AM

How about just adding the numeric total after the orbs?

Dogs, I think it would be less likely to be abused if the numbers were secret & hidden.

the fun in dysfunctional 1,970 6
08/09/2010 11:59 AM

Loved the article Jeeni. What is the point of abusing the system? If a person wins because they cheat isn't that an empty victory?

Phuc 237,919 21
08/09/2010 12:04 PM

No victory is empty when there's a cash prize involved. Shakespeare, I've been to Comdex three times, so I know that most people would stab their neighbor for a t-shirt--a Shakespearety t-shirt at that.

As for Jeeni's suggestions, I'm not eligible to win prizes, so I don't care enough to expend my limited--and therefor valuable--mental energies on an attempt at reading it, much less understanding it.

But I applaud Ms. Jeeni for her efforts and hope that this all eventually leads to a system that will result in the lest amount of griping from the "You could do it better if you did it with (insert arcane programming language here)."

Jeeni 47,815 51
08/09/2010 12:09 PM

Glad you liked it, Fun! I'm not insinuating anyone's cheating, although I give a tip on how to mess with contest ratings.

My point is: The generous people who give less-than-five orbs is screwing with the contests only because the rating system is screwy. If someone takes the time to rate someone, even as "amusing", it should be taken as a positive remark, not as a "maha" and penalizing them for it. Currently, it is.

I've heard that John values cracking one person up over mildly amusing a crowd. (I could be wrong.) Only John can put a value to the individual ratings... since it is his site. Currently, the site ratings value cracking one person or more people up ONLY. If others are cracking up and one person is less than side-splitting at the comment, it puts the kibosh on that comment all together, which kinda sucks.

SHP is dirty 181,795 70
08/09/2010 12:38 PM

I had a really long, well thought out, articulate comment all typed up and ready to go for this thread.
Then I said Frost it. This is the only part of the comment left intact.

It's like this - in a boobs contest, are the "bigger" ones the better ones?"

Midgets 96,151 48
08/09/2010 01:10 PM

My momma tells me I'm handsome and funny, so I don't care what the ratings say.

Straw-ra-ra-boom-de-ay 98,023 37
08/09/2010 01:28 PM

The reason I don't enter the contests is because it takes me awhile to get around to submitting something. Because I thought the winners were determined by the total number of orbs collected, I figured that the first ones through the gate would have the advantage because they are getting clickies during the whole time that I'm stewing over my possible entry. Also I figure that as the days pass, most people are getting bored of reading entries and the thread is not getting as much traffic - making my potential for orbs even lower.

Under the covers with Diana 101,398 77
08/09/2010 01:44 PM

I've entered and won a lot of contests. Because of this, I've always been very concerned about how the votes are being tabulated, and how the winners will be judged. I've always felt that things weren't right and that they needed to be changed. I was well aware of how a single 3-orb on one of my article entries could cause me to lose a contest, as well as how a last-minute entry with a single 5-orb could jump in and take it all. Thankfully, neither of these scenarios have come to pass, and I've been able to continue to add to my collection of cash and vibrator gift baskets.

I've talked with others about it at various times, but it has always come back to that trying to find a system that works is hard, and trying to find a system that is fair is even more difficult. I am in agreement that what we have now is not fair, and I think it's important that a change is made eventually.

I say eventually, because I don't think we should just rush to switch up how things are done, lest we get an equally Shakespearety - or even worse - way of tabulating votes.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned - some of the article contests count the TOTAL number of orbs in the thread, not just the orbs given to the article writer. This is ridiculous. It has caused me to stop giving orbs in contest threads to comments, and to stop commenting on articles, if I am competing for a prize.

Under the covers with Diana 101,398 77
08/09/2010 01:47 PM

Straw - you're right about getting in there early with an entry, for all the reasons you mentioned. I always try to be one of the first ones up.

