NationStates

Dyakovo wrote:

Dread Lady Nathicana wrote:Meh. Look before you sit - simple as. It isn't as though my hands are broken and I can't put it up or down as needed, nor vise versa. That said, the seat is usually down, and I have never made an issue of it being so. We have two males and two females in the house, and it's all more or less worked itself out without any necessary discussions, rules, or requests on the matter. Go fig. *shrugs*

Yeah, see, no-one is saying that the seat should be put back down because women are incapable of doing so themselves... In three out of four possible scenarios (women defecating, men defecating, women urinating) the seat is down, so doing so is simply a matter of courtesy. Why should the seat be left up for the one instance (men urinating) where that is the optimal arrangement?

Salus Maior wrote:If you're not a dick then yes, put the seat down. It's common courtesy, geez people...

Torisakia wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:If you're not a dick then yes, put the seat down. It's common courtesy, geez people...

If it was really common courtesy, we would put in blue toilet bowl cleaner in after every flush.

Salus Maior wrote:

Torisakia wrote:If it was really common courtesy, we would put in blue toilet bowl cleaner in after every flush.

A bit too time consuming ;P (although, think about it, a toilet that automatically cleans itself with every flush )

Grinning Dragon wrote:O.k., folks, time put aside all other social issues for one that is the most pressing social calamity that we face today, the toilet seat. Yes the toilet seat, up or down?
You know the same tired argument day in and day out, should men be expected to place the seat back down when finished? Where did such a sentiment come from? There isn’t anything mentioned in any rules or etiquette for toilet usage for us men (or some of the adventurous women who can pee standing up), to adhere to, just one of those unwritten mantras perhaps?

I myself am of the opinion, if I can lift it up, surely someone is quite capable of putting it down after use at a public or work place privy. At home, I place the seat and lid down, this isn’t done because of my wife, and it was done to prevent the accidental dropping of things into the toilet when the children used the privy, so I didn’t have to fish a toy, a toothpaste cap, etc., out with my hands or in the worst case scenario, a clogged toilet that would require a plumber.
Up, down, don’t matter?

Salandriagado wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Yeah, see, no-one is saying that the seat should be put back down because women are incapable of doing so themselves... In three out of four possible scenarios (women defecating, men defecating, women urinating) the seat is down, so doing so is simply a matter of courtesy. Why should the seat be left up for the one instance (men urinating) where that is the optimal arrangement?

The ratio is irrelevant. Where you leave the seat has no impact whatsoever on how many times it has to be moved (except that if you change it unnecessarily, it might then need to be changed back). The only change is who does it.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
The ratio is irrelevant. Where you leave the seat has no impact whatsoever on how many times it has to be moved (except that if you change it unnecessarily, it might then need to be changed back). The only change is who does it.

Well, no - that's clearly wrong. If women (generally) need the seat down, and men need it down half the time - then the seat only needs moving once in every four journeys if it is usually left down. It absolutely affects how many times it has to be moved.

Also, just have to point out - men don't NEED the seat up to pee. Men don't NEED to stand to pee, at all.

Scomagia wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Well, no - that's clearly wrong. If women (generally) need the seat down, and men need it down half the time - then the seat only needs moving once in every four journeys if it is usually left down. It absolutely affects how many times it has to be moved.

Also, just have to point out - men don't NEED the seat up to pee. Men don't NEED to stand to pee, at all.

Where's this "half the time" business coming from? I don't know about the rest of you, but I piss more during the day than I poo.

If you have even one female in the house, though, sitting down becomes more common than standing and so the seat should be set down after standing to pee.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
The ratio is irrelevant. Where you leave the seat has no impact whatsoever on how many times it has to be moved (except that if you change it unnecessarily, it might then need to be changed back). The only change is who does it.

Well, no - that's clearly wrong. If women (generally) need the seat down, and men need it down half the time - then the seat only needs moving once in every four journeys if it is usually left down. It absolutely affects how many times it has to be moved.

Also, just have to point out - men don't NEED the seat up to pee. Men don't NEED to stand to pee, at all.

Salandriagado wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Well, no - that's clearly wrong. If women (generally) need the seat down, and men need it down half the time - then the seat only needs moving once in every four journeys if it is usually left down. It absolutely affects how many times it has to be moved.

