|
|
Post by supermillionaire on Nov 7, 2017 18:28:09 GMT -5
We should come up with a grading system to rate contestants' performances, both for the actual TV show and for the RPGs on this forum. The grading system should work similar to the academic grading systems used in elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and colleges. It should use the following letters:
A+ (excellent) A B+ (great) B C+ (good) C D+ (fair) D E+ (poor) E F (failed)
Obviously, winning $1 million would give you a grade of A+, whereas winning absolutely nothing at all ($0) will give you a grade of F, but where do the other amounts fit in? Be sure to use the classic amounts, with the classic milestones of $1,000 and $32,000. I would like to see this grading system implemented into all of the RPGs that are played on this forum. |
|
|
|
Post by FinalAnswer19 on Nov 7, 2017 22:45:19 GMT -5
1. Maybe it's an American thing, but I have never received an E grade.
2. I don't get it. Why do we need this? More specifically, why would we need this for RPGs?
|
|
|
|
Post by supermillionaire on Nov 8, 2017 10:21:41 GMT -5
E grades are rare, but I do remember seeing it used in a few grading systems; it's generally used for scores that range from 50-59%. D grades range from 60-69%. In some cases, though, they don't use the letter D grade, either; they just use A, B, C, and F. A ranges from 90-100%, B ranges from 80-89%, and C ranges from 70-79%. Perhaps I'll drop letters D and E, and just use A, B, C, and F, then? As for why I suggested this idea, it's because I thought that it would be nice to implement an academic-style grading system for contestants' performances. |
|
|
|
Post by multimillionaire93 on Nov 8, 2017 16:04:42 GMT -5
Right from the start, I actually, really don't think a grading system for a game show like MILLIONAIRE makes any sense AT ALL. It's way too redundant from what you ended up on the winnings ladder.
|
|
|
|
Post by thepixelpolygon on Nov 8, 2017 16:50:55 GMT -5
Right from the start, I actually, really don't think a grading system for a game show like MILLIONAIRE makes any sense AT ALL. It's way too redundant from what you ended up on the winnings ladder. I agree. I think the total winnings already give a good idea of how the contestant performed. |
|
|
|
Post by millionaireloveruk on Nov 8, 2017 18:04:20 GMT -5
Another major flaw could be that it is mathematically possible for someone to guess all 15 questions correctly. Granted, this number is incredibly small ((1/4)^15) but it is possible, and that should never deserve a good grade. However, this is, in my opinion, completely unnecessary. Also, it seems slightly ironic to me that you’ve made a thread criticising people who attack real-life contestants who mess up, so why should it be any different on the internet? Telling someone they failed simply through a mistake or pressing the wrong key on their keyboard goes against everything you said in your other thread, which is certainly hypocritical to say the least...  |
|
|
|
Post by millionairefan64 on Nov 9, 2017 0:55:58 GMT -5
I'm definitely not in the loop at all for a grading system. How it's already implemented in schools is already bad enough. Grades don't show how smart a person is at all, in fact i've seen documents of students on Youtube where they are actually really smart but the grades don't show because of the work they have to do. The last thing we want is for someone to be labeled on here based on a contestants performance especially in the RPG's
|
|
|
|
Post by supermillionaire on Nov 9, 2017 9:29:01 GMT -5
Another major flaw could be that it is mathematically possible for someone to guess all 15 questions correctly. Granted, this number is incredibly small ((1/4)^15) but it is possible, and that should never deserve a good grade. However, this is, in my opinion, completely unnecessary. Also, it seems slightly ironic to me that you’ve made a thread criticising people who attack real-life contestants who mess up, so why should it be any different on the internet? Telling someone they failed simply through a mistake or pressing the wrong key on their keyboard goes against everything you said in your other thread, which is certainly hypocritical to say the least... Well, I'm not saying that people who leave with nothing are stupid; they just didn't know the answers to the particular questions that they were faced with. Still, though, I thought that it would be interesting to give contestants grades because a professor told me about it. |
|
|
|
Post by millionaireloveruk on Nov 9, 2017 15:26:51 GMT -5
If you agree that it's bad to call people who leave with nothing stupid, then surely it would also be bad to say they 'failed', especially considering your other thread's title says that it's a bad thing?
