D
Deleted member 2205
1/1000000
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2019
- Posts
- 17,508
- Reputation
- 22,882
The normie scale seems like cope because you guys eep rating peopel 7/10 when they would be rated 9 or 10s by us.
The earlist rating scale used by blackpilled forums was decibil based. 9/10 was 90th percentile, 8/10 was 80th percentile, and so on.
I feel like this would be a shit way to rate because only 1 out of every 5 guys I see is what I consider good looking. And it would be stupid to have numbers 5-8 be all used to describe people who area normie tier.
The PSL system seems to be the best one. Here is my slightly revised version of it from judging people in burgerland.
8/8 - Universal attraction (No one can be here)
7/8 - Model (1 in a 1000) [Very rare]
6/8 - Chad (1 in 20) [5% of population]
5/8 - Upper normie/Chadlite (1 in 5) [20% of population]
4/8 - normie [50% of population]
3/8 - lower normie [20% of population] incel
2/8 - ugly [5% of population] incel
1/8 - deformed [Very rare] incel
The 3 range is often used to describe incels or the bottom 10%. But it needed to encroach a more broad audience in to make decimal rating a lot easier.
Ex:
If lower tier normie was 10%, and normie was 20%, then rating people between the 2 (eg. a 3.5) will be confusing because each nomber away from normie tier doesn't hold the same value (6 would be more common than 3 even though both are 1 away)
This means more people who were originally 4 would be a low 3.
If everone accepts the values provided, I will work on making a new rating scale with help from the community. The ideal rating system has to be 1 standerdized system to avoid autists rating incorrectly, or confusing the poster.
The integration of having only 3 values (3,4,5) as 90% of the population allows for easier rating, and more effective use of decimals (.25, .5, etc.)
The earlist rating scale used by blackpilled forums was decibil based. 9/10 was 90th percentile, 8/10 was 80th percentile, and so on.
I feel like this would be a shit way to rate because only 1 out of every 5 guys I see is what I consider good looking. And it would be stupid to have numbers 5-8 be all used to describe people who area normie tier.
The PSL system seems to be the best one. Here is my slightly revised version of it from judging people in burgerland.
8/8 - Universal attraction (No one can be here)
7/8 - Model (1 in a 1000) [Very rare]
6/8 - Chad (1 in 20) [5% of population]
5/8 - Upper normie/Chadlite (1 in 5) [20% of population]
4/8 - normie [50% of population]
3/8 - lower normie [20% of population] incel
2/8 - ugly [5% of population] incel
1/8 - deformed [Very rare] incel
The 3 range is often used to describe incels or the bottom 10%. But it needed to encroach a more broad audience in to make decimal rating a lot easier.
Ex:
If lower tier normie was 10%, and normie was 20%, then rating people between the 2 (eg. a 3.5) will be confusing because each nomber away from normie tier doesn't hold the same value (6 would be more common than 3 even though both are 1 away)
This means more people who were originally 4 would be a low 3.
If everone accepts the values provided, I will work on making a new rating scale with help from the community. The ideal rating system has to be 1 standerdized system to avoid autists rating incorrectly, or confusing the poster.
The integration of having only 3 values (3,4,5) as 90% of the population allows for easier rating, and more effective use of decimals (.25, .5, etc.)
Last edited:
