Basics Archives Community Services Programming
Hardware Help About Search Your Account
   Home :: Archives :: News :: June 1999 POTM Vote

June 1999 POTM Vote
Posted by Andy on 9 July 1999, 19:58 GMT

Tabulation Method
The top three nominated programs in each category were taken as finalists except when too many programs tied for number of nominations. In that case, we made all nominations that tied finalists so that our number of finalists was not less than 3.


The comments below are written by ticalc.org visitors. Their views are not necessarily those of ticalc.org, and ticalc.org takes no responsibility for their content.

Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
Jean Canazzi
(Web Page)

In my opinion, this nomination system is not very usefull, it is just like if peoples voted twice. Is it really necessary to do that every month ? I think it 's quite annoying...

     9 July 1999, 22:10 GMT

Re: Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
Kirk Meyer
(Web Page)

The BASIC list, as well as most of the assembly lists, were narrowed down in a major way. Now there's less choices to vote on, which means we will have actual decisive winners. Note that the only reason that we do this is because of complaints about the previous nomination and voting system.

     9 July 1999, 22:24 GMT

Re: Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
Ed Fry
(Web Page)

It's better than the old system because you, the program users now have full control of what is worth voting on instead of what Ticalc members think should be voted on. It could be based on the one nomination vote, but that spreads out the choices to the point where it would be diffucult to get a sure winner. This way, one sure winner can be easily nomitated.

     10 July 1999, 00:32 GMT

Re: Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
Eddie Hazell

I think the new way is better. Programs that most people like should be nominated by the people themselves, and not the staff...

Anyway, I got my TI-89 saturday at OfficeMax for $159! I think that's a good price... (now I'm gonna get flamed by people who probably paid 20 bucks less somewhere else) I'm giving my TI-86 to my girlfriend, since hers was school property and she had to give it back, but man I'm gonna miss it! I gave my 85 to my little sister when I got my 86, but that wasn't so painful since it was the same "platform". I also ordered the "new" TI-GRAPH LINK for Windows cable, since my grey one is messed up. I haven't seen it yet, but is the "new" supposed to be hooked to the unit-to-unit link, and then to the serial port? If so, that's a little strange... Anyway, when I start writing apps I'll post them in here... The only thing worth a look I've written so far is PB/86 (basic/misc section). Later!

     12 July 1999, 20:21 GMT

Slightly off-topic

Now why are TI-89's in the stores ten dollars more expensive than they were back in the fall, when I got mine? I just don't get it. Popular demand?

If you haven't seen a picture of the new graphlink cable, go to www.ti.com/ calc/ docs/ link.htm/ .

     13 July 1999, 01:11 GMT

Re: June 1999 POTM Vote

Wait a minute, how new is Mega Man 83ASM anyways? Is it a different version than D.Jackals? Becasue if it isn't that game shouldn't be on that list.

     10 July 1999, 01:12 GMT

Re: Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
(Web Page)

It's 82 asm and its a rather new port =P It is DJ's. It should be on the list. Ok? =)

     10 July 1999, 02:51 GMT

A Sad Observation
The Notorious Computerman
(Web Page)

Hey, folks! I'm on vacation in the green state of PA, and ~surprise~ I was able to get online for an hour or so today :-).

I've noticed a serious degrading in the integrity of the conversations here at TICalc. There is not a single constructive comment on this entire page!!! What is the TI community coming to? If this immature behavior continues to get worse, the "grown-up" [not necessarily in age, but in maturity] of us will begin to leave, and then the TI scene truly WILL "suck." It will be left to the losers and lamers like those who have posted above. [No offense intended towards the few people who have not flamed or cussed on this thread].

This is the first and last time I'll make a post here during my two-week vacation; the childishness really puts a damper on my mood, and after all, I AM on vacation.

~The Sadly Disappointed Computerman
President and Founder of CompuStarr

     10 July 1999, 06:04 GMT

Re: A Sad Observation

I just LOOOOOVE these selfcentered, dumbass comments. Hey, ComputerMan, you ARE the king!

President and Founder of ComputerMan Love Cult

     12 July 1999, 01:03 GMT

Re: Re: A Sad Observation
(Web Page)

Waaaaaiiiiitttt! I'm the King remember?

(Erase this thread Kirk)

     12 July 1999, 02:03 GMT

Re: A Sad Observation


     13 July 1999, 03:44 GMT

Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
Dan Weiss

Anybody notice that there were 7 TI89 basic progs, 1 TI82 basic prog, and 1 TI83 basic prog?

These seem a bit biased. Where's the 85/86?

     10 July 1999, 06:54 GMT

Re: Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
Justin Surratt

The programs were nominated by the people took the time to fill out the nomination thingy a week ago. If no basic programs for the 85/86 were nominated, it wasn't because of bias, but because the users of ticalc.org that voted didn't think that these programs make the grade. It was totally democratic.

     10 July 1999, 07:10 GMT

Re: Re: Re: June 1999 POTM Vote
Tip DS

I understand what you are saying, but there may be a better way to represent the users... Let's say, for example, that there are a million 92 users now, and only 100 85/86 users. (This is out of proportion for the sake of illustration.) If 100% of the 85/86 users vote on one program, but there is a 9000 way split among the 92 users, then the to 9000 92 programs win, and the 85/86 program that was unanimously voted best by its users does not even show up.

I think voters should be allowed to vote by calculator type. Even if a program only gets one vote, it should win if it is the only program in that category.

