#kinjo tsurugi mention but i'm not gonna tag him here

[pragmaticide]

Mastering the EIGS Factor: A Guide to knowing who to cooperate with to survive the Killing Game (Shitpost)

Introduction

As we all know, Mxs.Pragmaticide has tried every means to prove that Whit Young is suspicious and untrustworthy as hell--based on which they designed a multi-dimensional dynamic risk assessment model that achieves fine-grained differentiation of character types through nonlinear functions and weight allocation.

Behold, the EIGS model—by ingeniously weaponizing variables like Outward Warmth (E) and Inner Warmth (I), we've cracked the code to exposing Whit's diabolical duality with the elegance of a raccoon dismantling a trash can.

Below is the complete mathematical model and usage instructions:

Upgraded Mathematical Model (EIGS)

Let four continuous variables (ranging from 0 to 5, integers or decimals allowed):

E: Outward Warmth (5=extremely warm, 0=extremely cold)

I: Inner Warmth (5=extremely kind, 0=extremely cold)

G: Grief Expression (5=extremely grief-stricken, 0=no reaction)

S: Suspicious Behavior (5=extremely suspicious, 0=completely normal)

Formula Design

Formula Interpretation and Weight Allocation

Decision Rules

EIGS factor ≥ 15: Extremely Dangerous (active deceivers or highly anomalous behavior, must avoid).

8 ≤ EIGS factor <15: High Risk (requires continuous observation and limited interaction).

3 ≤ EIGS factor <8: Moderate Risk (can cooperate but remain cautious).

EIGS factor <3: Safe (priority alliance targets).

Examples

Model Advantages

This model has several advantages. First of all, its Dynamic Nonlinearity ensures that Whit's gaping chasm between E=5 ("golden-retriever type of boyfriend! A cute and pink matchmaker!") and I=1 ("black hole of empathy") triggers a danger multiplier so explosive, it's basically Newton's fourth law: "For every smile Whit fakes, poor Charkitten's soul gets audited."

Meanwhile, Behavioral Sensitivity weaponizes metrics like Suspicious Behavior(S) and Grief Expression (G)—because nothing screams "trustworthy" like someone who makes puns about hanging and their classmates fed-to-the-wolves while muttering formulas about how to snap a person's neck under their breath.

But fear not! Our Safety Compensation Factor graciously deducts risk points for Whit's occasional "kindness" (e.g. pretending to have an eye surgery and monitoring Hu and Teruko while mentally calculating the TV show costs), because obviously, giving someone new clothes to wear in a Fangan, even if the clothes are stolen from the other party's house(poor Hu would never have expected Whit to use his three-dollar-store-thrifting abilities on her expensive Hanfu, would she?); neutralizes 0.0001% of their latent sociopathy.

Finally, Fine-Grained Classification dissects Whit's 16 personas across the Whitverse—from "Faux Altruist" to "Semi-Sentient Tax Evasion Algorithm"—proving, with spreadsheet-level rigor, that even his mid-tier evil modes outpace humanity's moral median like a Ferrari lapping a bicycle.

In conclusion, the EIGS model isn't just good—it's 666% peer-reviewed (only been seen by a writer who lives on the Western Hemisphere but keeps the same resting hours as Prag in the time zone of GMT+8 @rulanarinrush), ethically unhinged, and guaranteed to diagnose Whit's villainy faster than he can say "Aw Frig." Science!

Usage Recommendations

Congrats! Now that you've mastered the art of saying utter bullshit, deploy your Quantum-Tuned Paranoia Engine™ with the strategic finesse of Prag against any accuses that disagree to their Charxanteruwhitvid agenda: did someone just "accidentally" point their useless remote (that can't even make an elevator start running) at the lights of the computer lab where the redhair dies? Immediately boost their S to 4.9 faster than a conspiracy theorist connects dots, because that person (instead of Whit Young innocently displaying yaoi with his Hispanic little boyfriend for the audiences in the far corner) is definitely the mastermind!

When resources dwindle to "dirt on the ground and the aromy in the ballroom," redefine alliances like a billionaire redefining "middle class." Set your cooperation threshold to Danger<30—After all, you're so hungry now that there's nothing left to eat. As long as the other party isn't some blue-haired psychotic policeman screaming "justice" while pointing a gun at you; everying is negotiable. Remember: In the hunger games of trust, you're both Katniss and the tracker jackers.

Also, to cloak your inner Moriarty, calibrate E=3, I=3, G=4, S=1—achieving the charisma of a slightly damp sock and the menace of a spoon. This renders you invisible to both Eden Tobisa and Veronika Grebenshchikova, like a LinkedIn profile optimized for witness protection.

Pro Tip: If your Danger score ever dips below 1, congratulations—you've either become Gandhi 2.0 or a sentient doormat. Either way, update your will.

Final Notes

Please calculate with real-time data as the game progresses—your survival probability is directly proportional to the model’s rigor. Now, survive! (Unless you’re Whit Young, because your fate is doomed to be impaled by spikes like Chiaki Nanami or that boy in Forever Dead while you are left dying alone!)

Credits&Peer Review

Let's take a moment to bow down to Rula, whose sleep schedule is so inverted it makes bats look like morning yoga enthusiasts. Without their caffeine-fueled midnight cackles, this formula would just be math, not a masterclass in weaponized absurdity.

Then there's my data-obsessed irl accomplice Mxs Cai, who, upon seeing my Whit's E=5/I=1/G=0/S=4 rating, immediately tried to run a regression analysis. As the saying goes:

"Any equation can be a banger if you gaslight people into believing it." — Sun Tzu, probably