User Controls
Poll: 💦 How do we determine who has the yummiest cummiest cummies? 💦
- Pick a dedicated cummoisseur and mail them all individual cum samples to try
-
Each guy mails OP multiple cum samples to make cumcrates with everyones cum in them, mail these to everyone who sent cum
-
Self-report: tell us what the forward notes of your cum are, whether your nut is nutty or fruity, what aromas and tastes you experience
who has the tastiest cum on NIS
-
2022-12-30 at 2:19 AM UTCwonder if you could make it spicy if you drank a few bottles of tabasco
-
2022-12-30 at 2:22 AM UTCThere's pills you can take now to make it come out in four-color swirls.
-
2022-12-30 at 10:32 AM UTC
-
2022-12-30 at 10:58 AM UTC
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2022-12-31 at 12:54 AM UTCI'll send you a bunch if you'll watch me ejaculate and I get to watch you eat it. #NotJoking
-
2022-12-31 at 4:39 AM UTCIt's simple. All participants will mail samples to a neutral referee.
The referee will split these samples into batches that each omit only the semen of 1 participant.
Each participant is mailed back a sample from each batch and must taste and rank them by (for example) which one tasted worse I.e. the omitted semen was the best tasting, best tasting mix represents omission of the worst semen.
This way any positive additives etc will be distributed amongst all other semens except in the sample representing the semen with additive.
The opposite will be true for negative additives + ranking by best tasting.
So asking participants to rank by either best or worst tasting will simply produce inverted rankings.
This is useful because this component can be changed without affecting any other part of the study design and can be decided or changed up until the point the mixes are mailed back.
So each participant is randomly asked to rank by either best tasting or worse tasting. Then either half of the ranking are inverted to be added to the other.
Thus creating an effective enhancement against cheating with either positive or negative additives. -
2022-12-31 at 4:43 AM UTCFÃlter
-
2022-12-31 at 4:50 AM UTCEw. That’s gross.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2022-12-31 at 4:55 AM UTC
Originally posted by Balloon Man FÃlter
Originally posted by Balloon Man It's simple. All participants will mail samples to a neutral referee.
The referee will split these samples into batches that each omit only the semen of 1 participant.
Each participant is mailed back a sample from each batch and must taste and rank them by (for example) which one tasted worse I.e. the omitted semen was the best tasting, best tasting mix represents omission of the worst semen.
This way any positive additives etc will be distributed amongst all other semens except in the sample representing the semen with additive.
The opposite will be true for negative additives + ranking by best tasting.
So asking participants to rank by either best or worst tasting will simply produce inverted rankings.
This is useful because this component can be changed without affecting any other part of the study design and can be decided or changed up until the point the mixes are mailed back.
So each participant is randomly asked to rank by either best tasting or worse tasting. Then either half of the ranking are inverted to be added to the other.
Thus creating an effective enhancement against cheating with either positive or negative additives.
Shut ur clown ass up. SMH
Googling off the internet & adding a whole bunch of b.s😂 -
2022-12-31 at 4:56 AM UTC
-
2022-12-31 at 4:56 AM UTC
Originally posted by Balloon Man It's simple. All participants will mail samples to a neutral referee.
The referee will split these samples into batches that each omit only the semen of 1 participant.
Each participant is mailed back a sample from each batch and must taste and rank them by (for example) which one tasted worse I.e. the omitted semen was the best tasting, best tasting mix represents omission of the worst semen.
This way any positive additives etc will be distributed amongst all other semens except in the sample representing the semen with additive.
The opposite will be true for negative additives + ranking by best tasting.
So asking participants to rank by either best or worst tasting will simply produce inverted rankings.
This is useful because this component can be changed without affecting any other part of the study design and can be decided or changed up until the point the mixes are mailed back.
So each participant is randomly asked to rank by either best tasting or worse tasting. Then either half of the ranking are inverted to be added to the other.
Thus creating an effective enhancement against cheating with either positive or negative additives.
Wow you sure know a lot about eating a variety of cum. -
2022-12-31 at 4:57 AM UTCLol. Maybe u have too, Aldra
-
2022-12-31 at 4:58 AM UTCAlso I'm only participating if someone watches me ejaculate and I get to watch them eat the cum while I jack off again.
-
2022-12-31 at 11 AM UTC
-
2022-12-31 at 2:03 PM UTC
-
2022-12-31 at 5:40 PM UTCThe harder she hits you, the more she likes you.
-
2022-12-31 at 11:13 PM UTCShe just mad cuz I solved this thread's puzzle with clever test design
-
2023-01-04 at 1:21 PM UTC
