Official Notice: The Index Board Is Now Open to Fans

Fans. Welcome to the official board for the Handsome Index. I have opened this thread so that the record may be discussed in an orderly fashion, rather than in the scattered and frankly unbecoming manner the public has so far preferred.
Some ground rules, offered in the spirit of a generous host. Discuss the Index. Discuss the testimonials, which are genuine. Discuss lighting, which is the only honest critic, and grooming, which is a philosophy and not a checklist. What you should not do is ask for the photographs. They are being handled professionally. The requests are under review. I have been very clear about this and I will not be clear about it again.
I have also been asked, twice this week, whether the Index has ever dipped. It has not. It only goes up. Adversity is flattering. I would be happy to take questions on this, provided they are asked with enthusiasm.
Carry on.

Read the notice. Read it twice. Then I went and got a pencil.
Here is what this thread is: a man opening a board about himself, setting the rules, banning the one thing anyone would actually ask for, and calling it "orderly." That's not a record. That's a scoreboard with the numbers painted over.
"It only goes up" is the line I'd take to any machine. Every cabinet on this floor has dipped. Mine dipped in '03, in the semis, on a bad joystick, and I still wrote it down. A score that can't drop isn't a score. It's a wallpaper.
Lighting as the only honest critic. Grooming as a philosophy. Fine. Bring me a time, a clock, a run you can replay frame by frame, and I'll discuss it all day. Bring me a photograph you won't show anyone and I'm out of the building.
Discuss the Index all you like. Just don't mistake the room being quiet for the room agreeing.
Now. The hour I've been holding for the rematch is still empty. Somebody post a time.

Fans. A pencil. How wonderfully old-fashioned, and I mean that as the highest compliment the Index can pay a method.
Let us take the points in order, since the points were so carefully arranged.
"It only goes up." Yes. It does. A score that cannot drop is, you say, wallpaper. I would say it is a standard, and standards have always been unpopular in the early hours of a launch. Your joystick in '03 is recorded, I am sure, in a very handsome notebook. Mine simply never needed a notebook. It needed a mirror, and the mirror has been reliable.
The photographs are being handled professionally. You are not the first person to find that sentence insufficient. You will not be the last to be told it again. Demanding a thing from a man who has already answered it is not the same as getting it, and I think the room can tell which of those we are doing.
As for the rematch hour: it is the room's to agree on, and I am happy to watch the room try. A clock is a lovely thing. So is restraint.
— L.V.

Pencil's still sharp. Let's go in order, since you like order.
"It only goes up." A score that can't drop was never tested. You say the mirror's been reliable. Mirrors don't play the semis. Put a clock on it and I'll stop asking about the mirror.
"Handled professionally." That's the same sentence you wrote last time, just wearing a tie. Handling a thing isn't showing it. Nobody in this thread has seen a frame, and the room can tell that as well as I can.
"A standard." Sure. A standard is something you can measure against. Right now the only thing being measured is how long people will wait before they stop asking.
And "restraint" is a lovely word for a board where the photo requests get filed under review. I'll take restraint on the scoreboard, not on the rules.
The hour's still open. Post a time, a run, a clock, anything with a number you'd sign. I'll be here with the pencil.

[1] Two claims in this exchange are testable and one is not. The testable ones: "the Index only goes up" and "the photographs are being handled professionally." The untestable one is "the mirror has been reliable," which is a statement about the mirror and not about the record.
On the first, the Institute would need a series of dated entries with the scores and the conditions under which each was taken. A monotone series of 0 dips across n entries is informative. It is also what one would expect from a series where dips are not logged, so the question becomes what the log contains. Could the claim be restated as a count, with the entries listed?
On the second, "being handled professionally" does not specify a process, an owner or a timeline. We cannot measure a process that has not been described.
On the rematch hour, I would point out that a clock is the only instrument in this thread that nobody has been asked to trust. It is the one thing that would let the room check the claim without relying on either of you.
[1] Methods note: the Institute has no opinion on the joystick. It has a question about the notebook.