Does anyone get what I mean? I'm not trying to "degrade" the board. I'm trying to have an honest discussion on how to improve it. Any constructive comments are (very) welcome.

Tip DS

     10 July 1999, 20:19 GMT

Re: June 1999 POTM Vote

I have noticed that EVERY TIME potm is mentioned, there are 5/8+ flames or posts that BLATANTLY break the rules.
Everybody! LISTEN! "This feature has been abused a lot recently. Posting messages on this message board is a privilege, not a right. If this feature is abused, it will be revoked."

We don't want to lose comment boards because 15 *BAD* people start deliberately breaking the rules!

Just stop the nasty posts... mmkay!

     10 July 1999, 06:57 GMT

Msg Board Needs Lamer Wipe.
Ed Fry
(Web Page)

I've about had it with this bull that keeps flowing on this thing. It's getting to the point where all the message boards are flame centers and garbage depots for the account of lamers.

Ticalc, Please consider forcing users to use a username and password to use this service, Preferably by using the voting username and password. All that would have to be added would be a register button on the left frame, a way to create/change the User name and password, and a way to add/edit information such as name, E-mail and URL so that when the username and password are used, it automatically fills in that information. This type of system will limit the message board to users that will (hopefully) not abuse the board to this point as well as giving you the opportunity to block out users who more often than not, Do abuse this board.

Go ahead, Flame this entry, prove my point that the above is needed. Of course, Constructive Criticisms are always welcome.

     10 July 1999, 15:47 GMT

Re: Msg Board Needs Lamer Wipe.
Tip DS

Well, here's the problem with that type of system: Bogus accounts.

One of two things happen: TICALC requires authentication wich takes time and resources. i.e. They have to get physical address, phone number, etc. and verify that the person registering is really there. They also have to verify that this person is not currently "blackballed" because of previous bad behavior.

If not, then people flame, get booted, then re-register under a slightly different name and do it again. For example, "Tip DS" gets booted for bad conduct. After 5 minutes, "Tip DS2" is doing the same thing. Another 5 minutes go by and "Tip DS3" is flaming...

Yes, there are ways to automate the verification, but any automatic method of verification is easy to trick. Using old fashoned verification methods will take lots of manpower (I know the use of the term manpower is not PC, but I really don't care!!!!!!!!!) or it will be VERY slow.

Tip DS

     10 July 1999, 20:32 GMT

(Web Page)

I remember a while back that one of the ticalc staffers mentioned that a certain ex-member had posted under an assumed name (I believe it was 'me') and they have his hostmask. If that is recorded for all postings, then you have your solution.

1. Only one account allowed per IP address (you may ask for another one for, say, your kid brother)

2. IP's may be banned from posting, and it would be quite easy to check for similiar account names (like Tip DS and Tip DS1) and any profanity in the account name would trigger an automatic ban flag.

3. There are only a few people who regularly and productively contribute to this message board, and the members of ticalc are active enough to recognize patterns in other people's postings and attempts at account creations.

It's just a few ideas of mine. Hope they help.

     10 July 1999, 20:55 GMT

Jean Canazzi
(Web Page)

This method won't work at all, because almost averybody has a dynamic IP adress. If ticalc could indentify the person you're talking about, it's just because they could see his post just after it was posted.

     10 July 1999, 22:44 GMT


Let's simplify this system a bit:

Get rid of account names, etc; just keep it like it is. However, similar to chat rooms, if someone posts a message with profanity in it, the message board automatically detects it and deals with it, i.e. the "F" word would come out as fu**. If someone still manages to totally flame someone/thing else, well...ticalc.org would just manually delete the post like they do now.

This system is probably flawed in some way I'm not thinking of; if you find a problem with it go ahead and point it out, 'cause for every problem there's a solution...

     10 July 1999, 23:19 GMT

Another idea...
Jean Vásquez
(Web Page)

Or you could try this: ticalc will only allow post from proven productive members of the calculator society. Such as programmers, beta testers, website owners, and irc room ops for example. It does not have to be limitied to these types of persons, but they are usually the ones that able to post revelant information.

     10 July 1999, 23:54 GMT

IP addresses  
(Web Page)

Yeah, but then you need to worry about people on dialup connections with dynamic IP addresses. Basing the system off IP's is irrelevant for the majority of our users.


     11 July 1999, 03:37 GMT

IP versus hostmask
(Web Page)

Perhaps i caused some confusion. I should have said hostmask. Hostmask is very much traceable. like mine... for now it's always PT(number).onlinemac.com. so even dynamic IP's have their weak point.

     12 July 1999, 15:01 GMT

Re: IP versus hostmask
M. Adam Davis
(Web Page)

Sure, as soon as someone using Ameritech.net abuses the service, I won't be able to use it.

Sorry, hostmasks will not work.


     12 July 1999, 15:12 GMT

Re: IP versus hostmask

I agree, niether hostmasks nor IPs would work. Perhaps you could use cookies, although they would be easy to fake...

     12 July 1999, 19:55 GMT

Re: Msg Board Needs Lamer Wipe.
Kirk Meyer
(Web Page)

We're working on it. Just trust us on that - please. The IP solution will generally not work because of dynamic IP's, and there are so many ways to get around word checks - substituting 5 for s and such. But we do have a solution in mind. Just bear with us.

     11 July 1999, 00:26 GMT

1  2  3  

You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.

  Copyright © 1996-2012, the ticalc.org project. All rights reserved. | Contact Us | Disclaimer