Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Think about Loose Coupling
 
PerlMonks  

Re: A Proposal for Additional Levels

by demerphq (Chancellor)
on Oct 25, 2004 at 23:27 UTC ( #402389=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to A Proposal for Additional Levels

I personally think we should do this, but I also think we should drop the amounts of votes with 20 as the top amount for saints. I have implementation thoughts, but ill take that up in the scriptorium. :-)


---
demerphq

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
    -- Gandhi

    Flux8



Comment on Re: A Proposal for Additional Levels
Re^2: A Proposal for Additional Levels
by davido (Archbishop) on Oct 26, 2004 at 05:05 UTC

    I agree with petruchio's plan, and even agree with the proposed number of votes per level. I don't think that saints should be dropped to 20 votes though, and here's why. If the objective for lowering the max number of votes is to reduce reputation inflation, you're already accomplishing this by reducing the number of saints. Most of us don't even use all our votes in a given day anyway, but overall, reputation inflation will be kept in check by virtue of the fact that there are more levels between initiate and saint.

    As for the proposal to add new levels, I'm convinced this is a good idea. I'd love to be able to level up once more, though the proposed structure wouldn't afford me that dangling carrot. Nevertheless, it seems like it would be fun for people to have additional "just for fun" goals past 3000xp.

    I also want to voice disapproval of any negative-XP levels. Leveling up is a reward, and presumably to a troll, leveling down would be seen as such too. Let's not encourage them. I do support a proposal that got kicked around awhile back to remove something more than just voting privs. from negative XP individuals, of sufficient negativocity (new word). At -40, remove the ability to edit ones existing posts, and remove the ability to talk in CB (reading is fine). At -100, remove ability to read the CB too (but reading and writing nodes is still possible). At -200, remove posting any node. ...others may disagree, and I'm not 100% convinced, but it's just a thought.


    Dave

      The reason I think the maximum should be lower is that I think votes are valuable things. Giving people more than they can possibly donate to the really quality nodes here just leads to inflation. For instance in this world of 40 votes im going to ++ you because I think your reply is articulate and well said. If I only had 10 or 20 votes then no-offense but I wouldn't. Thats the kind of thinking I personally would pursue.


      ---
      demerphq

        First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
        -- Gandhi

        Flux8


        I'll ++ that. ;)

        I do understand where you're going. But the fact that 'saint' just became more than three times harder to reach, vote inflation isn't such an issue (under the newly proposed system).

        Besides, if you stop ++'ing my nodes how am I ever going to reach level vroom? (just kidding).

        Let's comprimise in our little world of two opinions. Knock saints down to 30-35 votes, not 20. There really are a few of those days where I find a lot of good things to vote on. I hate it when, on one of those days, there's that one additional node that deserves a positive vote, and I'm out because I got really interested in some other discussion earlier and spent all my votes there. 40 is a lot, but dropping down to 20 seems a little extreme.


        Dave

Re^2: A Proposal for Additional Levels
by diotalevi (Canon) on Oct 26, 2004 at 15:13 UTC
    I don't want to lose my 40 votes because that reduces their usefullness as read/unread markers. Sometimes my votes are no more meaningful than "I've seen this node."

      Frankly i think thats one of the worse excuses for having 40 votes that ive ever heard.

      You're in PMDev, figure out a smarter way to do that.


      ---
      demerphq

        First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
        -- Gandhi

        Flux8


      Browser history.

      --
      I'm not belgian but I play one on TV.

        That only works if you are willing to suffer with a note depth of 0 (if that even works).

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://402389]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others romping around the Monastery: (10)
As of 2014-07-31 09:51 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (248 votes), past polls