Chew toy awards - Gnawminations [2025]

[Mathilda]

Introducing nominations gnawminations for the 2025 Chew toy awards.

At the end of the year we'll get to vote on our favourite chew toy, the worst ones, the funniest, most stupid etc. All members of the forum in good standing will be allowed to vote. This thread is to keep track of all contenders so we can remind ourselves of their posting history when we come to decide. Feel free to add your own comments to this thread.

Requirements:

Chew toy must be banned in the year of the award to be eligible.

[Mathilda]

First contender of 2025 is kingiyk. Thankfully he kept his spam to a single thread.

He claimed to provide a mathematical proof for the existence of his god but did not actually have any understanding of mathematics, or what a proof was. Instead his argument used numerology. Namely using the digital root of numbers in Base 10 to argue that because a number multiplied by 3 is divisible by 3 then this proves the existence of his god. Humans were designed with 10 fingers specifically for this purpose. Other arguments consisted of super imposing a crucifix onto a clock face as evidence, even though clock faces were invented relatively recently, and not a natural phenomenon that was discovered. His evidence also relies on there being 9 planets in the solar system, even though Pluto has now been downgraded leaving only 8 planets, and only 7 were known about during biblical times.

He thinks we were all born theists before deciding to be atheists and that any argument should start with the assumption that his god exists and work back from there.

He never tackled any counter arguments and showed zero understanding of what they actually were. Instead he responded by copy and pasting his original argument again, presumably under the assumption that we had the same reading comprehension issues as him and just hadn't understood it properly the first time.

He is a contender for the stupidest chew toy that we've ever had on this forum, not just in 2025.

Feel free to add anything I've missed.

Edit: As a chew toy, kingiyk's squeaks were repetitive and annoying but at least they didn't fragment into little bits that get embedded into the carpet. Extended chewing risked causing sympathetic brain damage though.

[SYZ]

Yes, I agree.

I'll vote for kingiyk.     

[brewerb]

Damnit, why couldn't Xavier have started his idiot campaign later in 2024. His gods been waiting 2000 years, what's a couple more months?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Jamie Smithie lasted into 2025 before being banned due to trolling ang generally being a twatwaffle.

[Mathilda]

Happy to add him.

[jerry mcmasters]

They're all so damn forgettable. Only ones I can name are the two recent ones. Can they share top place?

[Minimalist]

Hey!  Maybe give each one a little nomination speech...like the republiKKKunts do for Speaker of the House....again and again and again?

[Mathilda]

Hey!  Maybe give each one a little nomination speech...like the republiKKKunts do for Speaker of the House....again and again and again?

Not a bad idea. Of course I'll have to ask them before they get banned.

[Mathilda]

Jamie Smithie lasted into 2025 before being banned due to trolling ang generally being a twatwaffle.

Introducing our second nomination Jamie Smithie. The man with a girl's name (apparently).

I didn't personally consider Jamie Smithie a chew toy as his sole intention was to troll and cause disruption rather than to proselytise. But I did let him hang around far longer than he deserved, mainly because I knew that he would eventually give me plenty of reason to ban him as he was trying to push what he could get away with. He spent most of his time on here on moderation and it was his thread espousing Nazi racial theories arguing that Africans have lower IQ that got him banned in the end. Not that anyone would be surprised considering that he thought women should submit to men because they're weaker,

He cross posted threads from other forums about rising crime in the UK, went to the effort of writing a blog pretending to be queer, felt that people should date others their own age and argued that stereotypes had a basis in truth, presumably to justify his own prejudices.

As trolls went though he could best be described as mediocre. Informing people by private message that he was shit stirring didn't help and people quickly saw through his act.

He even tried to a create a sock account.

As a chew toy he can be considered a cheap bargain bin variety that leaves a nasty taste in the mouth from the forever chemicals.

[Paleophyte]

My scorecard for kingiyk is as follows:

Pros:

• Civility: As chew toys go he was pretty decent. He didn't spam the forum with a dozen threads all harping on the same rubbish, hurl insults, or otherwise fling shit around his cage. At no point did I feel the need to reach for my splash guard to ward off flying spittle. I don't think that he even threatened us with hell much.
  
• Novelty: OK, his schtick was dull, but it was newish. It wasn't the typical rehash of Prime Mover/Kalam, Fine Tuning, Pascal's Wager, or any of the other tired arguments that we know and loathe.
  
• Comedic Value: Always an asset in a chew toy, and there are few things funnier than watching somebody offer what they think is a mathematical proof of god only to discover that they don't seem to understand counting. I could let the bit about counting Pluto as a planet pass, and the bit with the body parts was selective thinking rather than bad math. It was when he got to the number of fingers on your hand (9?), letters in the alphabet (27?), and number of numbers (9 to 11 depending on whim) that the entire thing devolved into a giggle fit for me.
  

Cons:

• Engagement: He was better than your average driveby, but not much. Clearly a one-trick-pony and utterly incapable of acknowledging the manifest flaws in his "proof" when they were pointed out.
  
• Monotonous: This chew toy made only one type of squeak, a large part of what eventually got him banned. He just kept harping on and on about those digital roots.
  
• Wits: Dumb as a bag of lard and thick as a yard of hammers. It's as if somebody took all of the cognitive biases, crammed them into one poor victim, and dialed them all to eleven.
  

