> You seem to be under the impression that I agree with Giles.
No, I merely stated that your "solution" took every "problem" that Giles observed, and magnified it: making all of those problems bigger.
> But he is correct to point out that current systems favour prolific posters, not quality posters. I used that idea as a jumping off point to perhaps find a solution...
Right, that was one of the problems he mentioned, and it's one of the problems I pointed out getting worse in your "solution." Your moderators would be those prolific posters: people who had time to be on the site regularly. The casual votes or submissions would be lost, and the system would continue to favor prolific posters. (OK, now I've brought this point up several times to you, you haven't addressed it, and you continue to act in a hostile manner.)
> You also seem to feel that...
I don't, but would like to note this fallacy of yours.
> I mean, take PG for example...
I read what he writes, and I'd recommend his recent essay, "How to disagree."
> As far as I am aware, no one has attempted to moderate a site this way yet (although maybe I have just not visited the right site yet).
Wikipedia is an example of this kind of moderated site with contributed content.
> Anyway, do you have anything more constructive to say other than 'but, but, you disagree with Giles!!!!!'?
Yes, I've mentioned it in every post, and you haven't addressed it, so I'll mention it twice in this one:
> But he is correct to point out that current systems favour prolific posters, not quality posters.
OK, so you _DO_ agree with him here.
> I used that idea as a jumping off point to perhaps find a solution...
And your "solution" goes completely against this. Moderators would not be, by definition, "quality" posters, but rather "prolific" posters. And if only moderators could submit content, we'd lose any casual "quality" submissions.
"Right, that was one of the problems he mentioned, and it's one of the problems I pointed out getting worse in your "solution." Your moderators would be those prolific posters: people who had time to be on the site regularly. The casual votes or submissions would be lost, and the system would continue to favor prolific posters."
You see, right there. You seem to think I was being nasty by suggesting your maths was subpar. And yet... Here, let me give you a nice simple, concrete example:
Poster A only posts once a month. A casual poster by most definitions. But his posts are always interesting and relevant. He averages 30 points for each of these posts, but in a three month period only gains 90 points. However, as he has only made 3 posts, he finishes with an average of 30.
Poster B is a prolific poster (by the way, maybe it's your understanding of the word 'prolific' which is the problem here - it means 'producing in large quantities'). She is on the site every day, posts messages at least 5 times a day, and gets about 2 points for each message. Over the three month period, she makes about 900 points. BUT, her average, due to the fact that she has made about 450 posts, is only 2.
So, under the system I propose, is it the prolific poster, or the quality poster that gets moderater status? Well, seeing as my system works on averages, it's obviously the quality poster. Which of course shows that when you baldly asserted :'Moderators would not be, by definition, "quality" posters, but rather "prolific" posters', you were just plain wrong.
I dont know, maybe your maths doesn't suck, but if that's the case, you have a serious problem with reading comprehension. Either way, you're just plain wrong in what you assert. Sorry if you don't like hearing that.
'And if only moderators could submit content, we'd lose any casual "quality" submissions.'
Ah hah! There! I knew you could do it! A valid point! This is indeed a downside to the system I proposed. The idea was to stop the forum being constantly flooded with techcrunch articles etc. But I'm willing to concede that this isn't perhaps critical. You probably could trash it, because in theory, the high quality moderators would vote down boring crap, and vote up interesting crap, providing an effective filter against rubbish submissions.
> You seem to think I was being nasty by suggesting your maths was subpar.
> maybe it's your understanding of the word 'prolific'
> maybe your maths doesn't suck, but if that's the case, you have a serious problem with reading comprehension
> you're just plain wrong
> Sorry if you don't like hearing that
> Ah hah! There! I knew you could do it! A valid point!
What's with the rampant condescension?
As far as that last "valid point", it's one that I stated awhile ago, and you've only addressed it now.
Look, I'm always willing to have an intelligent argument, but I'll defer a long discussion to when you're willing to make points without blatant fallacies. I'll offer this criticism:
Your latest example no longer talks about moderators. Ignoring this, if a poster averages 30 points per "post", this still falls back to points, and the idea of "popularity contests" and "vote when you agree" mentalities, which are _points_ Giles brought up in his post.
