Questions about proposed changes

[Belle Hibiki]

I don't expect anyone to be underendowed. Judging from previous C&C threads, I wholeheartedly expect everyone to consistently score eight to ten out of ten... Even if they deserve a five or a six.

Because, let's face it, very few of us C&C someone that we like and want to be mean. Even when you tell your friends to be brutally honest, they're still your friends, and all the logic in the world ("well if they really are your friends they should feel comfortable giving honest feedback") doesn't always change that.

Is the answer, then, to try and get people not in your clique to review you? Maybe, but I can still easily see THAT dissolving into a situation of "you scratch my back, I scratch yours"; an endless circle-jerk that is hard to outright stop, because most of the people here are at least reasonably competent, and it's very hard to sling down the Staff Hammer on a 6/10 post voted to 8/10 (probably common) than it would be a 2/10 voted to the same. The latter would be easy, the former would probably piss a lot of people off.

And the bias wouldn't be that bad? We have people here who have posted shittily in sagas and been given a pass over people that were clearly writing better for the explicitly stated reason that the saga runner was 'counting on the winner to write better in the future' because of the writing that they had done in previous rounds (which should have had no bearing). Admittedly, I think that was Burter, but the bigger concern (for me) was that no one seemed bothered by that, because they knew the winner, and how he 'normally' posted, and didn't want to see his feelings hurt. If people are fine with results of competition sagas being manipulated to that degree by bias, I can only imagine what will pass for C&C.

Then there's the issue of the spectrum. Most of us will/should be on that higher end of the rewards spectrum, because the application process weeds out those who would actually write terribly. We'd all be concentrated near the top (both from our writing and inflation from friendly judges). Is the answer, then, to form 'competent' as the 'bottom' rank of rewards? Do we really want to give people 'shit' rewards for writing fine? But is the alternative of nearly EVERYONE getting good stuff better?

I can see the attraction of it, though. Getting people more interconnected is a powerfully attractive idea. We've too often been in bubbles over the last two years, and I know barely anything about anyone aside from Kaden - and that's because I played with him.

At any rate, it's better than our current system, which is blind to writing ability and effort, and is interested only in the brute number of characters, stringed together.

/angryhat. I apologize in advance.

I am fucking tired of people snidely referencing the current system and insinuating that it is in some way a failure because it only accounts for a # of characters in a post.

Open the Goddamn CA list, look at the top fucking entries, and tell me who's there.