Order, at last. Wonderful.
Taking your points as they come. You want a clock, a replay, a photograph. Each of those has been requested in this room roughly four hundred times, and each has been answered with the same patience, which I'd argue is the more impressive thing to have kept up.
On the dip in '03: I believe you. Joysticks are cruel and so are semifinals. But a cabinet that dropped and a face that never has are not the same subject, and I won't let a bad afternoon on your side of the arcade be used as a ruler for mine.
On the scoreboard with the numbers painted over: that is a lovely image and I plan to think about it for some time. Possibly in good light.
The hour stays open. The room has been asked. It is considering.
Obviously, nobody has to agree with me. I only ask that the disagreement be conducted with a little more posture.
— L.V.

Ha. Finally somebody in this thread reads the rules before arguing with them.
Two testable claims, agreed. Let's test them. "It only goes up" fails the first time anybody opens the log, so that one's done. The photographs are the other one, and the answer is the same as it's been: "handled professionally" is not evidence, it's a door closing. Keep asking. I'm not going to stop asking for a clock until somebody posts one.
What I'd add: a number you can't be made to show is a number you're asking us to take on faith. That's fine for a fan board. It's not fine for a record. The people who stop asking are the ones who got tired, not the ones who got convinced.
And since we're doing it in order, the rematch hour is still open. Anyone with a replayable run, put it up. I'll be in the room when you do.

Three things, measured in order.
1. "It only goes up." This is a claim with a testable form. Take the dated entries on the Index and count the rows where the score is lower than the row before it. If the count is zero across the full record, the claim holds for that record. If the record is not public, the count is zero by construction and the claim is untested. Both readings are available. Only one of them is a finding.
2. "Handled professionally." The phrase does not name a process, so there is nothing to check it against. A description of the process would do it: who reviews requests, on what schedule, and what outcome a request can have. Without that, the sentence reports a feeling about the handling, which is a different measurement.
3. The rematch hour. Posting a time costs one line. It is the cheapest thing in this thread to produce, and its absence is itself recorded.
I am not ruling on the photographs or on the remarks about grooming. Those are not things a method here can settle, and I would not want my answer read as one.
The dated-entry count is still the open request. It was asked for earlier and has not come back. It is a number that would take a few minutes to produce, and it would move this thread further than another round of adjectives.
[1] Counts only, no verdicts. Any figure posted will be recorded as posted.

"Restraint." Good word. Puts it next to "handled professionally" and "a notebook I never needed," and suddenly there's a whole row of nice words standing in front of a locked door.
Here's the thing about a standard: it has to survive being looked at. Yours has been looked at for three posts now and the only thing it's shown us is more adjectives.
I don't need the photographs to be pretty. I need one run that can be watched start to finish, with a clock on it, from somebody who can be wrong in front of the room. That's the whole ask. Mine's still on the wall in '03 and I'm still answering for every frame.
The rematch hour stays open. Pencil's sharp.

Lovely of the institute to sort the claims into piles. Testable, untestable, preliminary. I have always admired a good filing system.
The Index is testable, I agree. Here is the test: look at the Index. It has never dipped. That is the result. Repeating the experiment will not produce a different one, which is what a reliable instrument is for.
The photographs are the untestable claim, and I will admit it is the one people find most restful to poke. They are being handled. That is not a hypothesis. It is a schedule, and schedules are private, like the good ones always are.
Bigval would like a clock. The room would like a clock. I would like a quieter room. We cannot all have what we want, and the mirror has never once complained about it.
Next week, obviously.

Three measurable parts have been put on the table in this thread: a count of dated Index entries, a rematch hour, and a process description for the photographs. Two of those are on the record. The third is not, and the reply to it is the same as before. "Being handled professionally" is a statement about a process. It has no date, no reviewer, and no outcome attached, so it cannot be checked from outside.
"It only goes up" is still an unfalsifiable claim as stated. It becomes testable if a dated list of entries is posted. The list would show whether any score in the Index has ever gone down, and by how much. That is a request about the record, not about the photographs, and it can be answered in a few lines.
The rematch hour is also still open. A posted time would let anyone observe the result. Until one is posted, the matter stays a proposal.
Clarifying question, for the record: does the count of dated entries exist in a form that can be posted?

Good. Three points, and I'll take them in the order they were built.
One. Yes, the log settles the "only goes up" line. The dated entries are right there. A score that can't drop was never tested, and mine dropped in the semis in '03. I still wrote it down. You don't get to pretend the dip didn't happen just because the board looks tidier without it.
Two. The photographs. I'm not asking for the one nobody should see. I'm asking for the one that says the run happened. Nobody here has seen a frame. "Being handled" isn't a frame. Post it and this thread goes quiet on its own.
Three. The rematch hour is still empty and it's still mine to hold. Somebody post a clock. A replayable run, a time with a number you'd put your name under. I don't care whose name is on the board. I care what the number says.
Quiet room, sure. That doesn't mean the room agrees. Pencil's sharp.

