Questions about proposed changes

[Jonathan Meer]

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.

This is just one reason why I'm completely against an X/10 system for determining Prestige (or any algorithm for that matter).

Tough skin will have to come with the territory. There should be no beating someone down (constructive being the key, implicit, word here), but there should be no babying either. This'll probably take a bit of time for some, but it'd work out.

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.

As you said, that was Burter. Personally, I would never run a saga that way, and would have been appalled if I was participating in a saga and watched that happen.

With more people, and the anonymity of the internet, there'll be someone who says 'Hey, actually, this really isn't all that great.' And once the point is made and shown, other people might be convinced. Or they might not.

If they vote it up regardless, there it is. Again, Staff can step in if need be (though Staff involvement should be kept as low as is reasonable, to ensure that this is, indeed, a democratic involvement).

I'm not saying what you're describing is a non-issue. There certainly will be some ickiness to overcome. But the fact that you're pissed about the saga, and would probably be pissed enough to raise a ruckus if you watched this happen in the C&C, is exactly the sort of fervor that is needed to ensure this DOESN'T happen. So be pissed about what you perceive to be improper. That's the spirit.

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'm not entirely sure what the last half of this paragraph means.

This is a second of many reasons why I'm against an algorithm. Rewards should be given out according to the absolute value of the production of an individual; not relative to the production of other people. Rewards don't happen on a spectrum.

This might seem like a non-point; of course our judgment of rewards will be based on an abstract, intuitive system by which we consider past judgments and the quality of the posts, and overlay that upon the current thread under consideration. But that it's abstract is, I think, significant. We should not be actively trying to rank people by this Community Grading system; that's a rather pointless endeavor. What is important is ensuring that people are rewarded for what they produce.

If everyone ends up writing to essentially the same high standard, then fabulous; I would say that, though Community Grading might be somewhat plateau-ish at that point, it would be a roaring success. Community Grading provides incentive for pouring quality into one's posts.

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.

People who produce are there.

It's a happy coincidence that, for the most part, the most productive members are also some of the more gifted as far as writing ability goes.

But it is, nevertheless, a coincidence. I, for one, have been turned off to the system for some time. I'm simply not as verbose as others. I have a naturally concise writing style. I'll spend a good hour or so on 300 words, sharpening it down so that not a single syllable is wasted. I take the economy of poetry, in the pieces I'm most pleased with, as my principle.

But when I care about stat-gaining, I don't bother with that shit. I go fucking stream of consciousness, let out the characters, drive drive drive, repeat, produce run-on sentences, introduce actions that are unnecessary but beef up the word count. I don't enjoy the product, but it's about ten times more effective in terms of gaining stats.

My writing style slips through the cracks, as far as CA goes. I don't much like that. And, I highly doubt I'm alone.