The Glade 4.0

This is also meaningless. Adopting this would not change the outcome of any of the games at all.

Team 1 scores 1st goal: 1 point.
Team 1 scores 2nd goal: 1.6 to 0.4
Team 1 scores 3rd goal: 2.2 to 0.8
Team 2 scores 1st goal: 2.2 to 1.8
Team 2 scores 2nd goal: 2.2 to 2.8
Game ends, Team 2 wins.

But why give Team 2 the whole point? Once you pass 2.2 to 2.2, Team 2 is now winning and you have to deduct their points. The way you really have to think about it is if it's 2.2 to 1.8, a point by Team 2 puts them ahead so you have to give 40% of that point to Team 1. The end result is that Team 1 still wins.

But they wouldnt be ahead if they only got 60% of their point. It would be 2.6 to 2.4.

How can an earned 2.8 be equal to an affirmative action 2.8 then? One is worked for, the other is given. Will it be assumed that cause I'm X demographic that I have an "earned" 2.8 and those who are a minority will not? That would be the exact opposite result that affirmative action was supposed to have.

Wouldn't the end result be recruiters looking at your numbers and make assumptions? What would it actually accomplish except put more butts in college seats for longer?

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Why would the "affirmative action" GPA be 2.8? GPA is zero-sum. If you want to give points to someone you have to take points away from another. The end result is either every single person has the exact same GPA, making GPA completely meaningless, or the people who "earn" their GPA will have higher GPAs than those who were given GPA points. The fact that the earners would have 2.9 while the affirmative actions would have 2.7 would not mean much. 2.9 would be the new 4.0, and 2.7 would be the new 2.0.

Uh, yes. It's 2.2 to 1.8. Team 1 has 2.2 and Team 2 has 1.8, so Team 1 is ahead. Team 1 gets 0.4 points and Team 2 gets 0.6 points. The score is now 2.6 to 2.4. Team 1 is still ahead. If you just scored it normally it would be 3-2. The outcome hasn't changed.

Team 1: 0.6 0.4
Team 1: 1.2 0.8
Team 1: 1.8 1.2
Team 1: 2.4 1.6
Team 1: 3.0 2.0
Team 1: 3.6 2.4
Team 2: 3.6 3.4
Team 2: 4.0 4.0
Team 2: 4.4 4.6

_________________

But when the justification is that X is excessive, the goal is to bring it down to where it's not excessive, right? Why, if the reason you're redistributing things is because X is excessive, would you redistribute NON-excessive alotments?

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Team that's ahead doesn't get points from loser's score, based on what I said above (which doesn't matter, I know, since it's dumb and nobody's proposing it anyway)

So why mess with it at all if all we are doing is playing a numbers game and not the stated purpouse of the action. (which oddly enough is the only point to affirmative action)

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Because the point is assigned when they are at 1.8, not 2.2. You don't "really have to think about it" the way you are stating; that just makes in even more complicated.

Besides, your way is equally stupid. All you're doing is saying "no, if you do it this way, it's a tie, not the winning team loses!". Duh. That's the point of the whole example. Why play competitive sports if one side can't win because we have to jerry-rig the math to prevent it?

That's why the idea of wealth redistribution is flawed. Not only is it not even a competition in the first place, why should we jerry rig it so people get what they haven't earned?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yes, it is totally pointless. That was my entire point, that redistributing GPA is not analogous to redistributing money.

It's only "not analogous" in the sense that it is less harmful to someone to redistribute GPA than to redistribute your money. That's really not much of an argument.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."