The attendance meter shouldn't go back up to 100%

[DirtyDishSoap]

Guess if someone suffers OCD, this would be a problem, otherwise, I fail to understand why this is an issue. Who cares? Go play the damn game and have fun, who cares if the number is being rounded from 99.5-99.9% to 100%.

[DoomYoshi]

So the numbers 100 and 0 are both rounded unevenly since turns taken above 100% is never rounded down and turns taken under 0% is never rounded up. The solution is to round >99.5 to 0, making 100 impossible for anyone. For those autistic freaks who want the number 100, there's always the short bus.

[nietzsche]

we found the hippie.

[Silly Knig-it]

Just look at it as CC's method of revirginization.

And think of the benefits of becoming once again pure and innocent.

[riskllama]

i think my attendance should be 110% because even tho i occasionally miss the odd turn here & there, i always try my hardest not to...

[Lord and Master]

The win rate data is given, whereas the turns missed data is absent. ie on walls it tells you played this many won this many right? Missed turns give no such data, which is what provoked my ire on this issue originally.
So a solitary figure of 100% with no data nor even the disclaimer that rounding is a thing is, at it's murky core, distastefully misleading and, which is worse, almost wilfully inaccurate.

[IcePack]

Win rate is also rounded

[Dukasaur]

So a solitary figure of 100% with no data nor even the disclaimer that rounding is a thing is,

No sane person would assume that such a figure would not involve rounding.

Does the speedometer in your car say you're doing 99.69835 km/hour?

When someone asks how old you are, do you specify that you're 32.877750264 years old? And do you realize that in the four seconds it took you to inform them of that fact, you aged 0.00000012 years, so your answer is now no longer correct -- you are actually 32.877750384 years old?

To be completely technical, '100' has only one significant digit. However, even if you want to argue that 100% implies three-digit accuracy, that still does not imply four-digit accuracy. If it did, it would say '100.0%'. And that would still be a rounded figure, which would not imply five-digit accuracy. If it claimed five-digit accuracy, it would be specified as '100.00%'.

All non-ordinal numbers used in the normal course of life are rounded unless they specify otherwise.

[Lord and Master]

So a solitary figure of 100% with no data nor even the disclaimer that rounding is a thing is,

No sane person would assume that such a figure would not involve rounding.

Does the speedometer in your car say you're doing 99.69835 km/hour?

When someone asks how old you are, do you specify that you're 32.877750264 years old? And do you realize that in the four seconds it took you to inform them of that fact, you aged 0.00000012 years, so your answer is now no longer correct -- you are actually 32.877750384 years old?

To be completely technical, '100' has only one significant digit. However, even if you want to argue that 100% implies three-digit accuracy, that still does not imply four-digit accuracy. If it did, it would say '100.0%'. And that would still be a rounded figure, which would not imply five-digit accuracy. If it claimed five-digit accuracy, it would be specified as '100.00%'.

All non-ordinal numbers used in the normal course of life are rounded unless they specify otherwise.

Well yeah, granted. Nonetheless I still feel, quite strongly, that a figure of 100% specifically is associated with a perfect record.
That's my whole bug-bear really, rounding everywhere else is fine just not when one would be presented as having the perfect score when it is not in fact perfect at all.
The friend in question asked if placing the "<" sign in front of the 100% would satisfy me and I believe it would, because at least then we would not be so grievously and wantonly misled.

[demonfork]

So a solitary figure of 100% with no data nor even the disclaimer that rounding is a thing is,

No sane person would assume that such a figure would not involve rounding.

Does the speedometer in your car say you're doing 99.69835 km/hour?

When someone asks how old you are, do you specify that you're 32.877750264 years old? And do you realize that in the four seconds it took you to inform them of that fact, you aged 0.00000012 years, so your answer is now no longer correct -- you are actually 32.877750384 years old?

To be completely technical, '100' has only one significant digit. However, even if you want to argue that 100% implies three-digit accuracy, that still does not imply four-digit accuracy. If it did, it would say '100.0%'. And that would still be a rounded figure, which would not imply five-digit accuracy. If it claimed five-digit accuracy, it would be specified as '100.00%'.

All non-ordinal numbers used in the normal course of life are rounded unless they specify otherwise.

Well yeah, granted. Nonetheless I still feel, quite strongly, that a figure of 100% specifically is associated with a perfect record.
That's my whole bug-bear really, rounding everywhere else is fine just not when one would be presented as having the perfect score when it is not in fact perfect at all.
The friend in question asked if placing the "<" sign in front of the 100% would satisfy me and I believe it would, because at least then we would not be so grievously and wantonly misled.

