The Kookometer


If you have used an Internet forum, you will—most likely—have encountered an Internet kook. These unhinged individuals come in many shapes and sizes. They may boast about their monumental contribution to the arts and sciences. They may desperately try to alert the world to some terrible conspiracy. They may complain about being tragically wronged. Despite this variation, every kook shares a common trait: a stubborn willingness to inflict their message upon anyone and everyone. In previous times, these individuals were largely hidden from view. They might have harangued the local newspaper with letters written in green ink, but their public exposure was minimal. All this changed with the rise of the Internet. The dawning of the global village has elevated them to the status of global village idiots. The Kookometer uses a Kook-Metric based on eight categories. These are “Vexatious Posting Habits”, “Irksome Writing Style”, “Narcissism”, “Ineptitude at Debate”, “Hysteria”, “Megalomania”, “Absurd Beliefs” and “Bigotry”. Each category is divided into four parameters, which are assessed by being given one of five ratings. These rating are:
1	Normal – Does not exhibit any kooky behaviour.
2	Slightly Odd – Deviates from the norm, but only to a moderate extent. A normal person may display a handful of isolated traits in this category, but multiple instances will start to add up to something more serious.
3	Decidedly Weird – Unambiguously deviates from the norm. A normal person will not exhibit any of these traits.
4	Clearly Insane – Devoid of all vestiges of normality.
5	Full Canvas Jacket – A special category reserved for the craziest of the crazy. It should only be used with extreme caution. Unless the person alternates between abusing the Internet and chewing on the furniture, the "Clearly Insane" category should be used instead.
Within the input boxes for each parameter, an example is given for each of the five ratings. These outline the behaviour that is typical for that rating, but they are not all-inclusive. Therefore, someone who acts in an atypical but nonetheless kooky manner, may—with appropriate discretion—be given a particular rating, even if they do not match the example. Inspiration for the Kookometer comes from John Baez's Crackpot Index, and Larry Orcutt's Egyptological equivalent. I must also thank Peter Bowditch for inventing the phrase "Full Canvas Jacket". To use the Kookometer, simply fill in all the sections and submit the form, and a full Kook-Analysis will be performed.
Name of Kook

Vexatious Posting Habits
–	Ban and Kill-File Evasion
	Has never defied a ban, or attempted to bypass kill-files.
	Has changed alias in order to circumvent bans or kill-files.
	Has changed aliases more than once in order to circumvent bans or kill-files.
	Frequently changes aliases in order to circumvent bans or kill-files. Alternatively, may obfuscate key words in order to circumvent filters.
	Take ban and kill-file evasion to absolute extremes. May use a different alias or account for each and every post. May use an automated process for obfuscating content.
–	Forum Hogging
	Doesn't attempt to bring undue attention to posts.
	Tries to bring undue attention to posts. May inappropriately cross-post, or start new threads when a reply would have sufficed.
	Tries to gain undeserved attention by posting inappropriately and excessively. May split a topic over a protracted series of posts, when a single post would have sufficed. May repeatedly post the same item.
	Tries to gain undeserved attention by posting inappropriately and excessively, and does so in an arrogant manner. May claim that his or her message is so important that it is necessary to post it repeatedly. May object vehemently to criticism of such posting habits.
	Takes forum hogging to absolute extremes. May render a forum unusable by his or her actions*.
* If an attempt to damage the forum is deliberate, use the "Forum Domination" section instead.
–	Cut-and-Paste Abuse
	Posts original content, with the occasional exception of properly referenced cuttings from other people's writing.
	Makes excessive use of other people's writing.
	Blatantly plagiarises other peoples writing. For example, posts entire newspaper article without reference.
	Is completely unable to generate original content, and converses almost entirely in cuttings. For example, may respond to every comment by quoting a Bible verse and nothing else.
	Takes cut-and-paste abuse to absolute extremes.
–	Sock Puppetry
	Has never used sock-puppets*.
	Has used a sock puppet once.
	Has used a sock puppet more than once.
	Is a dedicated sock puppet user. May vigorously defend a sock puppet, even when the truth is obvious. A fall-back excuse may be used (for example, a false claim that the sock-puppet is a friend or relative). There may be more than one sock-puppet.
	Operates a vast and elaborate network of sock-puppets. The sock-puppets may have long conversations with one another. The sock-puppets may have extensive and detailed backgrounds. The sock-puppets may create comprehensive websites.
* In this context, a “sock-puppet” is an alternative alias of an user, created to give the impression that others support his or her position. In rare cases, a sock puppet may be set up as an adversary, in order to gain sympathy, or to set up a caricature of an opposing viewpoint.
