Tumbleweed Scores

[leamfarrar]

My computer doesn't give me seconds on the forums, so I'd rather just keep it how it is going.

[A Challenge]

My computer doesn't give me seconds on the forums, so I'd rather just keep it how it is going.

I think that there is a way to add in seconds to the forum time display custom, though I am not sure what it is.

[A Challenge]

Scores to 2nd January 2016 at 23:59 with weekly figures in italics, overall in bold.

DavidC 3600 77500
moley 3600 58775
Going Und. 675 30455
A Challenge 90 23110
leamfarrar 2175 13575
The muleteer 0 10885
michael_c. 2100 5775
Garion 150 1890
The Raven 0 450
h. traveller 0 375
tractakid 0 15
tubeguru 0 -44400



Moley scored highest this week alone, for the first week in a row after DavidC having six week scoring highest in a row. Total point scored this week is 10,890, (including my -900) which is 86.429% of the total points claimable.

[A Challenge]

Scores to 16th January 2016 at 23:59 with weekly figures in italics, overall in bold.

DavidC 2775 80275
moley 2625 61400
Going Und. 0 30455
A Challenge 1900 25010
leamfarrar 975 14550
The muleteer 0 10885
michael_c. 3225 9000
Garion 150 1890
The Raven 225 675
h. traveller 0 375
tractakid 0 15
tubeguru 0 -44400

Michael_churchill scored highest this week for his first week ever, this being the third week in a row with a different top scorer. The total points scored this week is 11725, which is 93.056% of the total points claimable.[/quote]

[A Challenge]

V Weed

Presumably you mean 5 weed but does that count as negative? What do people think?

[DavidC]

Your decision on 22 December implies that you are willing to accept claims involving Roman numerals (albeit an incorrect claim on that occasion). Therefore I think tracktakid would be justified in expecting credit for a claim that is a multiple of five. He significantly underclaimed, as is his right, and he is exposed to the risk of a formal ruling against Roman numerals at some point, but you have set the precedent for him to use Roman numerals. However, if tracktakid admits to a deliberate spoiler or an accidental miskey on a typewriter keyboard or the V resulting from a long press on the invalid 8 digit on a phone keypad or a finger slipping from the 5 on a phone keypad onto a long press on the adjacent 8 digit, I will happily leave that for deeper arbitration.

[tractakid]

V Weed

Presumably you mean 5 weed but does that count as negative? What do people think?

Don't make me cry

[DavidC]

Sorry for the tracktakid typos, tractakid

[A Challenge]

Your decision on 22 December implies that you are willing to accept claims involving Roman numerals (albeit an incorrect claim on that occasion). Therefore I think tracktakid would be justified in expecting credit for a claim that is a multiple of five. He significantly underclaimed, as is his right, and he is exposed to the risk of a formal ruling against Roman numerals at some point, but you have set the precedent for him to use Roman numerals. However, if tracktakid admits to a deliberate spoiler or an accidental miskey on a typewriter keyboard or the V resulting from a long press on the invalid 8 digit on a phone keypad or a finger slipping from the 5 on a phone keypad onto a long press on the adjacent 8 digit, I will happily leave that for deeper arbitration.

The only reason I didn't question it before was as the claim was invalid anyway, though I don't mind what the decision is.

[DavidC]

I feel no such sympathy for a non-integer entry : however closely it approaches a multiple of five, it isn't and never can be a true multiple of five. No integer, no integrity. Obviously any "it was an accidental keypress-repetition, guv" defence would need to be considered by a moderator.

[A Challenge]

I feel no such sympathy for a non-integer entry : however closely it approaches a multiple of five, it isn't and never can be a true multiple of five. No integer, no integrity. Obviously any "it was an accidental keypress-repetition, guv" defence would need to be considered by a moderator.

Shouldn't the score be -10, as I seem to remember that with pi it was rounded to 3.14 and 9.999 recurring rounds to 10.

[tractakid]

9.9 recurring doesn't round to 10, it equals 10.

[A Challenge]

9.9 recurring doesn't round to 10, it equals 10.

It isn't a 10 weed claim and therefore it is invalid. 10 minus 9.999 recurring is 0.000 recurring 1 not 0.

[tractakid]

9.9 recurring doesn't round to 10, it equals 10.

It isn't a 10 weed claim and therefore it is invalid. 10 minus 9.999 recurring is 0.000 recurring 1 not 0.

Do you know the definition of the word recurring?

[A Challenge]

Yes, but the claim should be for 10 weed not for 10, as there is a minuscule difference.