| Sexy cosplay is the only good cosplay. Anything else is just lame. Being hot is the only thing that makes being nerdy acceptable. |
 |
Red_Keys said: Sexy cosplay is the only good cosplay. Anything else is just lame. Being hot is the only thing that makes being nerdy acceptable. All cosplay is acceptable WHEN done right. |
| lol @ img bbcode not working, mal is such a great site |
biitchstick said: Red_Keys said: Sexy cosplay is the only good cosplay. Anything else is just lame. Being hot is the only thing that makes being nerdy acceptable. All cosplay is acceptable WHEN done right. Too bad Naruto isn't fat and Tsunade actually has tits. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: biitchstick said: Red_Keys said: Sexy cosplay is the only good cosplay. Anything else is just lame. Being hot is the only thing that makes being nerdy acceptable. All cosplay is acceptable WHEN done right. Too bad Naruto isn't fat and Tsunade actually has tits. Naruto is just one of those characters only Asians should attempt lolol |
| lol @ img bbcode not working, mal is such a great site |
biitchstick said: Immahnoob said: biitchstick said: Red_Keys said: Sexy cosplay is the only good cosplay. Anything else is just lame. Being hot is the only thing that makes being nerdy acceptable. All cosplay is acceptable WHEN done right. Too bad Naruto isn't fat and Tsunade actually has tits. Naruto is just one of those characters only Asians should attempt lolol Love, would I make a good Naruto :( |
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos"    Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
Bloodcalibur said: biitchstick said: Immahnoob said: biitchstick said: Red_Keys said: Sexy cosplay is the only good cosplay. Anything else is just lame. Being hot is the only thing that makes being nerdy acceptable. All cosplay is acceptable WHEN done right. Too bad Naruto isn't fat and Tsunade actually has tits. Naruto is just one of those characters only Asians should attempt lolol Love, would I make a good Naruto :( LOL, with your face surely not. You're also mexicanish. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: Bloodcalibur said: biitchstick said: Immahnoob said: biitchstick said: Red_Keys said: Sexy cosplay is the only good cosplay. Anything else is just lame. Being hot is the only thing that makes being nerdy acceptable. All cosplay is acceptable WHEN done right. Too bad Naruto isn't fat and Tsunade actually has tits. Naruto is just one of those characters only Asians should attempt lolol Love, would I make a good Naruto :( LOL, with your face surely not. You're also mexicanish. Lol'ing cuz u changed it from black to mexican (i refreshed the page) |
| lol @ img bbcode not working, mal is such a great site |
biitchstick said: Immahnoob said: Bloodcalibur said: biitchstick said: Immahnoob said: biitchstick said: Red_Keys said: Sexy cosplay is the only good cosplay. Anything else is just lame. Being hot is the only thing that makes being nerdy acceptable. All cosplay is acceptable WHEN done right. Too bad Naruto isn't fat and Tsunade actually has tits. Naruto is just one of those characters only Asians should attempt lolol Love, would I make a good Naruto :( LOL, with your face surely not. You're also mexicanish. Lol'ing cuz u changed it from black to mexican (i refreshed the page) Yeah, black is fucking black. He's brown. Actually, I wanted to say brown, but I forgot for a second. So I wrote mexicanish. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
katsucats said: biitchstick said: Okay I just looked this girl up -- I'll bite. Face isn't that great, but isn't ugly. She has thin (not flabby) arms and that's a big plus in my book. Body is cute, decent stomach, great bolt-ons (I don't care if they're real); hips aren't as good as they could be, but that's never been high on my list. Legs are pretty proportionate. Skin tone is even (not looking at her face so don't say makeup). Smile brings out those cheeks, which I'm not a fan of. Back has a nice arch, not perfect.Wheres the appeal? Conclusion: 7/10, maybe a little more. Nothing outstanding, but all around good. I like that you notice the things I notice there, except you score a lot higher than me. We're not using the same scale anyway. I've been using this scaling technique that I've popularized among many circles of my friends for the past like 7 years now and I'd like to share it on here. I use two 0-10 Scales, the first 0-10 is used for everyone, and I call it the "Average Scale". The second one is 0-10 "Critical Scale", which is used for women that are already beautiful. Furthermore I separate scores on face and body, so I actually give two scores, one for face and one for body. Critical scores 8 9 and 10 are suppose to be nonexistent, they're merely placeholders, theoretical levels of beauty. Most very beautiful women are going to land on the 8 9 and 10 on the AVG Scale. To give you an idea of how extreme the Critical Scale is, I would say I expect only a theoretical ~20 women in the entire world to land a 7 and 6 on the Critical Scale for face and a theoretical ~40 for body (as bodies are easier to achieve than face, obviously). To better explain it, Critical Scale is merely used to differentiate the gaps between already high levels of beauty. I also want to point out that, while I have no problem with makeup, my scales rates women on what they look like with absolutely