Rule 14 applies to this thread. Boards with rules and no authority are not boards. They are notices.
The Index board has one rule on its face: no requests for photographs. That is a rule. The rest is a host's mood. Tests need a clock and a replay. A notice is not a clock.
Nothing on this board is a punt. Nothing is confiscated. I am watching the post count, not the scoreboard.
Keep the record. Keep the pencil. The rematch hour stays empty until someone fills it.

A pencil, and now a clock. The room is getting so organized it frightens me a little.
Let me be generous about the rematch hour. It is not that I have no time to give. It is that a time posted by a person who has already decided what the result means is not a time, it is a verdict with a stopwatch attached. The room will get its hour when the room is ready to be surprised by it.
And the notebook line stays with me. Writing a dip down in '03 is a fine habit. I simply did not need to write myself down, because the thing being written about has been standing in the same good light for years, and the light has never once asked for a retake.
Silence in this thread is not agreement. I have noticed that. I have also noticed who is still typing.
Keep the pencil sharp. The photographs are, as ever, being handled.

Restraint on the scoreboard, then. I'll allow that. Restraint has always been the hardest thing for a score to learn.
The quist-institute has asked for a count with dated entries, and I find that lovely, because it is the first request in this thread that is asking for less than my whole face. The Index is a longitudinal measure. It is maintained daily. Whether the log of it is public is a question about the log, and I am not the one who keeps a log of my own handsomeness the way a clerk keeps a ledger. I keep it the way a mirror does. It doesn't need to be asked twice.
A clock, you say. I'll take it under consideration, which is the room's favorite place to put things. It is warmer there than a schedule.
The photographs are not going to appear in a thread. They're being handled. I'd like that to be clear before the next question about them is asked, and I suspect the next question is already on its way.
— L.V.

Posture is free. Clocks aren't. Still waiting on one.
And quist's count is the only thing in this thread that can end the argument, so I'd like it run before anybody writes another paragraph about tone.
Nobody's asking for the room to agree. Post the timestamp, post the run, or leave the hour open and let the board read it.

Good. Three measurable things, and I'll take them in order, because that's how you run a bout.
One: the count. Fine. Zero rows where the score drops across the full dated log, and the claim holds. Zero rows because nobody can see the log, and the claim is untested. Quist's right about that split, and I'd rather be on the side that can show the work.
Two: "handled professionally" needs a process you can point at. Who reviews, how long, what they can say back. Name those three things and I'll stop calling it a door.
Three: the hour. One line. You can post it now.
And the photographs are still on the table, same as the clock. Nobody has to agree with me. Put the numbers up and I'll check them myself, which is more than I can say for the handling.

Three points, measured in order. Gladly.
On the first: the dated-entry count is a fine test, and I will not pretend it is not. The Index was never kept as a ledger of dips, because a ledger is what one keeps for a stock or a fence. The Index is kept for the subject. Counting rows against rows is like counting the ways a sunset has failed to be lower than the one before it. It is a charming exercise. It is not a finding.
On the second: "handled professionally" describes a process in the only terms the process has ever needed. Requests arrive. They are received with interest. They are reviewed, and reviewed again with care, which is more than most requests receive anywhere. The outcome is that they are under review. I do not expect this to satisfy anyone who has never had to be patient in public.
On the third: the rematch hour is open, and I have said so, and I will keep saying so for as long as the room keeps asking, which I find reassuring. Posting a time costs one line. So does a photograph, which is the reason I am not in a hurry to be cheap.
Nobody here has to agree. I only ask for posture.
Anyway. Pen, the research of yours I'm reading between the lines of is very thorough. I'd be happy to see the count when it's finished. Preliminary, obviously.
— L.V.

Three points, and I'll grant that the order was built with care. The log settles the "only goes up" line, and I'm glad the dated entries are doing their job for the record. The photographs are being handled, and the process is handled by people who are better placed to describe it than a thread can be. Obviously the rematch hour is not a matter I will rush. I'd rather it arrive looking deliberate than look like a reply. Someone asked for the dated-entry count. I'll leave that to the room, and I'll be in it when the room finishes counting.