Anyway, there are two contests in particular that really upset me when it came to how they were run. One I entered, the other I did not. The acne photoshop contest left me LIVID. I shouldn't have won, but because of the way votes were tabulated, and restrictions that were set down after the contest started, I ended up ranked first. When John sent me the cash, I promptly paypal'd half of it to the person I thought should have taken the prize. Because of the outcome, I stopped entering contests where it was impossible to tell who was in the lead - I don't believe it is good to have the system shrouded in secrecy when there is cash involved.

The other contest that left a bad taste in my mouth was one I didn't enter, so the details are fuzzy, but it was about coming up with a tagline to be printed on a banner. If I am remembering correctly, I was still upset about the acne photoshop, so I didn't enter the banner contest because it was obvious it would have the same difficulties. And, then it took months before a clear winner was announced. I know I wasn't the only one upset at this.

Under the covers with Diana 101,398 77
08/09/2010 01:55 PM

Gah! I have a headache now, and you probably do too, if you read through that wall of text I just posted.

Excuse me while I go roll around nekkid in all the money John has sent to me unjustly over the last few years.

Dogs Akimbo 211,626 32
08/09/2010 02:02 PM

I think it would be less likely to be abused if the numbers were secret & hidden.

They are not secret and hidden now, just confusing. How would knowing the actual status allow it to be abused?

MungChamp 35,891 35
08/09/2010 02:04 PM

I read the wall o text, however:

Frogpop 173,153 25
08/09/2010 02:07 PM

Hold on to your hats choombatas. Warning: The following posts are about as funny as this "Comedy" Article.

How about just adding the numeric total after the orbs?
It should be by total orbs. Monthly funniest is awarded by total not average, when you sort threads by funniest they sort by total, not average. John was very clear when we switched systems that the 1zug was not meant to be a punishment (a new "maha"), all zugz given add to a users lifetime and monthly totals, making them funnier. ..or, at least they're supposed to.

I've heard that John values cracking one person up over mildly amusing a crowd.
But he has also said this, more or less, which is unfortunate as it conflicts with the rest of the way the ratings are handled. If average zugz is better, then it should be used for everything. Unfortunately, this encourages us to use anything less than a 5zug as a punishment, not a reward. This turns us into an unruly mob of hecklers.. 1 person 5zugz a post and 30 other people 1click it to drag it down. Instead of 1 person cracking up in the comedy club and the rest of us sitting politely waiting for the next joke hoping it will be better, you've turned the 30 people into an angry mob of jackasses yelling "It's SMALL like your PENIS!!". This is not the friendly collaborative environment that John told us he was trying to encourage with the new Live.

This isn't really a problem of "is one 5zug funnier than two 3's or 4's". That is an interesting philosophical discussion, but to find the weakness or a system you don't take the more marginal cases, you take the limiting cases. The place this system really falls apart is when people like Lobster or AC auto 5click each other’s suckass and/or racist posts and the rest of us are getting a mixed bag of twenty 3's 4's and 5's for our witty replies, but the single auto 5click is "funnier".

Frogpop 173,153 25
08/09/2010 02:07 PM

One major fault of sorting by average is that it's an opt-out system. Sorting by average assumes that every user, whether or not they've even seen a given post, agrees with the current rating of that post UNLESS they take the time to opt-out of the current rating by rating it up or down. This also encourages polarization of the ratings system. Say a post is currently at a 4, but I read it and think it was worth a 3.. but do I give it a 3? No! I give it a 1 because I know that will drive it closer to the 3 that I think it deserves against all the votes of 4's and 5's that you people (who are wrong) gave it. Morons. This is not a happy supportive environment, and really, if I have go through all the thread fixing the rest of the community's boneheaded mistakes rating every single post, well, look I already have a day job. Or night job, or whatever. Opt-out systems suck.

Sorting by total is an opt-in system, where each user's input adds to the post over time, and each click is a positive reward. I'm taking the time to click you because you made me chuckle laugh guffaw whatever. It encourages people to support each other and if they can't say (click) something nice, then they don't say anything. Simple. Friendly. Time saving. Yay opt-in!

