brooklincook
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 6
I've been here awhile now. And while long long time ago in a galaxy far far away (ok it was here) someone or some persons decided to "standardize" our way of indicating pooning pricing, I still see pricing references that I believe are inaccurate, if unintentionally so.
To date, the "agreed-upon" protocol is:
$ = 100 = 5 greens
So it follows that, for amounts > $100, would, as example be written:
$.2 = $140 (7 greens)
$$.5 = $250 (12 greens and 1 purple)
And amounts < $100, would be written, as example:
.6 = $60 (3 greens)
Personally I prefer $1.0 to mean $100 and $2.0 = $200 and $0.6 = $60, and so on. But that's not what's the accepted standard and I'm ok with that as long as it is used consistently.
However lately I've been seeing posts where I believe when people say, for example "$0.8" they really mean $80. And so forth. I could very well be wrong, but based on context that's what they sound like to me. I hate having to post just to ask for clarification on how much another pooner donated to an SP.
So I'm wondering since eforum.xxx has a constant turnover of members, whether the protocol we've been using so far is still clear and understood by everyone. Is it a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" ? Or perhaps people feel it could stand some tweaking ?
The floor is open. Feel free to step up to the mike
To date, the "agreed-upon" protocol is:
$ = 100 = 5 greens
So it follows that, for amounts > $100, would, as example be written:
$.2 = $140 (7 greens)
$$.5 = $250 (12 greens and 1 purple)
And amounts < $100, would be written, as example:
.6 = $60 (3 greens)
Personally I prefer $1.0 to mean $100 and $2.0 = $200 and $0.6 = $60, and so on. But that's not what's the accepted standard and I'm ok with that as long as it is used consistently.
However lately I've been seeing posts where I believe when people say, for example "$0.8" they really mean $80. And so forth. I could very well be wrong, but based on context that's what they sound like to me. I hate having to post just to ask for clarification on how much another pooner donated to an SP.
So I'm wondering since eforum.xxx has a constant turnover of members, whether the protocol we've been using so far is still clear and understood by everyone. Is it a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" ? Or perhaps people feel it could stand some tweaking ?
The floor is open. Feel free to step up to the mike