The Dink Network

Reply to Re: Changes in The Dink Network's Files and Reviews

If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Username:
Password:
Subject:
Antispam: Enter Dink Smallwood's last name (surname) below.
Formatting: :) :( ;( :P ;) :D >( : :s :O evil cat blood
Bold font Italic font hyperlink Code tags
Message:
 
 
August 10th 2002, 06:26 PM
old.gif
Kat
Peasant She/Her Canada
We can out-drink most Americans! 
: : systems... I realized that it was.  Here is what I have planned:

: : : 9.0 - 9.9 = Exceptional

: : : 7.0 - 8.9 = Good

: : : 5.0 - 6.9 = Mediocre

: : : 3.0 - 4.9 = Tolerable

: : : 0.0 - 2.9 = Horrible

: : Whilst I applaud the avoidance of the contentious word "average", I'm not entirely certain that the application of mediocre, with it's negative connotations, is entirely constructive. Whilst this stems from my view that a 5.0 score should come from a wholly average (read - mediocre) experience, I feel that rating scores above this as average limits the scoring system - the narrower the range of scores for good d-mods, the less meaningful the scores become. It seems to me that this scoring system would pin the nature of bad d-mods down precisely, but be fairly innaccurate when it comes to the best.

: : But then, I'm not a fan of the percentile system anyway. Otherwise, it seems fine.

: Where the heck did you go Arik, to 'Make Lots of Big Words' school for your holiday or something?

: But I agree... I didn't want Average, and the only alternative I could think of was Mediocre.  I'll go to Thesaurus.com and try to find other alternatives.

:

::average = moderate or middling ? >^..^<