Originally posted by quanchi112
Lestov needs our help. This is a cry for help. You just have to recognize the signs to know a tranny lovers pleas for aid when you see them.
OK, are you seriously stealing the "Quan needs assistance" insult that I just threw at you? Are you that unoriginal?
But again, your butthurt ad hominem attacks are just to distract from your avoidance of that fact that Rob and many others have anally raped you repeatedly during your tenure at KMC. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt, Quan. You are clearly in the first stage of grief.
This is basically whats happening here.
Quan-she has been owned SEVERAL times from everybody
here is an example (on the favorites sections)
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=123405
with out mentioning the amount of times he has punk out from bz and challenges
like so:
Originally posted by Rao Kal El
lol let's see who is the gutless wonder1.- Ww vs Superman bz : End result Quanshe backs down then enters into damage control mode trying to convince people that he isn't backing down
2.- Thanos vs Glads and Superman CIS off bz: End result Quanshe backs down then enters into damage control mode trying to convince people that he isn't backing down
3.-Challenge offered to prove that someone owns a business: End result Quanshe backs down then enters into damage control mode trying to convince people that he isn't backing down
Challenge offered by philosophia:
4.- Philosophia offers a CIS off challenge between Superman and Thanos to Quan, Quan refuses again claiming that he does not like to rep characters in CIS off matches.
5.- Also Philo offers a challenge that Thanos CANNOT survive a galaxy busting attack, Quan refuses the challenge
6.- Philo offer an open challenge to ALL the Thanos fans that Our Worlds at War can defeat Thanos, Quan or any other Thanos fan never take the challenge.
7.- The Lestov challenge:
8.- Punking out to Delta:
9.- Backing down to Dart Power: Obi-Wan Kenobi vs Khan challenge He accepted for a couple of hours then quickly backed down.
10.- Backing down to Bently
Then take a look at this gem:
11.- Quan makes a thread challenging fans of the The Legend of Zelda to a battlezone of the Harry Potter universe vs. Twilight Princess. Screampaste accepts on the condition that there is another battlezone of Russell Edgington vs. Rainbow Dash.
Quan then backs down from both battlezones and spends over 70 pages insisting that he isn't backing down.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=575788&pagenumber=5
WOW QUANSHE you back down a lot
The words Quan Backs down kind of come together, we should change this term to Quacks Down 😆
With out also mentioning that He thinks that playing kickball is awesome and he thinks himself as "the kickball champ"
This I believe is caused because he suffers from the Dunning–Kruger effect
What is this Dunning–Kruger effect you might ask?
"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias manifesting in unskilled individuals suffering from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude. Conversely, people with true ability tend to underestimate their relative competence based on the erroneous or exaggerated claims made by unskilled people.
David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others"
"The phenomenon was first tested in a series of experiments published in 1999 by David Dunning and Justin Kruger of the Department of Psychology, Cornell University. The study was inspired by the case of McArthur Wheeler, a man who robbed two banks after covering his face with lemon juice in the mistaken belief that it would prevent his face from being recorded on surveillance cameras. They noted that earlier studies suggested that ignorance of standards of performance lies behind a great deal of incorrect self assessments of competence. This pattern was seen in studies of skills as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis. (note: Quan erroneously thought that Imperex Prime killed Doomsday by "expunging his bacteria" and even I a non native of the language understand the idea much better than Quan, besides this error he has been caught in other miss readings, proving IMO that he is pretty much incompetent to read)
Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:
tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill.
Dunning has since drawn an analogy ("the anosognosia of everyday life"😉with a condition in which a person who suffers a physical disability because of brain injury seems unaware of or denies the existence of the disability, even for dramatic impairments such as blindness or paralysis.
If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent. the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is.
Dunning and Kruger set out to test these hypotheses on Cornell undergraduates in psychology courses. In a series of studies, they examined the subjects' self-assessment of logical reasoning skills, grammatical skills, and humor. After being shown their test scores, the subjects were again asked to estimate their own rank: the competent group accurately estimated their rank, while the incompetent group still overestimated theirs. As Dunning and Kruger noted:
Across four studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
Meanwhile, people with true ability tended to underestimate their relative competence. Roughly, participants who found tasks to be relatively easy erroneously assumed, to some extent, that the tasks must also be easy for others.
A follow-up study, reported in the same paper, suggests that grossly incompetent students improved their ability to estimate their rank after minimal tutoring in the skills they had previously lacked, regardless of the negligible improvement in actual skills.
