Removal of Combat Ability

[Jonathan Meer]

Man, that looks so more complicated than it needs to be. Also seems to demand work from not only the standard members who we´re trying to encourage roleplaying (not nescessarily offloading more work on them) and more on staff, despite the word count system most likely being implemented because it was much easier than revieweing each thread individually and giving a personal review and reward based upon the reading pleasure of the staff member, particularly back when Chubbs was bigger than it currently is. While it is a cool idea, in theory, that looks basically like way too much work and honestly I think I'd prefer just a staff member to do his thang and review it instead.

If reading the work your fellow rp-ers write and providing healthy criticism is something you don't wish to participate in, then perhaps you should consider what, exactly, you're doing here. That being your viewpoint, I don't think any system would entice you (and people like you) to function as part of the community. And that's fine, just don't expect any in-depth commentaries, reflections, and criticisms on the way you write.

Also it sounds like communism. Okay it doesn´t, but really. Having every member with a post count of 5+ (that is not a lot considering the current minimum word post) chipping in every time something needs to be reviewed like a hassle. Also if a writer is on a drive (that is usually when I tend to write the most) I usually finish multiple threads on the go within short period of times, those would both need all the same members to go review two things at once and it appears to just be a mess.

I threw out a system with variables that can be tweaked. If '5' is determined to be too low a threshhold for the post count, then it can be upped.

The system I described does not require every member with a post count of 5+ to comment on every single review thread. It doesn't require a member to comment on ANY review thread. That's their prerogative. I suspect the community here at Chubbs is strong enough, with enough dedicated members interested not only in their own writing but also in the writing of their peers, that no requirement is necessary.

Having standard members decide rewards regardless of effort put in begs for abusal of the system. I sometimes talk to Vad and most likely talk to him more than anyone else on the site, should I be tempted to read one of his pieces and therefore have valid reason to review his roleplaying, I wouldn´t claim myself to be objective because being truly objective is about as hard as hard gets. I know that in theory the numbers should outshine the one that appears to just be supporting his friend, but more than often I pull crap arguments and support them with stupid reasons ("much like this post"), sometimes people take it for decent reasons and accept the argument. I dunno, just my 2c on the matter.

I never suggested members should decide rewards regardless of effort.

Be as objective as you can be. If you decide that you're unable to be objective on a particular subject, then simply excuse yourself from that subject. However, I don't think a person need be overly objective; part of the purpose of the ratification process of proposals, involving 'seconds' and, if necessary, votes, is to buff out the extremes of subjectivity. Maybe someone with a stellar reputation will get a slightly better reward, on average, than someone with a lesser reputation, but I suspect this would be negligible at best. That said, I can't think of a single person on this site, currently, that is so counter to 'common' approval that their rewards would probably suffer. If this becomes a problem in the future, it can be met and handled. At any rate, Staff approval would provide another check against this sort of abuse.

Also the reasons to have this in your post to me strikes me as subjective matters that depend on the person judging them. Personally I like the plot of Star Wars but I´m pretty sure some (inhuman) person out there thought that the twist of the father was tacky and as such disliked the plot while I enjoyed it. Style is also something to be liked on a subjective level and is the reason that writers are distinctive against one another and the reason many people maybe stick to favorite writers. I´d like that "etc" elaborated with more points that maybe are less subjective.

If a person thinks something is tacky, then they should vote accordingly. I don't see a problem here. Enjoyability should certainly be part of the consideration.