Irksome Writing Style
–	Grandiloquence
	Doesn't write in a grandiloquent manner.
	Writes in a slightly grandiloquent manner. May use obscure words, where common words would suffice.
	Writes in an unambiguously grandiloquent manner. May use words which were obviously taken from a thesaurus without any understanding of their actual meaning.
	Writes in an horribly grandiloquent manner. May criticise other users for not writing as “well” as he or she does.
	Writes sentences in the style of James Joyce, but with the depth of a Mills and Boon novel.
–	Overexertion
	Doesn't make overlong posts.
	Sometimes makes unnecessarily long posts.
	Frequently makes unnecessarily long posts.
	Makes extremely long posts.
	Makes absurdly long posts. For example, may reply to a single line comment with a 10,000 word discourse.
–	Illiteracy
	Writes perfectly well.
	Writes badly.
	Writes appallingly. May use “leet”, or text-message slang as a matter of course. May completely omit punctuation. May write entirely in capitals.
	Writes appallingly and objects vehemently to any form of correction. May falsely claim dyslexia* as an excuse for bad writing.
	Writes appallingly and reacts insanely to any form of correction. May claim that correction is an insidious form of persecution. For example (when translated from suitably abject scrawl), “Spelling and grammar are for psychopathic elitists. Your attempt to force them onto the common man is a form of genocide.”
* The types of mistake made as a result of dyslexia are usually very specific. It is often straightforward to tell the difference between someone who genuinely has the condition, and someone who is too lazy or too stupid to write properly.
–	Bizarre Formatting
	Doesn't apply bizarre formatting
	Applies bad formatting. For example, may highlight excessive numbers of words.
	Applies very bad formatting. May use ridiculously large font sizes. May randomly change fonts and colour
	Applies absolutely terrible formatting.
	Creates documents which are so badly formatted as to almost defy belief.
Narcissism
–	Delusions of Genius
	Makes no unjustified claims to special ability.
	Has claimed (without justification) to be gifted.
	Makes conspicuous (and unjustified) claims to be gifted. May quote unimpressive academic achievements or on-line IQ-test scores.
	Makes conspicuous (and unjustified) claims of possessing extreme ability. May criticise others for not “recognizing” their genius. May compare themselves to great individuals who were ridiculed in their own time. For example, “People like you would have laughed at Galileo too”.
	Claims (without justification) to possess one of the greatest minds in human history. For example, may claim to be a greater writer than Shakespeare, a greater scientist than Einstein, or a greater composer than Beethoven.
–	Delusions of Achievement
	Does not boast about supposed achievements.
	Boasts about supposed achievements.
	Boasts incessantly about supposed achievements.
	Claims (without justification) to have achieved a truly great feat. For example, may claim that a book he or she has written will soon be a best-seller. May boast about deserving a great reward, for example, the Nobel Prize or the Pulitzer Prize.
	Claims (without justification) to have achieved one of the greatest feats in human history.
–	Entitlement Complex
	Does not have an entitlement complex.
	Has a slight entitlement complex.
	Has a major entitlement complex. May beg other users for favours.
	Has an extreme entitlement complex. May demand favours from other users.
	Believes that he or she is the most deserving person in existence, and that everyone else must base their lives around that assumption.
–	Superiority Complex
	Does not have an superiority complex.
	Has a slight superiority complex.
	Has a major superiority complex.
	Has an extreme superiority complex. For example, may compare themselves favourably to a religious figure. Alternatively, may base his or her sense of superiority upon new-age nonsense. For example, “As an indigo child, my spiritual vibrations rise above those of you unenlightened cynics”.
	Believes that he or she is the greatest thing in existence. For example, may refer to themselves as “God's chosen one”.
Ineptitude at Debate
–	Cluelessness
	Has never participated in a debate when ill-informed.
	Has occasionally made foolish or badly thought out comments.
	Frequently makes foolish or badly thought out comments.
	Leaps into debates without the slightest understanding of the issue at hand. For example, “If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” *.
	Leaps into debates without the slightest understanding of the issue at hand, and then argues vehemently against any attempts at correction.
* This argument is so pathetic that even some young earth creationists condemn it. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop most of them.
–	Mangled Logic
	Has never employed a logical fallacy.
	Occasionally employs logical fallacies.
	Frequently employs logical fallacies.
	Frequently employs egregious and patently obvious logical fallacies. For example, “You can't prove that I wasn't abducted by aliens. Therefore, I must have been taken.”
	Takes illogic to absolute extremes. Frequently makes arguments that bear no relationship to rationality. Alternatively, claims that logic and reason are themselves invalid. For example, “Your so-called logic is an oppressive power-narrative, used to punish those who deviate from your blinkered world-view.”.
