I thought I'd reply to Michaels' comment here as follows:

:I previously stated that your scoring proposal
:was subjective. My feelings on that have not
:changed, and I think you'll have a hard time
:convincing others to go along with it. BUT, if
:you can get thge majority on the board to agree
:with you, then we'll implement it.

Some people, like Don, think that a prediction must be within 10 miles of a location. Others like Canie don't want the wrong city to be evacuated. Both are good points.

But what is it that we are trying to do here?
Are we trying to show that there is something to
a methodology that could eventually save peoples
lives with further improvement on the process by
people with better resources etc. or are we
trying to go for the home run?

Irregardless of the above, I had previously posted
that even if I knew down to the knats ass where a
quake was going to be I wouldn't divulge it for
reasons previously posted (I hate repeating
myself).

So where do we go from here? This decision will
be my decision as to what I will be doing.