|
| Thread: Ideas, Ideas, Ideas..... | |
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
posted June 25, 2002 04:45 PM |
|
|
Ideas, Ideas, Ideas.....
Lately I've been seeing far more red stars given, because it made the Moderators laugh and not for good insight. I have no problem with this. Quality is a loose term. I think fewer Qp's go to good insight opposed to something more like Sir_Elric's animated picture thingies.(These are great )
I know that this has already been said, but THERE SHOULD BE DIFFERENT STARS FOR EACH ASPECT OF QUALITY. I'll explain why.
The ones that make you go "Wow that's a great post!" or "Hmmmm..." These should be called insightfulness points.
There should also be responsiblity points. These would be recieved as suggested from Valeriy by creating a table of contents for a a forum. Maybe it's just something that is good for the community. Maybe the mods can give out Rp's each month to all the most honorable participaters in HC. They could be posted in the index. Heroes of the Month These points are what should whether or not a person is banned, determine your thread timer, or whether or now one is able to rate threads.
The members that make everyone laugh should go under a different category called humor stars. You might say "But then only members that make the mods laugh will get Hp." The way humor points should be given is this: 20 members/mods/admin think that a post is funny. This will be done by members choosing whether or not it's funny. People with a certain amount of responsiblity points should only be able to give the humor points, this way we know that some moron isn't just to screw up the system.
As Val said one can do things to earn back the loss of QP's, but this is still very open-ended as to what you can do. You did suggest making a table of contents for the forums, but I don't think that every time someone screws up they should be able to go and make another table of contents. It should be given once, maybe twice, as something for a reward but that's it.
One question to Val/Mods?
Let's say Maniac makes a few table of contents and does some other things to make up for what his zero stars. He gets back to 2 stars. Can you do the same things to get 3 or 4 stars starting from 2 stars? Just wondering.
Let's jump to something different.
I have rarely seen QP's deducted for spamming. This is one of the things that is against the rules written in FAQ/Rules. You can tell when members are spamming on purpose, because you see them sticking nonsense posts in the middle of serious threads or word games. This forces the mods to trouble themselves by deleting the post. I think that several, deletions of posts from one member should lead to a -QP for spamming. I'm not against joking around, but it does come to a point sometimes when this action does need to be taken.
And let's move back to something more related.
Suppose we have a person who gets a ton of QP's from humor. This would be like the donut cartoon that Sir_Elric made. (These are great by the way) Now let's say that all this person ever does is spam and ruin other threads, this person should have a lot of humor stars, but lower responsiblity points. Under our current system, this person probably doesn't get hardly any points removed for spamming, but has 4 stars, because of their occasional humorous posts. Even if the person lost a couple of Qp's for spamming too much, they would still have 3 or 4 Qp's. I don't think that a person who spams all the time but is very funny should have the privilage of having a zero second post-timer. What would happen if such a person described person decided to go on a spamming rampage? This would not work. This person should have a lot of humor points, but lowered responsibilty points. This would prevent the number of posts, and hopefully lead to strictly funny comments from this person.
I'm not going to name names, but I do know of a few posters who always spam and just happen to have 3 stars, which all of the QP's still puzzle me as to why they were given in the first place. (Except for 2 of them which were funny)
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Conn
Responsible
Famous Hero
God slayer
|
|
posted June 25, 2002 05:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Lately I've been seeing far more red stars given, because it made the Moderators laugh and not for good insight. I have no problem with this. Quality is a loose term. I think fewer Qp's go to good insight opposed to something more like Sir_Elric's animated picture thingies.(These are great)
Maybe it's because this is the tavern, and people tend to joke a lot more than in other forums...I think if you'll look in the ALtar, for example, you'll see that the stars are given for insightfull posts, not for funny...
Quote:
I know that this has already been said, but THERE SHOULD BE DIFFERENT STARS FOR EACH ASPECT OF QUALITY. I'll explain why.
I believe Djive proposed this first, and i liked the ideea. However, Val exaplined the reasons why he's not going to use that ideea. Look in his threads to understand.
Quote:
As Val said one can do things to earn back the loss of QP's, but this is still very open-ended as to what you can do. You did suggest making a table of contents for the forums, but I don't think that every time someone screws up they should be able to go and make another table of contents. It should be given once, maybe twice, as something for a reward but that's it.
That is just one of th things you can do...
Quote:
One question to Val/Mods?
Let's say Maniac makes a few table of contents and does some other things to make up for what his zero stars. He gets back to 2 stars. Can you do the same things to get 3 or 4 stars starting from 2 stars? Just wondering.
And why not? The stars are given for quality, be it an insightfull post, or for helping out HC...
____________
 Whatever does not kill us, only makes us stronger
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted June 25, 2002 05:43 PM |
|
|
"I know that this has already been said, but THERE SHOULD BE DIFFERENT STARS FOR EACH ASPECT OF QUALITY. I'll explain why.
The ones that make you go "Wow that's a great post!" or "Hmmmm..." These should be called insightfulness points."
First off there are a number of insightful topics about Red Stars already. It's one of the most common subjects in the tavern. Most of the things you take up have already been handled and discussed.
"There should also be responsiblity points. These would be recieved as suggested from Valeriy by creating a table of contents for a a forum. Maybe it's just something that is good for the community. Maybe the mods can give out Rp's each month to all the most honorable participaters in HC."