Final score 2 out of 5. Would not troll again.

If he becomes the recipient of the 2025 Chew Toy award then I suggest that his prize be having his status switched from "Banned" to "Checkmate!" though with no functional change to his banishment.

[Dānu]

I think the measure of a chew toy is how well their pseudonym lends itself to parody.

I have Klingydik for one, and Jaimie Waimie for the other. Anyone else?

[Minimalist]

Hey!  Maybe give each one a little nomination speech...like the republiKKKunts do for Speaker of the House....again and again and again?

Not a bad idea. Of course I'll have to ask them before they get banned.

"Heavy lies the head that wears the crown....."

[Paleophyte]

Hey!  Maybe give each one a little nomination speech...like the republiKKKunts do for Speaker of the House....again and again and again?

Not a bad idea. Of course I'll have to ask them before they get banned.

Easy enough to do in most cases. Obvious troll is obvious and most of us can spot the ones that are going to get themselves banned quickly. It isn't as if they're a subtle beast. All you need then is a post that you can point them to along the lines of "Are you eligible for a Chew Toy Award and an extra helping of scorn and derision? Please don't forget to give your acceptance speech before you get banned!"

And to that end I feel like we should give these awards a proper name.

• "The Chew Toy Award" is prosaic but pedestrian.
  
• "A Chewie" has a nice ring to it, much like an Oscar, but obvious associations with loveable Wookies.
  
• "A Kong" is similarly associated with a big ape and might not be obvious enough.
  
• "A Squeaky" might work well. The chew toy most likely to keep us entertained until we break it?
  
• "The Steaming Heap of Technicolour Dog Crap" is a bit of a mouthful despite some nice allusions to the toy most likely to be chewed up and shat out.
  
• "A Trollie" might simply encourage many of them.
  
• "A Bridge/Billy-Goat/Gruff Award" would probably require more literacy than most of out trolls have.
  

[Paleophyte]

I think the measure of a chew toy is how well their pseudonym lends itself to parody.

I have Klingydik for one, and Jaimie Waimie for the other.  Anyone else?

I thought the former was KingIcky. Either that or King "If You Kount".

I never had any interaction with Jaimie but given his racism just start referring to him as Jiménez.

[Mathilda]

Not a bad idea. Of course I'll have to ask them before they get banned.

Easy enough to do in most cases. Obvious troll is obvious and most of us can spot the ones that are going to get themselves banned quickly.

I created a chew toy user group and tested it out on kingiyk. The name is in hot pink and even has a different icon rather than the stars that normal members get.

You can see it with @TestUser

[Paleophyte]

Easy enough to do in most cases. Obvious troll is obvious and most of us can spot the ones that are going to get themselves banned quickly.

I created a chew toy user group and tested it out on kingiyk. The name is in hot pink and even has a different icon rather than the stars that normal members get.

You can see it with @TestUser

I had wondered about the hot pink username. I like the look.

[Dānu]

No! Hot pink should be for users who are FABULOUS!

[KingEric]

Maybe there should also be an award for the least silly argument made on god's behalf?

[Minimalist]

No!  Hot pink should be for users who are FABULOUS!

But...which bathroom would he use?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Easy enough to do in most cases. Obvious troll is obvious and most of us can spot the ones that are going to get themselves banned quickly.

I created a chew toy user group and tested it out on kingiyk. The name is in hot pink and even has a different icon rather than the stars that normal members get.

You can see it with @TestUser

I was at one time a mod at a freethought forum, and suggested and won approval for a subforum for trolls called "The Oubliette". Trolls and assorted dickweeds could be sentenced to posting in that sub alone for varying terms depending on the offense. Rules pretty much didn't apply there, but essentially they were jailed in the same sewer they tried to make of the threads the crapped on.

[Reltzik]

Not a bad idea. Of course I'll have to ask them before they get banned.

Easy enough to do in most cases. Obvious troll is obvious and most of us can spot the ones that are going to get themselves banned quickly. It isn't as if they're a subtle beast. All you need then is a post that you can point them to along the lines of "Are you eligible for a Chew Toy Award and an extra helping of scorn and derision? Please don't forget to give your acceptance speech before you get banned!"

And to that end I feel like we should give these awards a proper name.

• "The Chew Toy Award" is prosaic but pedestrian.
  
• "A Chewie" has a nice ring to it, much like an Oscar, but obvious associations with loveable Wookies.
  
• "A Kong" is similarly associated with a big ape and might not be obvious enough.
  
• "A Squeaky" might work well. The chew toy most likely to keep us entertained until we break it?
  
• "The Steaming Heap of Technicolour Dog Crap" is a bit of a mouthful despite some nice allusions to the toy most likely to be chewed up and shat out.
  
• "A Trollie" might simply encourage many of them.
  
• "A Bridge/Billy-Goat/Gruff Award" would probably require more literacy than most of out trolls have.
  

Whatever name we give to the awards, I insist that the candidates be referred to as gnaw-minees.

[Dānu]

Can I nominate jerry?

[brewerb]

I wonder if we'll get one that demands to be banned before the end on the year? The bragging rights badge of honor types.

[Paleophyte]

Whatever name we give to the awards, I insist that the candidates be referred to as gnaw-minees.

Gnaw-minis? Chewed and inconsequential!