–	Refusal to Admit Mistakes
	Is perfectly prepared to admit mistakes.
	Is reluctant to admit mistakes.
	Only admits mistakes with extreme reluctance.
	Will never even consider admitting mistakes. May use fall-back excuses. For example, “I was only joking, and you suckers all fell for it”.
	Will never even consider admitting mistakes, and will go extreme and ridiculous lengths to prove themselves right. May extensively redefine words in an attempt to prove themselves right.
–	Use of Dubious Sources
	Doesn't make poorly justified claims.
	Occasionally makes poorly justified claims. May quote the (otherwise unjustified) opinion of a populist polemicist (e.g. Michael Moore) as evidence.
	Makes very poorly justified claims. May cite a “friend of a friend” story as “proof”. May quote the (otherwise unjustified) opinion of a particularly awful populist polemicist (e.g. Ann Coulter) as evidence.
	Makes appallingly justified claims. For example, may quote what is obviously a parody as a source.
	Makes appallingly justified claims and adamantly refuses to provide any corroboration or accept correction. For example, “You keep making up these stupid lies that The Onion can't be taken seriously. Who are you to tell me what I can or can't read? What kind of idiot are you?”
Hysteria
–	Hyperbole
	Doesn't use hyperbole.
	Has used moderate hyperbole.
	Uses strong hyperbole. For example, “You're all against me. You all hate me.”
	Uses extreme hyperbole. For example, “I know you all want me dead. I know you would all celebrate my death.”
	Uses extreme and massively self-aggrandising hyperbole. For example, “People like you crucified Jesus. Now you're doing the same to me.”
–	Argumentum ad Hitlerum
	Has never made an undeserved* comparison between a person and the Nazis.
	Has made an undeserved but veiled comparison between a person and the Nazis. For example, "Health Nazi" or "Feminazi".
	Has made an undeserved and explicit comparison between a person and the Nazis.
	Makes hyperbolic comparisons between people and the Nazis.
	Makes extreme, absurd and extravagant comparisons between people and the Nazis. For example, “I know you'd all like to send me off Auschwitz. I expect you have the cannisters of Zyklon-B all ready and waiting.”
* In most cases, comparsion to the Nazis is rightly regarded as cheap rhetorical trick. Nevertheless, if someone is advocating Nazi policies, then the comparison is deserved.
–	Emotional Blackmail
	Doesn't use emotional blackmail.
	Occasionally attempts to guilt-trip people.
	Frequently uses guilt-trips. May constantly claim to have money troubles, job troubles, illness or depression.
	Makes extreme attempts at emotional blackmail. For example, falsely claiming to be suicidal.
	Makes extreme and highly offensive attempts at emotional blackmail. For example, falsely claiming to be terminally ill, and then claiming that criticism is compounding the misery.
–	Paranoia
	Is not paranoid.
	Is moderately paranoid.
	Is highly paranoid.
	Is extremely paranoid. For example, “I know you're all members of a hidden forum, where you talk about me behind my back”.
	Is extremely paranoid, and believes themselves to be the victim of a massive conspiracy*. For example, “I know you're all plotting with the CIA to have me assassinated”.
* This is somewhat similar to the "Conspiracy Theories" section. However, in this section, the label only applies if the person believes the conspiracy to be directed at themselves.
Megalomania
–	Claims of Power
	Makes no unjustified claims to power.
	Hints at possessing power.
	Falsely claims to be powerful. For example, may falsely claim to be a lawyer or police officer, or to be a friend or relative of someone with a very powerful job.
	Falsely claims to be very powerful. For example, may falsely claim to be a politician, senior police officer, or other major authority figure.
	Claims extreme power. For example, may claim to have the ear of multiple world leaders, or to have the ability to order extra-judicial arrests.
–	Objections to Criticism
	Takes just criticism well.
	Doesn't always take just criticism well.
	Responds badly to just criticism.
	Responds very badly to just criticism. For example, may respond to an unprovocative comment with a vast, expletive laden rant.
	Responds psychotically to criticism. For example, may publicly fantasize about show trials in which the critics are forced to repent.
–	Forum Domination
	Doesn't try to dominate forums.
	Occasionally attempts to boss people around.
	Makes attempts to dominate a forum. May try to establish themselves as a moderator (when he or she does not have the authority to do so).
	Makes strong attempts to dominate a forum. May try to ruthlessly police the actions of other users (when he or she does not have the authority to do so).
	Takes forum domination to absolute extremes. May lay claim to a forum (that he or she has no legitimate authority over), and attempt to brutally suppress anything that doesn't meet his or her approval. May try to destroy a forum, or make it completely unusable.