In 2003, Dunning and Joyce Ehrlinger, also of Cornell University, published a study that detailed a shift in people's views of themselves when influenced by external cues. Participants in the study, Cornell University undergraduates, were given tests of their knowledge of geography, some of the tests intended to affect their self-views positively, some negatively. They were then asked to rate their performance, and those given the positive tests reported significantly better performance than those given the negative.
Daniel Ames and Lara Kammrath extended this work to sensitivity to others, and the subjects' perception of how sensitive they were.
Research conducted by Burson et al. (2006) set out to test one of the core hypotheses put forth by Kruger and Muller in their paper "Unskilled, unaware, or both? The better-than-average heuristic and statistical regression predict errors in estimates of own performance," "that people at all performance levels are equally poor at estimating their relative performance."In order to test this hypothesis, the authors investigate three different studies, which all manipulated the "perceived difficulty of the tasks and hence participants’ beliefs about their relative standing."The authors found that when researchers presented subjects with moderately difficult tasks that the best and the worst performers actually varied little in their ability to accurately predict their performance. Additionally, they found that with more difficult tasks, the best performers are less accurate in predicting their performance than the worst performers. The authors conclude that these findings suggest that "judges at all skill levels are subject to similar degrees of error."
Ehrlinger et al. (2008) made an attempt to test alternative explanations, but came to qualitatively similar conclusions to the original work. The paper concludes that the root cause is that, in contrast to high performers, "poor performers do not learn from feedback suggesting a need to improve."
Studies on the Dunning–Kruger effect tend to focus on American test subjects. A study on some East Asian subjects suggested that something like the opposite of the Dunning–Kruger effect may operate on self-assessment and motivation to improve. East Asians tend to underestimate their abilities, and see underachievement as a chance to improve themselves and get along with others."
That sounds a lot like our resident idiot 🙂
Originally posted by BloodRain
100 / (Hours since joining/ (Post Count*0.017)) = Minimum percentage of time spent actually posting on KMC, using a min per average read&reply.DSZ - 0.136%
BR --- 0.476%
SP --- 0.816%
Quan- 2.72%4x more time posting than guys like me and Pastey, 20x more time than Darkstorm. It'd take a lot of typing per post and reading a greater amount of other peoples comments (lurking) to catch up.
/bored :T
interesting calculation...
Originally posted by Lestov16
interesting calculation...
So I did myself and, again, considered 1 minute the average post time.
Since about half of my posts are 10-20 second quickies, it may be less than that.
But here is my result:
0.00807533287755965751863788781457
Or .8%
That makes sense if you consider I am on KMC a lot, during the day, at work, but not much any time else.
Originally posted by BloodRain
100 / (Hours since joining/ (Post Count*0.017)) = Minimum percentage of time spent actually posting on KMC, using a min per average read&reply.DSZ - 0.136%
BR --- 0.476%
SP --- 0.816%
Quan- 2.72%4x more time posting than guys like me and Pastey, 20x more time than Darkstorm. It'd take a lot of typing per post and reading a greater amount of other peoples comments (lurking) to catch up.
/bored :T
Originally posted by Lestov16
interesting calculation...
IMO I think this is more Dunning–Kruger effect.
Honestly, who in his right mind will consider that having a lot of posts is somehow a "skill" to brag about?
We know is not a skill, it is just basically putting time that most of us We don't have because We are doing other things.
But somehow he thinks this is a trait he has and he has to brag about it.
Not realizing that having a lot of post is not an indication of skills but an indication that he might not have nothing better to do.
Plato said once:
"Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something"
This I believe applies to Quan as Quan being the fool, I have to remark this because of his Dunning–Kruger effect he might think he is the wise man.
This is shown often on his poor "comebacks", They are lacking and mostly unfunny, but He has to say something.
Originally posted by dadudemon
So I did myself and, again, considered 1 minute the average post time.Since about half of my posts are 10-20 second quickies, it may be less than that.
But here is my result:
0.00807533287755965751863788781457
Or .8%
That makes sense if you consider I am on KMC a lot, during the day, at work, but not much any time else.
Do me
Originally posted by Bardock42
Do me
0.01479964834351286322413473995928
or ~1.5%.
But there is something horribly wrong with this calculation: it does not account for how much time you spend reading other's posts.
I would say that that is 3-5 times as much as the time you actually spend making posts and posting.
1 minute seems quite fair because it took me about 1-2 minutes to make this post for you (which includes calculation time).
But 6 minutes seems more fair, per post, imo.