Grav's Proposition Revision Draft
 

Proposition:

More or less, another bar and title to be added under a member's Avatar. A "Reputation Bar" and "Zelaron Status" so to speak. Member's threads/posts will be closely examined by their peers and given a particular rating. The ratings cover a wide variety of areas, whose range and deciding factors will be discussed in the coming sub-topics to follow.


Ratings:

As of right now, there are three proposed ratings to be awarded:

• Stamp of Approval™

• Generally Annoying and Hard Headed™

• Black List of Infinite Stupidity™

These are known as SoA, GAHH, and BLIS, as of right now. More will subsequently follow, as to give more precise and accurate ratings for the wide range of member's present at Zelaron. These still need to be discussed and established by the consensus.


Council Makeup:

The Council makeup, as of right now, is an undetermined group of 5 or so respected, mature, intelligent members that are incapable of biased decision making. Stipulations on this will be discussed in more detail later. There is also talk of giving the Council the distinguished, unused as of right now User Group, Advisors. This is still under discussion as well.


Proposed Council:

At the moment, there are a number of members being proposed to makeup the Council. Granted, none of these members, other than GravitonSurge, because he is the founder of the idea are guaranteed to be on the Council. Also, if you are not on this preliminary list, that does not exclude you from being on the Council.

GravitonSurge
Medieval Bob
Raziel
Penny_Bags
Thanatos (Jizmo)
uncapped
Vollstrecker
mjordan2nd

Names in Bold are Council members set in stone.

There is talk of not allowing Staff on the Council, which would eliminate Bob, Raziel, and Voll, thus giving 5 members right there, which might be a good, or absolutely horrendous Council. This was also the reason myself or other Senior Staff members were chosen as representatives. This will be decided later, if this resolution gets passed. Possibly via vote?


Member Votes:

Not only will the Council members have the ability to vote on member ratings, so will every member that fits the set criteria. Of course, Council votes will carry more leverage over non-Council members, but everyone will be given the opportunity to vote. Just how the voting goes down, will again, be discussed later.


Non-Council Criteria:

Only members that have been visiting Zelaron on a regular basis, for a decent amount of time, will be given the option to vote on other members. The proposed criteria, which is not by any means set in stone, is as follows:

• Must be a member for at least 4 months.

• Must have at least 250 posts.

• Must have at least a 35% Activity Level.

This criteria is to simply ensure that a member has had an adequate amount of time, activity, and experience with the other members. This is to make sure each voting member is able to make an educated and well developed decision.


Voting Basis:

Voting will be based on many categories, and a member's status will be evaluated on the following:

• Grammar - (A)

• Spelling - (A)

• Vocabulary - (A)

• Content - (B)

The first three are self-explanatory. Content is based on how useful a thread/post is. If nothing useful can be derived, then the post is clearly pointless. Of course, not all posts can be useful, and Zelaron is and always will be a place for members to visit and have fun, but as an overall view, members need to input good topics, debates, discussions, etc. every once in a while.

I think a system of 0 to 10 would work. Everyone does a rating of someone based on (A) Language usage and (B) Content.

So let's say we have the 5 Council people.

Person 1: A) 8.5 - B) 8.5
Person 2: A) 8.5 - B) 6.5
Person 3: A) 6.5 - B) 5.5
Person 4: A) 8.5 - B) 8.5
Person 5: A) 5.5 - B) 6.5

A) Average is: 37.5 / 5 = 7.5
B) Average is: 35.5 / 5 = 7.1

So using your weighted system, [((7.5 * .35) = 2.625), + ((7.1 * .65) = 4.615)] = 7.24

Out of 10, that's a good rating, overall, but a SoA would be an 8.5 or higher.

GAHH would be 4.5 or lower, and BLIS would be a 2.5 or lower.

(Just random numbers, not set in stone or anything)


Deliberation:

Deliberation will most likely goes as follows. Council members will put a member "on the chopping block", so to say. When this occurs, a public vote will take place, and last for 3 days only. The members will have their chance to vote on the initial rating a member is given. Once that vote goes through, the Council will deliberate. If both the members and Council majority agree, the member rating will be set.

Of course, with the set criteria for member's able to vote, the Senior Staff will be in charge or tallying the final votes. Just because the vote might be 12-10, doesn't necessarily mean that is the final vote. After each person that voted is analyzed, a final vote count will be determined.