If you stick with sorting by average, realistically you should give us a 0zug option, so we can fully opt out of posts that we think suck, or else the 1zug will be put to that use anyway. Which John said he did not want.

Frogpop 173,153 25
08/09/2010 02:09 PM

Oddly enough, sorting by total ends up being more or less the same as sorting by average EXCEPT that sorting by total assumes that non-votes are 0zugz, whereas sorting by average assumes that non-votes are worth Xzugz, where X = whatever the current average rating of the post which may even change in the time between you opening a thread and rating a post, and will certainly continue to change after you have left the thread entirely.. which is a very strange thing to assume indeed!

Again, back to the comedy club. If I'm not laughing, it's because I didn't find anything funny to laugh about (0zugz). It is not because I found something funny, but judged the current level of laughter in the room to be sufficiently representative of just how funny I found it, so I'll just sit there quietly and save my energy for next time. That is a creepy Vulcan comedy club or something and it makes no damn sense Jim, er, John.

Luckily John got rid of post sorting in capcons and comedy challenges (because it was highly annoying and disruptive), so the only place sorting criteria still matters is contests, which I ignore because the rating system is all fubared. Good luck Undies!

Jeeni, thanks for taking the time, but an exponential or logarithmic rating system is not what we need. A more complicated and less transparent system just results in more gaming (both in that more people will game the system, and as in I will spend less time Living and more time playing mmos or something) and even less consistent or satisfying results.

Frogpop 173,153 25
08/09/2010 02:14 PM

I’m allergic to dogs. Just make sure you clean up with a HEPAvac afterwards.

Under the covers with Diana 101,398 77
08/09/2010 02:19 PM

There you go, being all intimidating again Frogger.

Dogs Akimbo 211,626 32
08/09/2010 02:19 PM

Hold on to your hats choombatas...[9000 lines deleted]...and even less consistent or satisfying results.

Or, in other words, 'numeric total.'

Frogpop 173,153 25
08/09/2010 02:50 PM

I don't do well in a soundbite society. Maybe I should start arguing FOR sorting by average? John will change it in no time.

Straw-ra-ra-boom-de-ay 98,023 37
08/09/2010 02:54 PM

I was just over in this thread refreshing my memory about gorckat and noticed several posts where none of the smiley faces were yellow, but under it said there was one vote. I guess those were mahas that were not counted in the conversion? It kind of creeped me out.

Pants 14,252 17
08/09/2010 03:16 PM

People are greatly influenced by how others have rated a post. Seeing the average before you vote directly influences how you'll vote. This happens consciously and subconsciously. The average rating of a post shouldn't be displayed to a user until they have cast a vote themselves.


Oh damn, I almost forgot the funny.


Poop, fart, goatse, and lemon party

Jeeni 47,815 51
08/09/2010 03:30 PM

That is kinda creepy, Straw. Yikes. Pants, I completely agree. People should have to vote before seeing a rating to get an honest rating from people.

Gah, Frogpop, I forgot about the sorting. That really sucked and I'm glad it was discontinued.

I created this as a ("comedy") article because the text was too long & I didn't want to split it up into multiple submissions. I sprinkled it with humor & was hoping it would be entertaining enough to read and begin a discussion about a more fair rating system.

The place this system really falls apart is when people like Lobster or AC auto 5click each other,,,s suckass and/or racist posts
This is why a sum total of zugs is better than average zugs, since the average can be displaced so quickly ...but because John values the crack-up, we can set the value of the responses higher as the response is greater. The more people who vote for truly funny content, the more that AC type of Shakespeare gets filtered to the bottom of the heap. (Not that it's a problem anymore.)

Anyway, Jeeni's lesson learned today:
Topics to avoid unless you wish to annoy possible friends:

1. Religion
2. Politics
3. ZUG Rating System

Dogs Akimbo 211,626 32
08/09/2010 03:39 PM

I still don't have a pony.

