Wild Wild West - Part 2

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Yeah, I know Wes. You would prefer to know where the line is so you can snug your toes up as close as possible to it.........

Perhaps even edging a pinky over that line just to see if it's real or imaginary.

You can't be surprised.

I certainly wasn't.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

My specs for the programming of this system left me with the leeway to where I can select via member group which members will be able to utilize the warning points. I could limit it to Benefactor and Endowment only members, if I so choose (and in reality this may not be a half bad idea). Or else create an entirely separate member group solely for this purpose. Certainly either of these two options would greatly decrease the problem of retaliatory use of he warning points.

It should be people who are voted in. Not people who can pay more. That right there is NOT fair. I love this site, but i cant dish out 100 bucks for it.

Originally Posted by Mooing Tricycle

It should be people who are voted in. Not people who can pay more. That right there is NOT fair. I love this site, but i cant dish out 100 bucks for it.

That is an excellent point.
Why should someone new to the site that dishes out the big bucks automatically have a big stick? Maybe we should base the power on a combination of membership level and number of posts (or something similar).

Originally Posted by Mike Greathouse

That is an excellent point.
Why should someone new to the site that dishes out the big bucks automatically have a big stick? Maybe we should base the power on a combination of membership level and number of posts (or something similar).

There's good and bad with this, just like there's good and bad with all of it. Again, it will be interesting to see the outcome.

It is highly unlikely that a brand new member will shell out 100 bucks for the site to begin with; by the same token, the risk of seeming to cater to only a 'select' group of members and saying 'to hell with newer members' is great, too.

There are those that are good, just, objective folks who might not be big posters but have a high regard and/or find Fauna valuable, then there are big posters who are hot air blowers and find the opposite true.. then there are those that fall in the middle, as well.

If there is to be an election type thing, I agree with Kelli - call them mods and let 'er rip! If this is truly peer based, the distinction should be more representative of the member base as a whole, not a select few. With the rules in place, the ones who are abusing it will be obvious pretty quickly, and I don't think that will be a problem once the initial novelty (which it would be to some) wears off.

Originally Posted by Mike Greathouse

That is an excellent point.
Why should someone new to the site that dishes out the big bucks automatically have a big stick? Maybe we should base the power on a combination of membership level and number of posts (or something similar).

Number of posts would tend to have the effect of increasing trash posts, people with the one liners or one worders just trying to up their count.

Membership length would have the same issue, someone who's been registered since the last forum rollover with six total posts over that time frame probably isn't intellectually invested in the site.

I decided a couple years ago not to give Rich any more money for Fauna, if someone really feels like digging, they can probably find a post or two explaining my reasons but in the end, they are just that MY reasons... so I'm S.O.L. on the new system (although I'm disinclined to use it anyway, same as the karma), but I don't think there's any other impartial way of determining which members are or are not invested enough to get ability. Length of membership doesn't work, there are long term non-posters and probably any number of multiple logins that have been long dormant. Total post count doesn't work well either because it would both encourage and reward hollow posts (with a flat number, a post that consists of "lol" would have the same net value as someone who took the time to write something meaningful on a subject). Only thing left is contributor levels.

Originally Posted by lucille

There is actually a ding for 'warning point abuse' ("Warning system abuse 2")
so I think the plan is tenable as is. If I saw someone warning you for no good reason, Laura, I could in turn give them an abuse point.

Clarifying.. will the warnings be viewable by everyone so that retaliation and/or abuse IS known?

Originally Posted by Seamus Haley

Number of posts would tend to have the effect of increasing trash posts, people with the one liners or one worders just trying to up their count.

Membership length would have the same issue, someone who's been registered since the last forum rollover with six total posts over that time frame probably isn't intellectually invested in the site.

I decided a couple years ago not to give Rich any more money for Fauna, if someone really feels like digging, they can probably find a post or two explaining my reasons but in the end, they are just that MY reasons... so I'm S.O.L. on the new system (although I'm disinclined to use it anyway, same as the karma), but I don't think there's any other impartial way of determining which members are or are not invested enough to get ability. Length of membership doesn't work, there are long term non-posters and probably any number of multiple logins that have been long dormant. Total post count doesn't work well either because it would both encourage and reward hollow posts (with a flat number, a post that consists of "lol" would have the same net value as someone who took the time to write something meaningful on a subject). Only thing left is contributor levels.

Bingo! Thanks Seamus, I meant to address this in my previous post and then left it out.

Originally Posted by Seamus Haley

Number of posts would tend to have the effect of increasing trash posts, people with the one liners or one worders just trying to up their count.

Membership length would have the same issue, someone who's been registered since the last forum rollover with six total posts over that time frame probably isn't intellectually invested in the site.

I decided a couple years ago not to give Rich any more money for Fauna, if someone really feels like digging, they can probably find a post or two explaining my reasons but in the end, they are just that MY reasons... so I'm S.O.L. on the new system (although I'm disinclined to use it anyway, same as the karma), but I don't think there's any other impartial way of determining which members are or are not invested enough to get ability. Length of membership doesn't work, there are long term non-posters and probably any number of multiple logins that have been long dormant. Total post count doesn't work well either because it would both encourage and reward hollow posts (with a flat number, a post that consists of "lol" would have the same net value as someone who took the time to write something meaningful on a subject). Only thing left is contributor levels.

Also a great point, Seamus.
Possibly a combination of posts, duration of membership, and karma could be calculated. It just doesn't seem reasonable to put all of the power on the dollar.

Of course, we're probably making this all more complicated then it needs to be. Maybe everyone should just have an equal piece.

Originally Posted by Mike Greathouse

Also a great point, Seamus.
Possibly a combination of posts, duration of membership, and karma could be calculated. It just doesn't seem reasonable to put all of the power on the dollar.

Of course, we're probably making this all more complicated then it needs to be. Maybe everyone should just have an equal piece.

Equal is the only way to make it truly peer based. Who knows, it might up the participation level as a whole and prove fruitful in the long run.

Originally Posted by Mike Greathouse

That is an excellent point.
Why should someone new to the site that dishes out the big bucks automatically have a big stick? Maybe we should base the power on a combination of membership level and number of posts (or something similar).

I say it should be Truly active people on the board who wish to do it. I think a select group of people ( more mods, or mod type people) should be selected by us. the people who use, and care for this board and its progress.

There should be nominations allowed as well if you like somone and think they are capable of such a job then you should be able to nominate them for the position,that and people who offer to do it as well. If people see them as fair, and trustworthy they will vote for the people accordingly. This way, rich has control over the way the program is used, and the people have the option of who hands the points out! If one of these mods starts abusing the system, they can be voted OUT by the members. and rich can take those powers away.