Talk:Scale of Respect
Could someone make a drawing for this? Normally I wouldn't consider this worthy of an entire article but it's something fucked up Chris thought of to deal with social interactions that it's worthy to focus on. I think it could use a picture though. --Champthom 22:09, 8 June 2009 (CEST)
- I did a small table, showing what the Scale of Respect theoretically could look like. Everyone, please edit it if you think certain things are wrong. Also add people who I may have forgotten. In the end someone could whip out a decent looking graph in MS paint or whatever. It will be cool. RachmaninovDESU 20:24, 24 June 2009 (CEST)
- Fuck you, Champthom, with your funny but not factual. ^^ But srsly, if you wanted a picture, how would that suddenly be "factual"? Or were you just referring to a funny illustrative picture...
| Points | People who fall into this category |
|---|---|
| 10. Respect. | Christian Weston Chandler |
| 9. | God; Jesus |
| 8. | Barbara Chandler |
| 7. | Bob Chandler; The President of the United States |
| 6. | Gal-Pals; Family Members; Boyfriend-free girls |
| 5. | Buddies; Average Single Men |
| 4. | Non-Single Men |
| 3. | Jerkops; Manajerks |
| 2. | Mary Lee Walsh; Wes Iseli; Jason Kendrick Howell; ScotPallazo |
| 1. | Satan |
| 0. No respect. | Trolls; 4-cent Garbage Employees |
Check it out now. RachmaninovDESU 20:27, 24 June 2009 (CEST)
- I was thinking just a 1 to 10 point bar, like:
1 ───────────────────────────────── 10 (Respect)
No
Respect
With like, 1 being blue and 10 being hot red, sorta like a thermometer but on the side. I have no idea how to do it in MS Paint (because I'm not 133t enough to use Photoshop and I suck at GIMP) but that would be a way to illustrate it with it still being factual. --Champthom 20:45, 24 June 2009 (CEST)
- Finally thought of it - like the old "Hot or Not"? scale. --Champthom 22:43, 24 June 2009 (CEST)
| SCALE OF RESPECT, some nicer colours for this cell would be great | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ||
| Trolls 4-cent Garbage Employees |
Satan | Mary Lee Walsh Wes Iseli Jason Kendrick Howell ScotPallazo |
Jerkops Manajerks |
Non-Single Men | Buddies Average Single Men |
Gal-Pals Family Members Boyfriend-free girls |
Bob Chandler The President of the United States |
Barbara Chandler | Christian Weston Chandler | ||
| bottom text, remove row if not needed. remember to lower the rowspan of the side cells by 1 each if you do. | |||||||||||
had some fun with formatting, as you can see. the text colours, as well as the top and bottom boxes, could do with a little work. this will probably help if you want to change the colours. i'm not entirely satisfied with the borders either. try removing the wikitable bit and hitting preview. WILD. --cogsdev/vedsgoc 09:40, 7 December 2009 (CET)
- also just noticed that chris's scale of respect actually has eleven points. fuck. --cogsdev/vedsgoc 09:42, 7 December 2009 (CET)
- Fantastic colors, non factual text. My complaint with Rachmann's edit from months ago was that people might think that Chris elaborated his scale of respect somewhere when it's not the case. Either that or we can keep it like this and phrase it in such a way like "This is what Chris actually believes" or some shit. --Champthom 09:44, 7 December 2009 (CET)
- Also, yeah, this is what I had in mind in terms of a scale, so thanks Cogs for making this. --Champthom 09:45, 7 December 2009 (CET)
- i just copied the text from above so i could see what it would look like filled up. it'd be great if we could find a way to get chris to write out his scale of respect for us --cogsdev/vedsgoc 09:50, 7 December 2009 (CET)
- Possible Mailbag question, perhaps? Wouldn't even have to phrase it as the "Scale of Respect" - maybe just say it's a game and the sender could ask for Chris's opinion, by having them label from 0 to 10 the people they respect. --Champthom 13:15, 7 December 2009 (CET)
Congratulations to CrassCrab
His section, though sounds a bit too much "analysis," relates Chris to psychological developments and thus doesn't totally suck. Perhaps cite these studies though and maybe retitle the section to something other than "The Concept."--Champthom 08:54, 7 December 2009 (CET)