2 ms·

No one wants your paltry prize money, Ted. What they want are environments with less toxicity. > You finally understand something, that the 10% threshold is hi

No one wants your paltry prize money, Ted. What they want are environments with less toxicity. > You finally understand something, that the 10% threshold is high. I don't want to lose my money. In one fell swoop you've admitted you have set an unreasonably high goal post, that you don't expect it to be attainable, and that this was not actually about the inquiry. But sure, Ted, we should all be grateful to you for offering up money you don' expect to pay. Why stop at 10%? I'm sure you can pay someone on a bus somewhere to say 25%, and then you can peg it there. That wouldn't be substantially less disingenuous than what you've done so far, so I say: live your best life.

ThoAppelsin 9y ago
> an unreasonably high goal post I wouldn't say unreasonably high for 10% for a single man offering that much money. I would even say that it is rather very risky. Besides, claiming a platform is "a toxic wasteland" puts that platform on par with the ones like 4chan, and that does seem to require 20% toxicity to me, maybe even higher. For it to get more strict like 3-5%, the claim should be lighter, something like "slightly toxic". It is nice of him to empathise and assume that the claims are probably exaggerated, and to set the threshold to something in between. > No one wants your paltry prize money, Ted. Lastly, I definitely would enjoy an extra 10K, but I don't really think I can beat that requirement, since I don't think Stack Overflow is even slightly toxic.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  It stuns me that you write this, in a public forum, and don't expect people to conclude your entire effort was a self-centering publicity stunt. Your goal is to discredit anyone who suggests your favorite crowdsourcing website has any toxicity at all. So you set absurdly high thresholds and put into place unfair processes to make sure the prize money can't be claimed.

ThoAppelsin 9y ago

> an unreasonably high goal post I wouldn't say unreasonably high for 10% for a single man offering that much money. I would even say that it is rather very risky. Besides, claiming a platform is "a toxic wasteland" puts that platform on par with the ones like 4chan, and that does seem to require 20% toxicity to me, maybe even higher. For it to get more strict like 3-5%, the claim should be lighter, something like "slightly toxic". It is nice of him to empathise and assume that the claims are probably exaggerated, and to set the threshold to something in between. > No one wants your paltry prize money, Ted. Lastly, I definitely would enjoy an extra 10K, but I don't really think I can beat that requirement, since I don't think Stack Overflow is even slightly toxic.

KirinDave 9y ago
It stuns me that you write this, in a public forum, and don't expect people to conclude your entire effort was a self-centering publicity stunt. Your goal is to discredit anyone who suggests your favorite crowdsourcing website has any toxicity at all. So you set absurdly high thresholds and put into place unfair processes to make sure the prize money can't be claimed.