no makeup. Let's face it (lol), depending on the face a woman has, even a little bit of makeup such as a thin line of eyeliner or even just foundation, can skyrocket her looks from a hideous 3 AVG to a 8 AVG. I've mentioned this before, but a good example who's popular enough that you all probably know about is Jenna Marbles on Youtube. She looks decent with makeup, but looks nothing near that without any. On the other hand, some faces don't scale too well WITH makeup either. Some only get a 1 or a half point increase. But those are usually the ones who already look decent without any. Let's also keep in mind when girls say they're not wearing makeup and they actually are. Anyway, back to my point. If we're using my scale, I'd give Jessica Nigri a: 3.5 AVG - Face (no makeup) 6.8 AVG - Body 6.0 AVG - Face (make up) - Btw she really needs to put on her eyeliner better, I know of a certain style of eyeliner and mascara that would make her look much much better than what she commonly uses. She'd probably end up being a solid 7.2 AVG. I've only met two women in my life who have landed on a 7 Critical and 6 Critical both for face and body (counting all media, such as tv, internet, magazines, all the cities I've visited, etc.). One is bi (German) and one is lesbian (Russian), and they're married, currently living in Russia. In fact, they're the reason why I curved my Critical Scale down a few years ago. That 7 and 6 use to be a 10 and 9, but keeping it 10 and 9 would have ruined the integrity of my scale since it is important to have theoretical beauty above what actually exists in order to accommodate possible improbabilities. So my point is, by giving a 7 to Jessica Nigri, you are not giving enough space above her (only 3 points) for the thousands of women that are going to be far above her in attractiveness. And before anyone else says beautify is in the eye of the beholder: I do my best to be as objective as possible by sticking to a certain quantification of beauty that I base off of features that I have observed to be what X population deems as attractive, and trying to re-create theoretical beauty based on known accepted beauty features, then comparing that to the target if the target had no makeup. |
BloodcaliburJun 29, 2013 12:31 PM
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos" Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
| Over the years cosplay has built a horrible stereotype from too many fat and ugly nerds dressing as characters they shouldn't, and I feel a hot models might help reverse the stereotype, and if that changes what comes to mind when the average person hears cosplay from fat Sailor Moons to hot Bulmas, then so be it. |
 |
| I think I'll just stick to my own "beautiful" women. Fuck your scale. |
ImmahnoobJun 29, 2013 12:55 PM
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| "scaling" |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
Bloodcalibur said: HOW I LIKE MY BITCHES AND WHY NIGRI IS NOT ATTRACTIVE I think you're taking this a little too seriously. Anyway, no, I don't think they're ruining cosplay. Hell, I don't even care about that kind of stuff unless it's done well, and most of those girls DO do it well enough, so there. As long as it's fap material pleasing to the eye I don't really mind it. |
| When I said I rated women everybody called me disgusting. |
 |
Immahnoob said: +1, but let me elaborate.I think I'll just stick to my own "beautiful" women. Fuck your scale. 1. If only 20 women land 8 on your critical scale, then it's useless. That's what I call a 10. 2. There is plenty of space above 7 in my scale. 5 is average, meaning women that are neither very hot or ugly. Most women in the world will inevitably fall between 4-6. The is the "base" for comparison. The further you move away from 5, the harder it would be to reach the next number. 3. I don't care how you justify it -- yes there are standards of accepted beauty, but how much consideration each person gives to those qualities will be different than the next. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and nothing you do will change that fact. Plus, we are talking about our personal ratings, so using other people's opinions to judge women invalidates your scale. 4. Stop using the word "scaling" lol. It sounds very reptilian. From what I remember from looking at her pics for 1 min yesterday: Face no makeup-5.1 Face makeup-7.0 Body-7.4ish Total-about a 7 (remember, average band between 4-6 is closer than the difference between 6-7, and 7-7.4 is probably the same distance as 6.2-7) |
katsucatsJun 29, 2013 3:48 PM
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Chakaara said: Nobody would dare call me or BloodCalibur disgusting, or they risk getting trapped into a 20 page philosophical argument about their hypocrisy. I don't know whether that's a good thing...When I said I rated women everybody called me disgusting. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: Chakaara said: Nobody would dare call me or BloodCalibur disgusting, or they risk getting trapped into a 20 page philosophical argument about their hypocrisy. I don't know whether that's a good thing...When I said I rated women everybody called me disgusting. Yeah that's probably why. I mean, I wouldn't go as far as BloodCalibur to explain how I rate.... |
|
DateYutaka said: a fat midgetwhile there is on way to mimic the body shape of a Pikachu [ so thats what i mean by that |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: Chakaara said: Nobody would dare call me or BloodCalibur disgusting, or they risk getting trapped into a 20 page philosophical argument about their hypocrisy. I don't know whether that's a good thing...When I said I rated women everybody called me disgusting. Nothing wrong with rating women. Everyone does in their mind, even if they aren't rating her on a scale of 1 to 10. Everyone who called you disgusting is clearly fooling themselves. |
 |
PWJP said: Bloodcalibur said: HOW I LIKE MY BITCHES AND WHY NIGRI IS NOT ATTRACTIVE I think you're taking this a little too seriously. You must be new. Join Date: April 2013 Confirmed. |
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos" Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
Higurashi said: katsucats said: Chakaara said: Nobody would dare call me or BloodCalibur disgusting, or they risk getting trapped into a 20 page philosophical argument about their hypocrisy. I don't know whether that's a good thing...When I said I rated women everybody called me disgusting. Nothing wrong with rating women. Everyone does in their mind, even if they aren't rating her on a scale of 1 to 10. Everyone who called you disgusting is clearly fooling themselves. Yep |
| lol @ img bbcode not working, mal is such a great site |
biitchstick said: Higurashi said: katsucats said: Chakaara said: Nobody would dare call me or BloodCalibur disgusting, or they risk getting trapped into a 20 page philosophical argument about their hypocrisy. I don't know whether that's a good thing...When I said I rated women everybody called me disgusting. Nothing wrong with rating women. Everyone does in their mind, even if they aren't rating her on a scale of 1 to 10. Everyone who called you disgusting is clearly fooling themselves. Yep Where the fuck were you in the thread where I got lynched ?? |
|
katsucats said: 1. If only 20 women land 8 on your critical scale, then it's useless. That's what I call a 10. That's why it's a separate scale. By your scale there would be no way to compare, in rating, the difference between one "10" and another you consider a "10". katsucats said: 2. There is plenty of space above 7 in my scale. 5 is average, meaning women that are neither very hot or ugly. Most women in the world will inevitably fall between 4-6. The is the "base" for comparison. The further you move away from 5, the harder it would be to reach the next number. I disagree, even going by the normal 0-10 that you're using, to assume that most of the world's women fall in the average zone is something I highly doubt. Most women in the world are NOT "neither very hot or very ugly". It's more common that women fall in the entry level of ugly than just being "okay". And this is one of the fundamental issues I have with most mens' scales. katsucats said: 3. I don't care how you justify it -- yes there are standards of accepted beauty, but how much consideration each person gives to those qualities will be different than the next. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and nothing you do will change that fact. Plus, we are talking about our personal ratings, so using other people's opinions to judge women invalidates your scale. The scale I created isn't based off my personal ratings, as I explained they are based off of as much quantifiable observations as I can gather. While it is true that each person will give a different level of consideration for each quality, that is the whole point of my scale to begin with: To take all of that and find the greatest consistencies, each quality given a certain value of importance on the scale depending on it's consistency of appreciation. katsucats said: 4. Stop using the word "scaling" lol. It sounds very reptilian. Verb (of Scale) 2. To make in accord with a particular proportion katsucats said: From what I remember from looking at her pics for 1 min yesterday: Face no makeup-5.1 Face makeup-7.0 Body-7.4ish Total-about a 7 (remember, average band between 4-6 is closer than the difference between 6-7, and 7-7.4 is probably the same distance as 6.2-7) Really, 5.1 without makeup. Well, I'm not sure if this is just a vast difference in taste, or maybe standards, or how good or bad you are at re-constructing how a woman's face looks without makeup, so I'll leave it at that. |
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos" Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
| just let it go !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| "Bro, check out that scales on that one!!" "She's so hot she's practically breathing fire!" "SHE LITERALLY IS THOUGH!" "I LOVE DRAGONS!" Higurashi said: I'm so sorry for your loss.Nothing wrong with rating women. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