Sigh. Here's some helpful advice: when you're in a hole, stop digging!
> As far as that last "valid point", it's one that I stated awhile ago, and you've only addressed it now.
You did? I've just been back over your posts in this thread, and nowhere else do you mention moderators making (or not) submissions. But hey, I'll just add 'lacking honesty' to 'sucks at maths' and/or 'poor reading comprehension'.
> Your latest example no longer talks about moderators.
Oh? how about this: "So, under the system I propose, is it the prolific poster, or the quality poster that gets moderater status? Well, seeing as my system works on averages, it's obviously the quality poster."
This is the sort of thing that just makes you look silly. As I have previously said, either you have poor reading comprehension, or you're a liar - the evidence is there for all to see...
> Ignoring this, if a poster averages 30 points per "post", this still falls back to points, and the idea of "popularity contests" and "vote when you agree" mentalities, which are _points_ Giles brought up in his post.
Oh, here we go again; "but, but, you're disagreeing with Giles!". Yes, and what's your point exactly? I've already said that I disagree with Giles (twice before this post, but, hey, I'm happy to repeat myself if that'll help you). Apparently you're not terribly good at picking up on things that aren't explicitly stated (an even then!), so I'll explain.
Giles suggests that popularity contests (points systems) suck, because they are won by people that waste their time on blogs/news sites. I propose a system that keep points, but hopefully rewards quality rather than quantity of posting. Do you see what I have done there? I have attacked one of the assumptions of Giles' "Popularity contests suck" position - namely that popularity contests are always won by time-wasters, who generally speaking are not interesting people.
If you want to argue against my position, you need to demonstrate why my system won't correctly give voting rights to interesting people, or show why people that write interesting posts are not necessarily the best people to be deciding which other posts are interesting. Or maybe suggest a superior system that doesn't use points in any way.
What you can't do is simply repeat back to me Giles' position. I know what Giles' position is, he's been kind enough to write a big long entry on his blog to inform us all. Your repeated restating of his position, without adding anything new to the discussion, and completely failing to address any of the concerns I have raised is nothing other than good ol' fashioned trolling.
Look, what can I say. I suggest that you go back and read PG's essay on disagreeing again. Please note that he places a high value on actually addressing ideas presented in a post. Maybe you should try doing that rather than whinging about others being what you perceive to be condescending... When you start doing that, you'll be amazed by how quickly the condescending reponses disappear.
No, I merely stated that your "solution" took every "problem" that Giles observed, and magnified it: making all of those problems bigger.
> But he is correct to point out that current systems favour prolific posters, not quality posters. I used that idea as a jumping off point to perhaps find a solution...
Right, that was one of the problems he mentioned, and it's one of the problems I pointed out getting worse in your "solution." Your moderators would be those prolific posters: people who had time to be on the site regularly. The casual votes or submissions would be lost, and the system would continue to favor prolific posters. (OK, now I've brought this point up several times to you, you haven't addressed it, and you continue to act in a hostile manner.)
> You also seem to feel that...
I don't, but would like to note this fallacy of yours.
> I mean, take PG for example...
I read what he writes, and I'd recommend his recent essay, "How to disagree."
> As far as I am aware, no one has attempted to moderate a site this way yet (although maybe I have just not visited the right site yet).
Wikipedia is an example of this kind of moderated site with contributed content.
> Anyway, do you have anything more constructive to say other than 'but, but, you disagree with Giles!!!!!'?
Yes, I've mentioned it in every post, and you haven't addressed it, so I'll mention it twice in this one:
> But he is correct to point out that current systems favour prolific posters, not quality posters.
OK, so you _DO_ agree with him here.
> I used that idea as a jumping off point to perhaps find a solution...
And your "solution" goes completely against this. Moderators would not be, by definition, "quality" posters, but rather "prolific" posters. And if only moderators could submit content, we'd lose any casual "quality" submissions.