View Single Post
 
Reply
Posted 2004-06-26, 02:53 PM in reply to BlueCube's post starting "True, I was thinking of ratings from..."
Well obviously not, I could type things like

"Your mother is an enormously gay pig fucker"

all the time, which is a fine spelling, but it wouldn't make me worthy of an SoA, I know what you're saying.

I think a system of 0 to 6 would work.. everyone does a rating of someone based on A) Language usage and B) Content.

So let's say we have the 5 council people.

Person 1: A) 5 - B) 3
Person 2: A) 5 - B) 4
Person 3: A) 4 - B) 3
Person 4: A) 5 - B) 5
Person 5: A) 3 - B) 4

A) average is 22 / 5 = 4.4
B) average is 19 / 5 = 3.8

So using your weighted system, [((4.4* .35) = 1.54), + ((3.8* .65) = 2.74)] = 4.01.

Out of 6, that's a good rating, overall, but a SoA would be a 5 or higher.

GAHH would be 2.75 or lower, and BLIS would be a 1.5 or lower.

(Just random numbers, not set in stone or anything)


If there was a range of more than two, say one guy gave him a 2 on part A, and another gave him a 5, and everyone else was 3 and 4, one or both of those could be replaced by "backup council" members so to speak, to avoid bias.

Last edited by GravitonSurge; 2004-06-26 at 03:00 PM.
Old
Profile PM WWW Search
Grav never puts off to tomorrow what can be done the day after tomorrowGrav never puts off to tomorrow what can be done the day after tomorrowGrav never puts off to tomorrow what can be done the day after tomorrowGrav never puts off to tomorrow what can be done the day after tomorrowGrav never puts off to tomorrow what can be done the day after tomorrow
 
 
Grav