“brianfast” wrote: [quote="Ladon"][quote="brianfast"]All you are doing is changing the scale from .1-10 to 1-9. 9 just becomes the new 10 exept old films can have higher scores then new ones.

Am I? Where did I write that, because I honestly don’t remember ever deciding on a final numerical scale.

What I’m currently considering is in fact 0-10. 5 key points between 0 and 10 with a minor half in between them.

I’m not sure where you’re getting your information from, but I certainly never said anything about a 1-9 scale.[/quote]
Your latest rubric has 9 options. Unless you are counting by decimals one would assume your scale is either 0-8 or 1-9. And in another of your replys you justified removing the 10 option because no films deserve it.

I personally wouldn’t vote for a guy who hasn’t finalized what he will be doing, but maybe thats just me. :wink[/quote]

Well, nothing has been final up until now because I haven’t been elected. I don’t like seeing people say “This is what I WILL do! Vote Me!”, so I decided to go along the “This is what I could do, but this isn’t nearly as good as it could be.” path instead.

Well, if they don’t understand the final version, then they should take the time to flesh out what they don’t get. I know there are going to be some people who will run into the ratings with guns blazing, which I’m hoping to discourage. Ratings mean a lot to the director (as Tim and Watson have demonstrated), and I don’t want people to just think they know what each number means.

I’m going to take a crack at slimming that rubric right down next week, so it won’t take too much thinking, but enough to discourage the run-and-gun raters who take no notice of the meanings of their ratings.