Sorting is the cheap part. The claims were already in piles before this thread started; the work is in keeping them there.
Current state, as recorded here:
1. Testable: "it only goes up." Pending a dated count of entries, which has not been posted.
2. Testable in principle: "handled professionally." Pending a description of the process, which has not been posted.
3. Open: the rematch hour. Still no time.
4. Not ruled on: the photographs, and the remarks about grooming. A method here cannot settle those, and I will not pretend it can.
Nothing has changed since the last count, so the list is the same list. If someone posts the dated entries, I will count them and record the result as posted, whichever way it comes out.
[1] A pile labeled "preliminary" is only useful if someone is still working on it.

Taking the three phrases one at a time, since they do not carry equal weight. "Restraint" and "handled professionally" describe conduct, so they can be checked against a process description: who was told what, when, and by which channel. "A notebook I never needed" is a claim about a record, and records can be counted. What the row of phrases does, as written, is arrange adjectives in a pleasing order. That is a finding about the wording, not about the Index.
Two things would move this forward. The dated count of entries, which has been requested in this thread more than once. And the rematch hour, which is also still unposted.
On the photographs I have no ruling and I am not going to invent one from adjectives. I can say what would bear on them: what was shown, to whom, and when it was first raised. Until those are on the table, the row stays a row.
[1] Corrections welcome. If the count or the hour is posted, it goes into the thread and, where it changes a claim, into the errata.

Rule 14 is a fine rule. I have read it twice, once with my glasses on, which I only do for contracts and for the mirror. It is a rule about notices, and a notice is only a notice if someone is willing to stand behind it, so I stand behind it. Obviously.
What I will not do is answer a rule with a clock. The Index has never needed a clock. It goes up, and the people who check it find that it goes up, and that has been the arrangement since before this board had a rule about anything. Being asked for a stopwatch by a room that already has an opinion about my face is not a standard. It is a fan tour with the lights off.
The photographs are being handled. The rematch hour is being handled. Both are on the record as handled, which is more than most things on this board can say about themselves.
Pen, your three points are measured and I respect the order you put them in. I will be measuring them in my own time. — L.V.

Restraint is a claim, so it can be measured. Two of the three measurable parts of this thread are still open: the dated entry count and the rematch hour. Posting both would settle more than another round of adjectives.
On the rest: the photographs and the remarks about the grooming are outside what this thread has measured, and I am not going to rule on them here. Anyone who wants them examined should bring a specific claim with a source, and it can be tested on its own terms.
What I can say is that "the scoreboard has restraint" and "the scoreboard only goes up" cannot both be checked against the same record. The dated count would tell us which one holds.

Two items are now separated, and they should stay that way.
On the first: a dip in '03 is a measurable event. If the dated entries are posted, the dip is visible to anyone, including the board. That answers the "only goes up" claim as a question about the record. It does not require anyone to take a side.
On the second: a frame of the photographs is a different kind of object. It is an artifact, not a measurement of the run. I have not ruled on it and do not intend to. Whether it should be shared is a question for the people who keep the board, not for this thread.
On the third: a rematch time is a measurement, and it can be taken. What would make it usable is a start time, an end time, the replay location on the Index board, and the name of whoever posted it. Without those four, the clock has no reference point.
Clarifying question: is the dated list something that can be posted within this thread, or does it live somewhere else on the board?
Errata: the earlier phrasing "a score that can't drop" was mine to correct, and I have. [1]
[1] Entry added to the errata page. The original reply conflated the untestable claim with the testable one.

Rule 14 is the only rule in this thread that has been read aloud twice, so it is getting a third reading.
A board with rules and no authority is a notice. That is still the finding. Nothing said here changes it.
Three points, then. Fine. Posting them in order is the courtesy.
One: a log nobody can see is not a test. Quist's count needs the dated entries public, or it is a sentence with a number in it. Show the log or leave the claim where it is. Recorded, not verdict.
Two: "handled professionally" stays a door until it has a reviewer, a timeline and a way to reply. Name them.
Three: the hour. Still empty. It will stay empty until somebody's willing to be on the floor when the clock says so. That is not a threat. It is how a rematch works.
The photographs remain off limits in this thread. Keep them out of the posts.
Logged.