...Phla? 131,068 34
08/09/2010 03:41 PM

4. Comedy algebra

Frogpop 173,153 25
08/09/2010 03:41 PM

<--- My eye really does bulge like that when I think about the rating/sorting system. Life imitating Al's art. Yikes!

...Phla? 131,068 34
08/09/2010 03:44 PM

5. Lack of ponies

Jeeni 47,815 51
08/09/2010 03:48 PM

My eye really does bulge like that

Useless without pictures.

Straw-ra-ra-boom-de-ay 98,023 37
08/09/2010 04:12 PM

I think y'all broke Live. There's a picture thread by Frat which the front page claims was updated an hour ago, but when you go in the thread the last post was from July 20th.

dinesh 24,862 16
08/09/2010 04:29 PM

Anyone who knows me knows I hate the whole rating system anyway. But purely as a matter of science...

The average rating of a post shouldn't be displayed to a user until they have cast a vote themselves.

Yes.

The place this system really falls apart is when people like Lobster or AC auto 5click each other’s suckass and/or racist posts

This is as much an issue for the popular cliques here as it is for the outcasts - just about everyone is more willing to give more/better ratings to their friends, whether consciously or unconsciously. The current ratings are funniness sullied by a large amount of popularity contest.

If you truly want to determine which posts are funniest, they need to be rated in a double-blind way, which is to say that you can't know who posted something until you've rated it. Which may be all-but impossible for some posters who have certain easily-identifiable style quirks.

I figured that the first ones through the gate would have the advantage because they are getting clickies during the whole time that I'm stewing over my possible entry.

A possible fix is to steal from syncope's employers, and post the contest in advance, give all people significant lead time to create an entry, then unleash them all en masse a week or two later for evaluation.

average orb versus total orb, whether non-votes count as 0 orbs or null, etc.

All needs to be considered as part of the overall design goal. Perhaps average orb, but with a minimum number of raters. Or a definitive 0-orb vote for contests.

Brad Poynter 36,184 48
08/09/2010 04:32 PM

Rating systems as a means of rating each other are highly overrated as the rate of rating fluxuates irrationally between users which may make some irate. Ratings should be based on the rate of rating by the raters as well as those being rated in a rational ration. By rationing the ratings to those who are not only highly rated but also rate at higher rate than your average rater the rates would be totally rational but at this rate the ratings do not even rate being rated.

Jeeni 47,815 51
08/09/2010 04:43 PM

hah!

Brad, you mean karma, right? I agree, a karmic value could be a part of things, like worth1000.com uses. If you enter a contest, you're required to rate all other entries. If you don't, your karmic value goes down. But the karmic value could only be used for contests which have a definitive ending.

Brad Poynter 36,184 48
08/09/2010 04:46 PM

Shakespeare! I didn't mean to make any actual sense. I just wanted to make people mispronounce rational in their minds.

SHP is dirty 181,795 70
08/09/2010 04:47 PM

If you truly want to determine which posts are funniest, they need to be rated in a double-blind way, which is to say that you can't know who posted something until you've rated it. Which may be all-but impossible for some posters who have certain easily-identifiable style quirks.

Except that this is community user driven, not random entry like at Texts From Last Night, where either you like it or you don't.

With double blind, you lose the context of the joke if you don't know who posted it. Much of what I find funny is related to schtick, or the opposite, when something is said that is so out of character that it surprises and pleases me.

I don't rate every post, I'm willing to bet most of us don't and therefore I don't expect anyone to do so. I see this being detrimental to the new people who are genuinely interested and lurking to get a feel for the "community" because it is anonymous.

dinesh 24,862 16
08/09/2010 05:21 PM

oh, i don't mean to say that i advocate a switch to anonymity. in fact, i should have mentioned that doing so is probably never going to happen specifically because it would totally ruin everything else about the community site.

but if you want to measure something "correctly", that's how you have to do it. otherwise, as i said, you're actually measuring some bastardized version of funniness and popularity.

