(02-11-2017 12:31 PM)JRsec Wrote: (02-11-2017 11:27 AM)nzmorange Wrote: JR - I'm not sure the insults were necessary or appropriate, but see a Jim's two posts.
Jim - Thanks!
Jim's two posts prove nothing related to what I had to say. If the tickets were purchase at face value to count sold tickets is an acceptable practice at most schools. Padding is when tickets are bought by the school, or sold at a reduced rate just to prop up attendance figures.
And it is not an insult to say that you, and for that matter many others that post at CSNbbs, need to clearly read what others are saying before a tangential argument to the main discussion ensues. On the main board there are now oodles of OP's that have been derailed or sidetracked from their original intent and if Wedge and I closed them all it would severely constrict the active threads. If we hand out warnings and started to issue bans there would be howls from the offenders.
Right now things are very slow, so more grace is afforded. Generally having a legitimate hot topic clears a lot of this stuff up. But when several pages of a mid sized thread are consumed with such argumentation it makes the threads unreadable.
Great. Then stay off ACC boards if you find our threads unreadable.
While in the context of how my conference, the ACC, might be fudging their stats, my initial comment was that a number of schools are incentivized to inflate attendance figures by counting tickets sold vs actual fans at the game, and I listed UK as an example (as well as Tulane - but I did that in a later post). You said that my personal definition was wrong ("attendance should be tickets sold") and said that U.K. doesn't inflate their numbers. I responded by mentioning that I was on a phone, but I was confident that some Cards fans could probably offer proof. You insulted me and called any picture proof "childish." Jim then posted proof that U.K. does in fact announce numbers in excess of people in the stadium seats, thereby confirming my assertion. I pointed out that your comments were, in addition to being highly unbecoming of both a guest on this board and a mod, factually wrong.
And for the record, 1) U.K. counts press in their attendance figures, 2) even with the definition that you wish to impose on me, there are schools that deflate attendance, so my point remains, and 3) the first definition of attendance that I found on my google search is linked below, and it stresses the importance of being present at the event. So at the very least, I'm confident in saying that my definition is reasonable. It may not be the only definition, or even the only reasonable definition, but it is, at a minimum, reasonable.
And the following is probably best done through PM, but you brought up this topic on a public board in response to my post, so I'll reply: 1) this site is a discussion board. If you shut down every thread where there's a discussion that deviates from the narrow confines of the OP, then there would be zero interesting discussions and 2) this is an ACC board and you're an SEC fan/mod. Don't let your mod status get to your head. You used to be a great poster.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/attendance