I'm certainly confused, to say the least. When you use phrases such as: 'It's NOT funny to see contestants fail epically!' (Formatting is original) and then advocate for a system where we formally classify contestants has failing is a clear sense of hypocrisy... Elsewhere, you tell people to use the word 'lose/loss' instead of fail. Why does this go out of the window here? What exactly did this professor say to you, and more interestingly, what do they teach?
|
|
|
|
Post by supermillionaire on Nov 9, 2017 19:48:32 GMT -5
If you agree that it's bad to call people who leave with nothing stupid, then surely it would also be bad to say they 'failed', especially considering your other thread's title says that it's a bad thing? I'm certainly confused, to say the least. When you use phrases such as: ' It's NOT funny to see contestants fail epically!' (Formatting is original) and then advocate for a system where we formally classify contestants has failing is a clear sense of hypocrisy... Elsewhere, you tell people to use the word 'lose/loss' instead of fail. Why does this go out of the window here? What exactly did this professor say to you, and more interestingly, what do they teach? I'm taking psychology in college, and one of my professors suggested it to me if we do an experiment in which you would rate the contestants' performances using academic letter grades. I've also found that in video games, they sometimes give you grades for your performance. |
|
|
|
Post by Gagamillionaire on Nov 10, 2017 13:34:43 GMT -5
I'm taking psychology in college, and one of my professors suggested it to me if we do an experiment in which you would rate the contestants' performances using academic letter grades. I've also found that in video games, they sometimes give you grades for your performance. Care to elaborate what the experiment is? There must be more to it than "it's fun" if your professor suggested it. |
|
|
|
Post by pinballwiz45b on Nov 10, 2017 16:11:45 GMT -5
So grades for random questions that one may or may not know right off the bat.
Got it.
|
|
|
|
Post by supermillionaire on Nov 11, 2017 9:51:07 GMT -5
I'm taking psychology in college, and one of my professors suggested it to me if we do an experiment in which you would rate the contestants' performances using academic letter grades. I've also found that in video games, they sometimes give you grades for your performance. Care to elaborate what the experiment is? There must be more to it than "it's fun" if your professor suggested it. We didn't do an experiment yet, but I conceptualized that a random group of people would rate the contestants performance. If they grade someone with an F and states that they are stupid, they have committed fundamental attribution error. Of course, I don't think those contestants are stupid, but many people on YouTube do think that they're stupid, so we want the public's opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by millionaireloveruk on Nov 11, 2017 13:03:35 GMT -5
If they grade someone with an F and states that they are stupid, they have committed fundamental attribution error. To start with, what on earth is fundamental attribution error? Secondly, what would a hypothesis be for this kind of experiment, what are trying to find out? Thirdly, I still don't see the point in doing this. If you want to do it as some kind of experiment, okay, but I don't see why we should be your guinea pigs. |
|
|
|
Post by supermillionaire on Nov 11, 2017 13:36:10 GMT -5
Fundamental attribution error is the claim that in contrast to interpretations of their own behavior, people place undue emphasis on internal characteristics of the agent (character or intention), rather than external factors, in explaining other people's behavior. The effect has been described as "the tendency to believe that what people do reflects who they are". (Source: Wikipedia)
Actor-observer asymmetry bias explains the errors that one makes when forming attributions about the behavior of others. When people judge their own behavior, and they are the actor, they are more likely to attribute their actions to the particular situation than to a generalization about their personality. Yet when an observer is explaining the behavior of another person (the actor), they are more likely to attribute this behavior to the actors’ overall disposition rather than to situational factors. (Source: Wikipedia)
I discussed these concepts in a previous thread about people losing horribly on the show; the thread is called, "When people fail epically". |
|
) I guess the next on will be Poland then...