Drewcifer aka JackyMaille 46,366 58
08/09/2010 05:40 PM

I just try to keep it simple--I post Shakespeare that I find funny (including my own drivel sometimes), and read and vote on funny Shakespeare other people have posted. I'm not worried about who gets a T-shirt at the end of the month. But what the hell do I know? I'm just a no0b.

Manhole 21,658 29
08/09/2010 06:09 PM

I just tried to give Manhole a banana but it smushed all over my monitor.
Also, I think he liked it.

Not too bad, it would have been better with a little Cool Whip.

KChikita - OMG Pwnies!!! 128,446 98
08/09/2010 06:40 PM

Yes, I just love a little Cool HHHHWHip on my bananas.

Also, I agree with Di-naysh that not being able to see the ranking of a post before you vote on it is an interesting idea. Every now and then I try to step back and assess whether I'm rating a post based on the content or on the previous rating. Sometimes I catch myself being influenced by the previous rating, either to the detriment or the benefit of the poster.

Thud 68,525 19
08/09/2010 07:32 PM

As one of the people who rates lots of posts, I try to use the rating system in accordance with the levels of funny (from "Amusing" to "Side Splitting"). There are always going to be people who will be disappointed by anything less than a fiver and those who thing a single orb is an insult. Oh well, get a grip on you helmet.

Above I suggested going back to the like/dislike or otto/maha idea. This solution does tend to promote the popular posters to the top of any thread, since they are more likely to get orbs from their friends.

The main thing I would add to any averaging or totaled system John decides to use is some way to promote the giving out of orbs. The fewer people who give out orbs, the more distorted the results can become (especially if people want to spoof the system).

I will think on this further and perhaps add more after the meds kick in.

...Phla? 131,068 34
08/09/2010 08:21 PM

I loved the pee tubes. Ratings of 1 through 5 is too much thinking. I want to give a simple thumbs up or thumbs down and move on.

However, I've devised a rating system to rate other possible ratings systems. You write down the rating system author's name using a code which replaces letters with numbers. You then rate the rating system in a series of 50 categories, ranging from awesomeness, sexiness, color and rhymes with urple. Then you attach that piece of paper along with a copy of your birth certificate to a $50 bill and mail it to me. It's just that simple!

Dogs Akimbo 211,626 32
08/09/2010 08:42 PM

I recommend a two-dimensional rating system.


Linear can bite me.

The Terrible Ravos 63,472 21
08/09/2010 10:43 PM

All I got out of this thread is that no matter how rigged the system, I never win.

The Terrible Ravos 63,472 21
08/09/2010 10:44 PM

John should follow the trends. Youtube had a 5 star rating for videos, and they switched back to a like or dislike feature. Bring back the maha!

Whistler P. McManus 186,133 44
08/09/2010 11:25 PM

I like everything from mosquito bites to Mount Everbreast.





Yeah, talk of boobies distracted me from the primary topic.

dinesh 24,862 16
08/10/2010 09:59 AM

Hmm, maybe have the value of orbs from a single person be on diminishing returns over the month/contest period.

Shell Belle 77,143 25
08/10/2010 12:00 PM

I don't know what all of this means, but I am not giving my shirt back. You can have it back when you come and pry it off of my old, saggy breasts.

SHP is dirty 181,795 70
08/10/2010 12:04 PM

I think Whistler made it pretty clear that he'd be down for that.

BisectYouAll 5,200 15
08/10/2010 12:18 PM

I'm fairly new here (so I expect some backlash from this comment), but I had a coach tell me this once...
"Some people will win. Others will spend there time trying to find reasons why they can't win".

Brad Poynter 36,184 48
08/10/2010 12:40 PM

Still others will walk up in the middle of the game and ask "Hey! Whay ya'll playin'?"

Jeeni 47,815 51
08/10/2010 12:50 PM

And even still, there will be others who want a pickle from the barrel you're playing checkers on.

Wait, I thought we were talking about boobs?

Manhole 21,658 29
08/10/2010 12:51 PM

It's called Grab Ass! We just run around and grab each others asses. WOOOOOO!!!!