tubechallenge.com

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

leamfarrar wrote: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.

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.

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]

tractakid wrote:V Weed

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

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.

A Challenge wrote:

tractakid wrote:V Weed

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

Don't make me cry

Sorry for the tracktakid typos, tractakid

DavidC wrote: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.

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.

DavidC wrote: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.

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

tractakid wrote: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.

A Challenge wrote:

tractakid wrote: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?

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