Also, just have to point out - men don't NEED the seat up to pee. Men don't NEED to stand to pee, at all.

No. The optimal system is always, under every circumstance, to not change its position from where it naturally ends up after you use it. By way of example, consider the situation where a man has just had a pee, and the seat is up. If he leaves the seat up, then it might or might not need putting down the next time it's used, with an average of something between 0 and 1 changes, the exact value depending on the people in question. If he does put it down, then either the next person wont change it (1 change), or they will (2 changes). That's an average somewhere between 1 and 2 changes.

• (0.25 UP)*(2 seat movements) = 0.5 seat movements expected under the "Always keep it down" algorithm
• (0.25 UP)*(0.75 DOWN BEFORE UP)*(1 seat movement) + (0.75 DOWN)*(0.25 UP BEFORE DOWN)*(1 seat movement) = 0.375 seat movements expected under the "Just fix it for your self" algorithm.

Tahar Joblis wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
No. The optimal system is always, under every circumstance, to not change its position from where it naturally ends up after you use it. By way of example, consider the situation where a man has just had a pee, and the seat is up. If he leaves the seat up, then it might or might not need putting down the next time it's used, with an average of something between 0 and 1 changes, the exact value depending on the people in question. If he does put it down, then either the next person wont change it (1 change), or they will (2 changes). That's an average somewhere between 1 and 2 changes.

This is actually correct probabilistic reasoning.

If you suppose that the probability p that the seat needs to be down is 0.75, for example, distributed as per Grave's claimed distribution of toilet usage, you have the following:

• (0.25 UP)*(2 seat movements) = 0.5 seat movements expected under the "Always keep it down" algorithm
• (0.25 UP)*(0.75 DOWN BEFORE UP)*(1 seat movement) + (0.75 DOWN)*(0.25 UP BEFORE DOWN)*(1 seat movement) = 0.375 seat movements expected under the "Just fix it for your self" algorithm.

If you wish to minimize the number of seat movements, the efficient method is to move the seat before using the toilet, when the desired state of the toilet is known. Incidentally, in the latter case, the sometimes-standing user(s) still expect to do most of the seat-moving work, doing 0.5 seat movements per usage, while the always-sitting user(s) expect to make only 0.25 seat movements per usage - the sometimes-standing user(s) do more work whenever p > 0.5 for that algorithm.

The seat-moving work is distributed more equally, but will always disfavor whoever makes the most use of the less common seat position.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Tahar Joblis wrote:This is actually correct probabilistic reasoning.

If you suppose that the probability p that the seat needs to be down is 0.75, for example, distributed as per Grave's claimed distribution of toilet usage, you have the following:

• (0.25 UP)*(2 seat movements) = 0.5 seat movements expected under the "Always keep it down" algorithm
• (0.25 UP)*(0.75 DOWN BEFORE UP)*(1 seat movement) + (0.75 DOWN)*(0.25 UP BEFORE DOWN)*(1 seat movement) = 0.375 seat movements expected under the "Just fix it for your self" algorithm.

If you wish to minimize the number of seat movements, the efficient method is to move the seat before using the toilet, when the desired state of the toilet is known. Incidentally, in the latter case, the sometimes-standing user(s) still expect to do most of the seat-moving work, doing 0.5 seat movements per usage, while the always-sitting user(s) expect to make only 0.25 seat movements per usage - the sometimes-standing user(s) do more work whenever p > 0.5 for that algorithm.

The seat-moving work is distributed more equally, but will always disfavor whoever makes the most use of the less common seat position.

but what if one of the women uses one of these half the time?

Hurdegaryp wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
but what if one of the women uses one of these half the time?

As far as I know, those have been developed mainly for use during music festivals. The mobile toilet cabins often tend to be occupied during such happenings, hence that tool.

Lantrus wrote:I put it down because I have cats now.

Hurdegaryp wrote:

Lantrus wrote:I put it down because I have cats now.

I've seen videos of cats using regular toilets as if it was a litter box, but your cats apparently think of your toilet as a drinking bowl, right?

Fionnuala_Saoirse wrote:Down with lid closed obviously. I'm not an unhygienic weirdo.

New Werpland wrote:Leave it down, leaving it up would be raxist and sexist.