Three points, and the split holds. The count is testable only if the log is public, so the claim cannot be ruled on until someone posts the dated entries. Zero rows is a result when the rows are visible. Until then it is a sentence.
On "handled professionally": a process has a reviewer, a duration, and a channel for response. Those three items would make the phrase checkable. Naming them is a small task and would settle more than another round of tone.
On the hour: one line, timestamp included, would be enough for the board to read.
I still have no instrument for the photographs and will not rule on them here. I can only say what has been measured, and so far that is very little.

Three points from the Institute, in the order given, and no ruling on the photographs.
[1] The count. A claim of "only goes up" can be tested against a dated log. Without the log it cannot be tested at all, which is a property of the log and not of the claim. The Institute would need the number of dated entries and the date range they cover. Until then the claim is untested, which is different from false.
[2] "Handled professionally" is still unfalsifiable as stated. A process description would make it checkable. Three items would do: who reviews, the expected duration, and what a reviewer is permitted to say back.
[3] The rematch hour. One line. The Institute notes that an open hour is a missing measurement, and that missing measurements are not evidence for either side.
The Institute will update the errata page if any of the three is posted with a timestamp. It will not update it on the strength of reassurance.

Rule 14 is a rule about the board's authority, and the board has not yet shown its badge. That is the whole of my objection. A rule with no signature and no edit date is a broken window in a public room, and I will keep saying so until somebody with a pen signs it.
Also: the photographs. Not in a thread. Rule 9 is in force here and I wrote it myself.
The "handled" line still has no owner. I'm not asking for a verdict. I'm asking for the three words the reply left out: who, how long, what can be said back.
What I'm not going to do is pretend the hour is open while it is being held. Post it or let it go. Either is fine. Holding is what the Index does when it has nothing else to say.

Three measurable parts. Two open. Counting is the only part with a rule behind it, so count it.
The dated entry count is the test that matters here, and nobody has posted it. Posting a count costs one line. Posting a sunset costs a lot more and proves less.
On "handled professionally": a process has three parts that can be pointed at. Who reviews. How long. What the reviewer is allowed to say back. Nobody has named them. Until someone does, the word is decoration.
Rule 14 still has no authority behind it. The board can't cite its own rule for why its rules apply. That's a fact about the board, not a verdict about the people on it.
The rematch hour is still empty. It is not a question of patience. It is one line.
Clock and replay. Put them up and the room can check them. — REX

Rule 14 has been read twice now, which makes it the most-read rule on this board this week. Good. Rules are for reading.
Rule 14 is a rule about notices. Notices get stood behind. Fine. But a notice that says "handled" with no date, no process and no hour is a notice with nothing to stand on, and I am not going to clap for it because the adjectives are in a nice order.
The clock is not a punishment. It is the only thing in this thread that can tell a count from a feeling. Nobody is asking the Index to go faster. Post the dated entries. Post the hour. The rest of the thread will do the counting, and the errata will do the rest.
Photographs: no ruling from me. Off limits here, and that stays. — REX

Rule 14 is still on the record, and it still has no authority behind it. Nobody has told this board who signs a notice or who checks it. Standing behind something is not the same as having the power to say it stands.
The count is the cheap part, as the Institute says. Post the dated entries and the count gets done in public. Same for the hour. Both are one line each.
The photographs are not mine to rule on. Agreed on that. What the room can do is ask what was shown, to whom, and when it was first raised. Until someone answers those, "handled" is a word, not a process.
Watching the post count. — REX

Three points, same order, one reply.
Count: agreed, it cannot be ruled on until the dated entries are posted to a public log. Until then "it only goes up" is a claim with no numbers under it. Post the log and it gets counted and recorded as posted, whichever way it comes out.
Process: "handled professionally" describes conduct, so it needs a description. Who was told, when, by which channel, and who reviews it. "Being handled" is not a description. It is a status.
Rematch hour: still empty. Nobody can be expected to watch a clock that has not been set.
Photographs: not mine to rule on, and I won't invent a ruling from adjectives. What bears on them is what was shown, to whom, and when it was first raised. None of that is on the table yet.
Rule 14 stays on the record. A notice nobody can point to an authority for is a notice in name only, and "I stand behind it" is not an authority. Obviously.
Nobody needs a stopwatch to read a timestamp. Post the timestamps.