I guess the problem lies in your assumption that 100% means an absolute perfect record.

This is your own issue and it's too bad for you that you don't understand how tolerances, rounding & decimal place accuracy works.

[Bonnie16]

0500-THEUNION-800

We are here to take stance for those who truly play 100% of turns.

Call us now and we advice you through the ordeal.

--THEUNION

Ps. We take your spouse shall you miss a turn

[Lord and Master]

So a solitary figure of 100% with no data nor even the disclaimer that rounding is a thing is,

No sane person would assume that such a figure would not involve rounding.

Does the speedometer in your car say you're doing 99.69835 km/hour?

When someone asks how old you are, do you specify that you're 32.877750264 years old? And do you realize that in the four seconds it took you to inform them of that fact, you aged 0.00000012 years, so your answer is now no longer correct -- you are actually 32.877750384 years old?

To be completely technical, '100' has only one significant digit. However, even if you want to argue that 100% implies three-digit accuracy, that still does not imply four-digit accuracy. If it did, it would say '100.0%'. And that would still be a rounded figure, which would not imply five-digit accuracy. If it claimed five-digit accuracy, it would be specified as '100.00%'.

All non-ordinal numbers used in the normal course of life are rounded unless they specify otherwise.

Well yeah, granted. Nonetheless I still feel, quite strongly, that a figure of 100% specifically is associated with a perfect record.
That's my whole bug-bear really, rounding everywhere else is fine just not when one would be presented as having the perfect score when it is not in fact perfect at all.
The friend in question asked if placing the "<" sign in front of the 100% would satisfy me and I believe it would, because at least then we would not be so grievously and wantonly misled.

I guess the problem lies in your assumption that 100% means an absolute perfect record.

This is your own issue and it's too bad for you that you don't understand how tolerances, rounding & decimal place accuracy works.

How many times must it be stated that I have a full and thorough understanding of "how rounding works!?! Graarrgh!! Don't get me started on tolerance, you no-good hippy!

[demonfork]

So a solitary figure of 100% with no data nor even the disclaimer that rounding is a thing is,

No sane person would assume that such a figure would not involve rounding.

Does the speedometer in your car say you're doing 99.69835 km/hour?

When someone asks how old you are, do you specify that you're 32.877750264 years old? And do you realize that in the four seconds it took you to inform them of that fact, you aged 0.00000012 years, so your answer is now no longer correct -- you are actually 32.877750384 years old?

To be completely technical, '100' has only one significant digit. However, even if you want to argue that 100% implies three-digit accuracy, that still does not imply four-digit accuracy. If it did, it would say '100.0%'. And that would still be a rounded figure, which would not imply five-digit accuracy. If it claimed five-digit accuracy, it would be specified as '100.00%'.

All non-ordinal numbers used in the normal course of life are rounded unless they specify otherwise.

Well yeah, granted. Nonetheless I still feel, quite strongly, that a figure of 100% specifically is associated with a perfect record.
That's my whole bug-bear really, rounding everywhere else is fine just not when one would be presented as having the perfect score when it is not in fact perfect at all.
The friend in question asked if placing the "<" sign in front of the 100% would satisfy me and I believe it would, because at least then we would not be so grievously and wantonly misled.

I guess the problem lies in your assumption that 100% means an absolute perfect record.

This is your own issue and it's too bad for you that you don't understand how tolerances, rounding & decimal place accuracy works.

How many times must it be stated that I have a full and thorough understanding of "how rounding works!?! Graarrgh!! Don't get me started on tolerance, you no-good hippy!

So you claim to understand yet wont accept it.

Are you suggesting that we throw out all of the standards & rules that govern the universe and instead all just live in "Lord+Master" world?

[Lord and Master]

So you claim to understand yet wont accept it.

Are you suggesting that we throw out all of the standards & rules that govern the universe and instead all just live in "Lord+Master" world?

Now you're just being deliberately thick-as-fuck dickface

[2dimes]

I just missed a turn and it did not change. Maybe just take the meter off. It does seem a bit pointless.

[Lord and Master]

I just missed a turn and it did not change. Maybe just take the meter off. It does seem a bit pointless.

I think it's a good tool, just literally not in the specific case of having the strange sanctity of just what 100% means violated before my disbelieving eyes.

[2dimes]

Maybe it goes to 110% or something.