Combo Breaker [Round 1 Results]

or

or



or

I am such a jerk. ;-;

You sir, must have been really bored to make those graphs. I thank you for it.

I am such a jerk. ;-;

...i dont ahve too much play time ]=

Swerve: pimento Posts: 0

I think something's wrong here. I believe that should say: "Swerve: pimento Posts: 10"

[size='5']online bully #1[/size], seriously?

Investor.

wut

I r conphuzt.

What constitutes a "Win Post"? "Conv Post"? "Sac Post"? "Jerk Post"?

What the hell is a "Sac" and "Conv" post?

Return of the menace...NEAT-O.

"Conv" must be "Conversation"- as in probably talking to someone in the thread within the game, and I'm just going to guess "Sac"="Sacrifice".

I still don't get what constitutes any of those things, and how the rank system on percents and the statuses work.

What constitutes a "Win Post"? "Conv Post"? "Sac Post"? "Jerk Post"?

It's what Swerve wants them to be.

For example; FlameChocobo made 5 posts, all more or less the same (3 posts made repeating one statement, 2 posts with another statement), but yet 3 are win posts, 1 is a Conv post, and 1 is a Sac post. I fail to understand how 2 posts that were exactly the same can be Conv and Sac at the same time.

- Jerk post is when you made a statement that didn't follow the previous statement. Unintentional mistakes such as putting in paragraphs (Omni) were counted as jerk posts because Threads said that he discounted those and reset them to zero.

- Conv post stands for conversion post. It is the post immediately after a jerk post and repeats the statement converting it into a possible game winning post.

- Sac post stands for sacrificial post. It is posts 3 - 9 yet in a posting series that does not actually win. It stands for sacrifice because it does not lead to actually winning.

- Winning posts are the posts that won. All conv and sac posts if they contained the winning series were automatically converted to winning posts.

Grading went as follows: Conv posts counted twice, Jerk posts counted twice and were negative, sac posts were counted once, and winning posts were counted as empty yet were still factored into the total score. This was used in order to generate the final %

Feels good.

Swerve: pimento Posts: 0

I think something's wrong here. I believe that should say: "Swerve: pimento Posts: 10"

If you took a look at the graph you would notice that Ultros is the only one who got it. Therefore an pimento post is a post that ruins the chain and thus ended the first round. The labeling of posts despite being controversial has nothing to do with personal opinion. Each post was objectively counted and sampled. There are different methods of sampling the numbers that perhaps would be more accurate, but I don't really care to create more detailed categories that will only have one user in every section. The graph would just be a bit more subtle/gradual than the one I have up now probably.

[size='5']online bully #1[/size], seriously?

It only indicates that you never tried to play the game in order to win, never copied down the previous statement, and was the most frequent poster in the jerk category.

Numerically the winning posts should be counted as +1. Otherwise the score decreases for a win as opposed to a 9-series.

obvious nightclaw discrimination

Numerically the winning posts should be counted as +1. Otherwise the score decreases for a win as opposed to a 9-series.

Depends on what I'm trying to measure. I could have used different parameters. I think that this is fine though.

Why aren't I on this list? HMMMMM?