| Quoting is tough shit on a cell, so I'll just respond to 2 parts of that. 1. Because my scale isn't linear, I have no trouble comparing a 9.6 to a 9.8, an 0.2 difference that might be as varied as a 5-6.5. When we reach the extremities, it goes without saying that we must judge more strictly. The point of the scale is to make it as hard as possible to give someone a 10, since that represents the ideal. So I don't think I'll have the problem you describe. Maybe since yoyr scale is linear you need more space to distinguish 10s, but I see a galaxy of difference between 9.8 and 9.9. 2. Those "quantifiable observations" are your personal ratings. You make an observation of thigh to hip ratio. What's the ideal? How much does it matter compared to the length of the upper legs? There are no universal answers. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: 1. Because my scale isn't linear, I have no trouble comparing a 9.6 to a 9.8, an 0.2 difference that might be as varied as a 5-6.5. When we reach the extremities, it goes without saying that we must judge more strictly. The point of the scale is to make it as hard as possible to give someone a 10, since that represents the ideal. So I don't think I'll have the problem you describe. Maybe since yoyr scale is linear you need more space to distinguish 10s, but I see a galaxy of difference between 9.8 and 9.9. My scale isn't linear either, it's more linear than yours in the AVG Scale though, but once we enter the Critical Scale, the difference between a 1 Critical and a 3 Critical is smaller than the difference between a 4 Critical and 4.8 Critical, for the very same reasons you described. Overall I find my scales to be very useful among almost all circle of friends because if one of us saw a woman they could just say a number, AVG or Critical, and we'd all have a pretty decent idea of how pretty she was. (FYI most of these friends are women). And though we may all have different opinions and thus rate differently, there is no doubt among us when one of us uses a number on the Critical Scale that the subject was at least very attractive. katsucats said: 2. Those "quantifiable observations" are your personal ratings. You make an observation of thigh to hip ratio. What's the ideal? How much does it matter compared to the length of the upper legs? There are no universal answers. The key word is consistency. Statistical data matters for a reason. It's like any meta-game of a field. You may have varying possibilities in a certain situation, such as 20% X, 35% Y, 15% Z, 10% T, 10% A , and 10% B, but if you wanted to choose which route to take with the highest possibility you would choose Y. Or in this case of female attractiveness based on certain features, we would value Y aspect at a 35% weight, X at a 20% weight, etc, for that particular body part. |
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos" Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
Aiyeris said: Bloodcalibur thinks she's not very hot, katsucats thinks she's pretty hot. Only one can be right. I didn't know there was a ''right'' answer. |
| Come visit my town // I apologize in advance for my second-rate English Join my fan club // Improve the transport network |
| I'd fuck her. I'd date her too if she has half a brain. Pointless observations since neither will ever happen, but there's my opinion on her. |
كنت تهدر وقتك عن طريق ترجمة هذه. mattbenz99 said: Christians and Satanists are technically the same thing |
Bloodcalibur said: Statistics only works when observing something objectively quantifiable. You could observe, for example, that over a population of 1000, 62% finds a X attractive, but it is impossible to observe that 1 person finds X 62% attractive. These are 2 very different circumstances. In the first, 62% is very clearly defined as a number of people. In the latter, 62% could mean anything depending on how that one person rates -- this is where subjectivity comes in. You can come up with a detailed system and all it would do is make you more articulated, but you are still articulating your opinions. That's not what it means to be "objective".katsucats said: The key word is consistency. Statistical data matters for a reason. 2. Those "quantifiable observations" are your personal ratings. You make an observation of thigh to hip ratio. What's the ideal? How much does it matter compared to the length of the upper legs? There are no universal answers. Bloodcalibur said: These values are all defined by yourself.It's like any meta-game of a field. You may have varying possibilities in a certain situation, such as 20% X, 35% Y, 15% Z, 10% T, 10% A , and 10% B, but if you wanted to choose which route to take with the highest possibility you would choose Y. Or in this case of female attractiveness based on certain features, we would value Y aspect at a 35% weight, X at a 20% weight, etc, for that particular body part. I'll grant that if we could agree to a system and both rate using the same system, our scores would be more comparable. The system could be "objective" insofar that we agree to use it, but neither our scores nor the system by itself is objective without that agreement. This is particularly difficult. For example, if you think it should be face and body 50/50, and I think face is more important, at 65/35, then it would be hard for us to agree on a system that we could both use. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| katsucats and bloodcalibur the ultimate erection killer posters |
Zeally said: katsucats and bloodcalibur the ultimate erection killer posters Is that so? I guess my boner is abnormal in the respect that it rises to the occasion during BC and KC arguments. |
كنت تهدر وقتك عن طريق ترجمة هذه. mattbenz99 said: Christians and Satanists are technically the same thing |
