Page 3 of 3

Re: Top 10 Most Negative Feedback List!

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 12:53 am
by Timminz
SlayerQC wrote:there's this dummy, DOMQUEBEC that has 53-53.

I wish the "shower" wouldnt have quebec in his nick, he's shaming a whole nation with his FB and even more with his replies.
If I was webmaster/lack I would change his nick to DUMQUEBEC, specially considering that lackattack is from quebec too.

QFT except the "whole nation" thing, but that's a discussion for another place and time.

Top Dog wrote:simtom has alot of negs but I don't know why...... he's a good friendly player I think he may fish for negs however.......

Have you read the negs? He went on a long streak of joining games just to deadbeat. The last time I checked before he started actually playing again, he was down to 6. I'm not sure if he ever made it down to 1, but he sure did try.

Re: Top 10 Most Negative Feedback List!

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 9:43 am
by Plumey
Well, if you want the numbers to be bigger, just multiply them by a constant.
For example, if your feedback is 65-15, just multiply them each by 999. So that would make them 64935-14985. Since you'd get even bigger numbers by multiplying them together, do that. 64935*14985=973,050,975
Just for fun, multiply the number by x+1 and take the derivative of it.
973050975*x+1 = 973050975x+973050975
The derivative would be 973,050,975.
Take the derivative and add 66, and then add up all the positive feedback of the first 10 players on the scoreboard. Then subtract the negative feedback of the first 10 players on the scoreboard from the positive feedback. After that, divide one number by the other, it doesn't matter which one you divide by. When you're done with that, graph y=x^2 and draw two dots in the middle. That's what you look like when you smile. :) Check the mirror.
When you're done with that, you'll magically realize that 65-15=50, and that the negative feedback in that case makes up about 18.7% of the total feedback.
Yeah, this is how you're supposed to do it. I would demonstrate it more comprehensively, but no.
Oh, translate the number into binary, too.