
Originally Posted by
Deano6
I must say that in my capacity as snooker referee and therefore occupational practitioner of keeping score with numbers, you have got your scaling all wrong here...
1) MRDROOPY
You say this is %age of time when your member is 'at ease', and 0% is desirable. Well if you score 0% then according to your formula, you are either scoring 0 overall (since this 0 x rest of formula = 0) or negative if you were reliant on VIAGRA for a portion. You should of course have 1 - MRDROOPY where 100% is desirable.
Then the first term in parentheses reads (1 - MRDROOPY - VIAGRA), which says reduce the score by % of time EITHER flaccid OR hard only through the blue pill.
2) ITSRAPE
I can't help thinking you're incentivising the wrong thing here. I have 4 issues, for which I will descend into Roman Numerals to prevent confusion with my current numbering system:
i. ITSRAPE is number of milligrams of rohypnol required to get participants in the mood. This figure is multiplied by 2.37 (an otherwise reasonable factor) and added to 1 to get the multiplicative factor contributing to the score. This implies that the more rohypnol the person requires, the higher the sexual prowess. However if you manage to get your victim to comply with your dirty requests with no medicinal assistance then you are not given any reward in the score, yet if you have no game and rely on them being out for the count before sticking your willy in untoward places you receive a high score. Again it is arse about tit.
ii. It is not well laid out how such a figure should be calculated across the participants. Should it be the minimum required to bring a participant into the set, the maximum administered or an average. Should you be considered in any count or average? We cannot afford to be lax here.
iii. The score requires that an ITSRAPE figure be calculated, ie that it be determined how much rohypnol would need to be administered to get a participant in the mood. Therefore once a determination has been made that a score will need to be calculated, it is then required that the unwholesome practise continue until its natural end. Thus if one of the participants decides she doesn't want to be part of it, in order for the formula to stand, she must continue taking the sweet elixir until she is unable to turn down the advances so that we know what her limit is. Isn't that a bit, I dunno, rapey? Just sayin'.
iv. Really, when you boil it down, this scoring encourages you to ensure your conquest can handle a lot of rohypnol. For this you are looking to the fatties and the perennially abused. Neither of which you should receive a high score for, as they will be more easily coerced into the act anyway, for very different reasons.
3) POPPERS
Yet again I believe you have got the scaling horribly wrong. You are dividing the score by 1 + number of nitrates inhaled. Now surely if such solvents are required then this is because either the orifices are too tight and need loosening, or because the wielding stick is too girthy. Both of these are marks of good sexual prowess and should be rewarded in the score, not penalised. Plus I'm gay and love taking them.
4) KY
I could argue here from the same premise as POPPERS, but I'll let this one stand as it is the job of the male of the pack to get the vag and back passage nice and juicy. I would recommend introducing a dampening factor here though as we don't want to put off eager young bucks from adequately lubing up before entering, and also because it's a good pun. DAMP? It's like reading a script from a Carry On film. (Very good!)
5) ORGASMOROSCAR
Here again we have a factor that is well considered but let down in the implementation. Whilst even the most die-hard amongst us would surely agree that participants should truly come like Old Faithful, you have your percentage downside up. You define the term as "The ratio of communicated enjoyment to the actual physiological climax". Thus lots of noise but no climax gives a very high, possibly infinite (if zero climax) score. If the reciprocal was introduced then indeed zero climax divided by plenty of canned adulation renders the score zero. The only problem is that the formula becomes corrupt if there is neither climax nor sound, but then that's probably a fair reflection of the evening's proceedings.
The only other comment is that if there is high climax coupled with high noise, this gets normalised back to one, not recognising that it is in fact the sexual prowess holy grail. Therefore the term would be better served as "ratio of actual physiological climax to the square root of communicated enjoyment". Think about it.
Therefore I propose the Deano6 modified-Bletch calculation as:
( (1 - MRDROOPY - VIAGRA) x (1 - (2.37 x ITSRAPE) ) * ( 1 + POPPERS ) / ( 1 + DAMP * KY ) ) * ( SQRT(COME) / ORGASMOROSCAR )
where COME = Communicated Enjoyment
and DAMP = Dampening factor (to be determined)
Bookmarks