Goryo said: Zeally said: katsucats and bloodcalibur the ultimate erection killer posters Is that so? I guess my boner is abnormal in the respect that it rises to the occasion during BC and KC arguments. not much of an argument just one wanker explaining his personal scale of ranking women's attractiveness in excruciating detail that probably has no practical application in his personal life. |
Zeally said: Goryo said: Zeally said: katsucats and bloodcalibur the ultimate erection killer posters Is that so? I guess my boner is abnormal in the respect that it rises to the occasion during BC and KC arguments. not much of an argument just one wanker explaining his personal scale of ranking women's attractiveness in excruciating detail. Why don't you bend over and let me show you the truth of this world? |
كنت تهدر وقتك عن طريق ترجمة هذه. mattbenz99 said: Christians and Satanists are technically the same thing |
Goryo said: Why don't you bend over and let me show you the truth of this world? I like where this is headed. |
PWJP said: Goryo said: Why don't you bend over and let me show you the truth of this world? I like where this is headed. Zeally does too, he's just afraid to admit it. |
كنت تهدر وقتك عن طريق ترجمة هذه. mattbenz99 said: Christians and Satanists are technically the same thing |
Goryo said: PWJP said: Goryo said: Why don't you bend over and let me show you the truth of this world? I like where this is headed. Zeally does too, he's just afraid to admit it. i'll bend over for you baby ;) MY BODY IS READY |
zzzeallyJun 29, 2013 9:11 PM
katsucats said: Bloodcalibur said: Statistics only works when observing something objectively quantifiable. You could observe, for example, that over a population of 1000, 62% finds a X attractivekatsucats said: The key word is consistency. Statistical data matters for a reason. 2. Those "quantifiable observations" are your personal ratings. You make an observation of thigh to hip ratio. What's the ideal? How much does it matter compared to the length of the upper legs? There are no universal answers. That's exactly what I was referring to.... It becomes clearer in the 2nd paragraph you yourself quoted. There isn't even an argument anymore, lol. |
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos" Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
Bloodcalibur said: I'm not sure what the argument's about, but statistics don't apply here. If you're referring to statistics as in a population of 1000, you are a population of 1.katsucats said: That's exactly what I was referring to....Bloodcalibur said: Statistics only works when observing something objectively quantifiable. You could observe, for example, that over a population of 1000, 62% finds a X attractivekatsucats said: The key word is consistency. Statistical data matters for a reason. 2. Those "quantifiable observations" are your personal ratings. You make an observation of thigh to hip ratio. What's the ideal? How much does it matter compared to the length of the upper legs? There are no universal answers. It becomes clearer in the 2nd paragraph you yourself quoted. There isn't even an argument anymore, lol. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| LOL, Bloodcalibur arguing that his scale about beauty is objective... Holy fuck! Sure as fucking Hell that your scale is objective because nobody uses it. I think you have to give us how your scale is constituted to be able to prove that your scale has some universal opinion that we do not know about. Without that, this argument is going places since the beginning. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: I have a feeling this will turn into one of those huge circular arguments that will get all 3 of us banned. Well, if you guys are down, then I'm game... :)Without that, this argument is going places since the beginning. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| You guys seriously rate females stuff like 7.2 or 6.7 or are you just messing around? I mean, I don't rate them unless I'm hanging out with the guys or I'm asked to(Since it makes way more sense to me to just rate physical appearance as unattractive, average, attractive or HBB) but when I do it's using whole numbers lol. |
gettogaara said: I do 7.28 if I wanted to. I don't go around rating girls in real life, unless I see 2 hot ones and I'm comparing them in my head. It's self-discovery, put a number to it and you know what you really like. But this thread is about Jessica Nigri, and the only way to discuss this is to put your money where your mouth is and put a number to it. Once that's out of the way, we can get to the particulars.You guys seriously rate females stuff like 7.2 or 6.7 or are you just messing around? I mean, I don't rate them unless I'm hanging out with the guys or I'm asked to(Since it makes way more sense to me to just rate physical appearance as unattractive, average, attractive or HBB) but when I do it's using whole numbers lol. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
More topics from this board
» Parts of your childhood that you missRobertBobert - Sep 26 |
30 |
by LSSJ_Chloe
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» What is the biggest amount of money you've spent on something you've regretted buying after.Zakatsuki_ - Sep 17 |
28 |
by ryan77999
»»
10 minutes ago |
|
» Grok's AniDaemon - Yesterday |
7 |
by rohan121
»»
20 minutes ago |
|
» nudify appsdeg - Yesterday |
13 |
by RudeRedis
»»
26 minutes ago |
|
» Internet Ads you just hate/can't standTheBlockernator - Yesterday |
12 |
by LSSJ_Chloe
»»
44 minutes ago |