QPs are rewarded for good posts, and doesn't take into consideration the type of good.
As Conn said I suggested something very similar. Your proposal does not have the flaw that bad responsibility gives more stars, but it still have the flaw I mentioned when I made my suggestion:
All the threads that have Bonus Applied takes no consideration to if the point is for humour or for responsibility. Therefore, redoing this is a lot of work. We also have a situation now where some topics which contained bonuses have been removed. So trying to recreate things will be difficult.
"They could be posted in the index. Heroes of the Month These points are what should whether or not a person is banned, determine your thread timer, or whether or now one is able to rate threads."
Good posts don't go away so they would build up over time. During a month you'd be very lucky if you got 1 or 2 QPs. The Heroes of the Month doesn't work well because it ignores past deeds and the red stars does not.
At the moment, I'm the one with the most QP (18). Shae_Trielle has 15, and Oldtimer/The_Hydra have 13 (last time I looked). Cat has 10. Can't recall anyone else on 10 or more, but could be some.
A new member would have to spend a very long time to reach this amount of QP.
"One question to Val/Mods?
Let's say Maniac makes a few table of contents and does some other things to make up for what his zero stars. He gets back to 2 stars. Can you do the same things to get 3 or 4 stars starting from 2 stars? Just wondering."
I can answer that for you.
Each penalty gives -1 QP.
Each bonus gives +1 QP.
These point accumulate over time.
Maniac has accumulated -10 QP at the moment. So to get back two red stars he needs 8 bonuses (and no penalties while gaining them). He needs 13 bonuses to get three red, and 18 bonuses to get four red.
"I have rarely seen QP's deducted for spamming. This is one of the things that is against the rules written in FAQ/Rules. You can tell when members are spamming on purpose, because you see them sticking nonsense posts in the middle of serious threads or word games. This forces the mods to trouble themselves by deleting the post. I think that several, deletions of posts from one member should lead to a -QP for spamming."
I'd agree. But Mods should be careful with applying penalties for this. In any case, Mods should send warnings to the spammer before applying this type of penalties.
"I'm not against joking around, but it does come to a point sometimes when this action does need to be taken."
"I don't think that a person who spams all the time but is very funny should have the privilage of having a zero second post-timer."
The 0 second timer was for four stars. You need 8 Qp (and no penalties while you gained them) for this person. To get this amount of Qp you need to be around for a long time. It's howerer very difficult to stop this and still be fair.
And I'm not convinced we should try to stop this. If someone has four stars then that person is important to the community and should have some trust from the Mods and Admin. So the risks for a person going bad and having four stars would be very small.
"What would happen if such a person described person decided to go on a spamming rampage? This would not work. This person should have a lot of humor points, but lowered responsibilty points. This would prevent the number of posts, and hopefully lead to strictly funny comments from this person."
If a person goes on a rampage QPs will disappear very rapidly. As soon as the QP falls below 8 the fourth star disappears and the flood-protect timer returns.
Three stars is not enough to remove the flood-protect. You need four and not many HC members have this.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
arachnid
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted June 25, 2002 05:57 PM |
|
|
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......................
Conn should get a star for a nice non-quote quote way of working thats easy to read and easy to do.
____________
|
|
Oldtimer
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Please leave a message after..
|
|
posted June 25, 2002 07:39 PM |
|
|
Just imagine a HC with another colored star system. Boy, just the new threads that it would generate could keep this forum alive another week(before the mods actually blow their brains out from the stress of everyone begging for the blue and the green stars).
Quality = the top 2% of posts, be they inspiring dissertations or cleaver one-liners. (If it is funny, it is not spam)
I have alot of humor stars but I also have some ideas stars and some good argument stars, does the motive for the point matter? Not really, if a new star system was implemented I might have alot of different kinds of stars because I am well rounded and better than everyone else. But I might not have enough in any one category to stand out against the more narrow focusses posters.
If you want more red stars, just be like me, (it should be your life's goal anyway) it will make you a better man.
____________
<PLEASE DO NOT WAKE THE OLD MAN!>
"Zzzz...Zzzz...Zzzz..."
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted June 25, 2002 08:16 PM |
|
|
|
Why limit ourselves to different colored stars? I for one would like to see purple hedgehogs awarded for insightful comments related to hedgehog breeding, tiny ice cream cones awarded for delicious recipe posts (vanilla = appetizer recipe, chocolate = main course recipe, strawberry = desert recipe) and dancing Henry Kissingers for any political themed post (that's good).
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted June 27, 2002 06:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"I don't think that a person who spams all the time but is very funny should have the privilage of having a zero second post-timer."
The 0 second timer was for four stars. You need 8 Qp (and no penalties while you gained them) for this person. To get this amount of Qp you need to be around for a long time. It's howerer very difficult to stop this and still be fair.
And I'm not convinced we should try to stop this. If someone has four stars then that person is important to the community and should have some trust from the Mods and Admin. So the risks for a person going bad and having four stars would be very small.
I think that the best way this could be accomplished would be to have the mods only award QP's to members they think they can trust. Personally, I think they are already doing this, but we just don't know about it. This means that I'll probably never get 4 stars, because I don't think that people trust me. I'm probably viewed as more of an annoyance, because I decided to challenge Wesley and Murphy. And because Arachnid gave me an annoyance level of 18.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
| |
|
|