–	Litigiousness
	Has never threatened legal action (unless justified).
	Has hinted at being considering (unjustified) legal action.
	Has explicitly threatened (unjustified) legal action.
	Threatens (unjustified) legal action in a completely over the top manner. For example, may threaten to seek “exemplary and punitive damages” in response to a simple insult.
	Threatens legal action in an extreme and and absurdly extravagant way. For example, may claim that the action will involve a global body (for example, The International Court of Justice), or a specially convened tribunal.
Absurd Beliefs
–	Conspiracy Theories
	Does not subscribe to any unreasonable* conspiracy theories.
	Subscribes to slightly dubious conspiracy theories.
	Subscribes to highly dubious conspiracy theories. For example, TWA Flight 800 was shot down.
	Subscribes to extremely dubious conspiracy theories. For example, the Apollo Moon landings were faked, the September 11th attacks were an inside job, or that free energy machines exist, but are being suppressed by the oil industry.
	Subscribes to absolutely insane conspiracy theories. For example, all the major events throughout history having been directed by a secret world government. Alternatively, may claim that other users only object to the theory because they have been paid off by the conspirators.
* A conspiracy theory in itself can be perfectly reasonable, and may even prove to be true (for example, the Watergate scandal). It is only when facts and reason are dispensed with, that the kookery starts.
–	Quackery
	Is not a believer in quack medicine.
	Is a moderate supporter of quackery.
	Is a strong supporter of quackery.
	Is a fervent supporter of quackery. For example, “Every disease is caused by a misalignment of the spine”.
	Is a fanatical supporter of quackery, and gives deranged and extremely dangerous “advice”. For example, “Don't listen to your doctors. They're being paid by the big pharmaceutical companies to cut you up and poison you with chemotherapy. All you need for your cancer is a crystal pendant.”
–	Pseudoscience
	Avoids pseudoscience.
	Has some slightly dubious scientific beliefs.
	Has some very dubious scientific beliefs.
	Holds patently false scientific beliefs. For example “The theory of relativity is complete nonsense*”.
	Holds utterly ridiculous scientific beliefs. For example, “The Earth is flat”.
* In a certain sense, the theory of relativity could be wrong, in that it is merely an approximation to a higher theory (just as Newtonian mechanics is an approximation to relativistic mechanics). However, according to certain kooks, it is not just an approximation, but simply false.
–	Pseudohistory
	Avoids pseudohistory.
	Has slightly dubious historical beliefs.
	Has highly dubious, but generally harmless, historical beliefs. May revise history to make it more politically correct. For example, “Socrates was a black man”.
	Holds patently false, and often malicious historical beliefs. For example, Holocaust denial. Alternatively, may use popular fiction (for example, The Da Vinci Code, or Stargate) as an historical reference.
	Believes an account of history that has more in common with the works of J.R.R. Tolkien than reality. For example, “When the people of Atlantis finished building the pyramids, they set sail for Easter Island. I was told this by my spirit guide.”
Bigotry
–	Religious Bigotry
	Is not a religious bigot.
	Is a moderate religious bigot.
	Is a strong religious bigot.
	Is an extreme religious bigot. For example, “Catholics will burn in Hell. Hindus will burn in Hell. Muslims will burn in Hell...”
	Is religiously bigoted to a delusional extent. For example, “Jews steal the Communion bread from churches so they can crucify Jesus's flesh again. They also drink childrens' blood.”
–	Racism
	Is not racist.
	Is moderately racist.
	Is highly racist.
	Is extremely racist. For example, "All Asian men are paedophiles".
	Is racist to a delusional extent. For example, “Black people don't have souls. They're just mindless automata, programmed to seek out fried chicken and watermelon”.
–	Sexism
	Is not sexist.
	Is moderately sexist.
	Is highly sexist.
	Is extremely sexist. For example, “All men are rapists”*.
	Is sexist to a delusional extent. For example, “The ultimate aim of of the Feminazis is to exterminate the male sex. First they get the vote; then they send all men off to the gas chambers.”
* From the point of view of personal safety, it can be pragmatic for women to assume that all strange men are potential rapists. This is perfectly reasonable advice, and should not be confused with the far less common slander that all men actually are rapists.
–	Homophobia
	Is not homophobic.
	Is moderately homophobic.
	Is highly homophobic.
	Is extremely homophobic. For example, “They should all be locked up”.
	Is homophobic to a delusional extent. For example, “The sodomites want to rule the world. When they get into power, anyone who refuses their sexual advances will be executed.”
Submit Form

© Chris Benton 2006