By old system, are we referring to < and + not being specific to any type of transaction? I would actually vote against it. It's partly to blame for my year of absence from the FC. You can accuse me of not fully understanding how that PCing system works, but I personally felt that this FC wasn't very useful or the PCs weren't meaningful when it felt so arbitrary how the PCer would seem to choose to round up or down and which < or + symbol to use.
I would much rather prefer < to refer to last report being a nis/inb, and + being ins/nib. This is one of the reasons I'm back to this FC, and happily volunteer to do PCing (while at work) with a system that I have very little disagreement with.
16-May-2015 18:46:34
- Last edited on
16-May-2015 18:47:15
by
boatium