Godwin's is the best known, but there are many laws suggesting that the probability of something approaches one as a forum thread's length increases. I therefore propose KoM's observation: "As the length of a thread increases, the probability that someone will refer to a law stating the the probability of something approaches one as thread increases, approaches one".
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
What do you call it when you break KoM's Observation by starting a thread with KoM's Observation instead of waiting for the natural tendencies of the thread's length to increase the probability that someone will refer to a law stating the probability of something approaches one as thread increases, approaches one?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That doesn't break the observation at all; the observation says nothing about the speed of the increase, nor about the starting point. This thread, indeed, demonstrates that there is a non-zero probability of getting a "KoM's-Observation-post" in the very first post of a thread, but that is not in conflict with the actual observation.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem: What do you call it when you break KoM's Observation by starting a thread with KoM's Observation instead of waiting for the natural tendencies of the thread's length to increase the probability that someone will refer to a law stating the probability of something approaches one as thread increases, approaches one?
You fail probability forever.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by lem: What do you call it when you break KoM's Observation by starting a thread with KoM's Observation instead of waiting for the natural tendencies of the thread's length to increase the probability that someone will refer to a law stating the probability of something approaches one as thread increases, approaches one?
You fail probability forever.
... Forever? Why, the odds of that are...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Its a tv tropes reference.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm pretty sure this law already exists, although I don't have a source on hand for it. I also always thought these laws were remarkably useless since, by definition, the longer a thread goes on the more likely anyone is to mention anything, period, so unless you actually have a more accurate statement than "the chance goes up" you haven't stated anything unique to Nazis or whatever.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Its a tv tropes reference.
I never saw it coming.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem: What do you call it when you break KoM's Observation by starting a thread with KoM's Observation instead of waiting for the natural tendencies of the thread's length to increase the probability that someone will refer to a law stating the probability of something approaches one as thread increases, approaches one?
That's the Hitler Maneuver. Very new. Very controversial.