Once all the initial ratings are agreed upon, the member portion of the voting process will be done, for the most part.


Deliberation Content:

Members and Council members will strictly base their decisions on particular Forums. The Test Forum, Chat Forum, and WRT are deemed as not worthy content deciding Forums, and will be excluded from the rating process.


Initial Ratings:

Initial ratings are currently undecided upon. Either a set date, or set amount of post count history will be used to get initial member ratings. For example, a member's previous 25 or 50 posts will be taken into deliberation, or possibly all posts within the previous 2 weeks will be used.


Judging Upkeep:

After the initial ratings are set, the Council will be the sole provider of the upkeep of member ratings. Meaning, there is no set time frame judging will be made, but rather, Council observations will be used to determine whether or not adjustments need to be made. If a Council member feels as though a member is suddenly undeserving of a particular rating, he will put up the alternate rating for the rest of the Council members to vote and decide upon. If a member rating is changed, it will be made as a public announcement, as to get member feedback. For the most part, these ratings will not be overturned, but if enough member opposition is present, a re-vote on the member will be conducted in the same fashion as the initial ratings.


Rating Stipulations:

Once you have received a particular rating, it will not be easy to move within the ranks. If you are BLIS'd, you will basically have to make a complete transformation if you ever want to become SoA'd. Of course, once the final outline for member ratings is introduced, a better understanding of member transitions will be seen.

Wow. Great job, Titus. I pretty much agree with the whole thing except for the 50% activity part. Say a member comes back after a hiatus and he/she becomes a regularly active poster again. It will take some time to get back up to 50%.

Maybe we just forget about activity %? Let's just look at the actual active posters and go from there?

Well, people who have left for a long period of time and come back, may not be familiar with a newer crowd of members. This may cause a bias of some sort for their voting, i.e. a first impression may really piss them off, so they hate that member. I see where you are coming from though.

The basic idea that I had that he incorporated above is that there would be some sort of member polling first, and if that vote passes, then it's passed to the council who will agree/disagree, if agreed, it's put into effect; if disagreed, it's vetoed.

Titus, that was awesome work. I agree with pretty much everything that you wrote.

What don't you agree with? Everything needs to be fine tuned.

I like most of it Titus, except the part where a members approval rating is based on his proper usage of the English language. Although some of you might find it aggravating when a member doesn't use proper English, I don't believe it should reflect upon how a person is rated. I think that a person should be judged solely on the content of their posts, and if their posts, due to their misuse of the English language, are difficult to comprehend then they could be gahhd or blisd.

Also, I would just like to let it be known that if I'm voted in I'm up for this council member thing.

Well, if some1 is typing lik dis then dey dunt rely desurve 2 be soa

I see no harm in it if they can be understood.

I don't really care if people type syxjzmzmz (can never spell that) but if they are typing like my example above, they just look plain stupid to me. Members should do their best to present themselves respectfully, not look like AOL idiots.

What if they are people of different nationalities, and their English is hard to understand, but they can't help it. I know this doesn't fall into that category. What if they are going using "Hey, U and meh r goin 2 b @ dat pwnzor partay?" Is that considered AOL idiocy? I hate internet lingo, it makes you look so unintelligient.

Under Sirpullido circumstances, I couldn't care less. Yes, it's AOL idiocy.


That's annoying to read.

there is nothing wrong if u dont use punctuation or if u use abbreviations as long as u can be understood...but hey...w/e...its ur idea so u do what u want

That doesn't seem to be too hard to understand.

It shouldn't be a negative, but it certainly lowers the ceiling a bit.. You're not going to have a bunch of people suggest that someone who types "omg i h8 dis guyz" is worthy of a SoA.

Grammar/Spelling/Vocabulary 35% (total), Content 65%. Grammar/Spelling/Vocabulary would be enough to block you from a SoA (unless you have some REALLY good posts), but probably not enough to be BLIS-ed on that one merit. Even if my percentages suck for some reason, I still think it should be a weighted average.

I agree with the weighted average thing like Blue Cube said.

I actually went over Titus's post again. With a weighted average, I think all of the rest of that sounds good.

Well, we're not machines, so this sort of thing isn't going to be solely based on input/output values. Variables always exist, these are just basic guidelines.

True, I was thinking of ratings from 0-10 or something.

If you got a 0 on spelling and 5 on content, that's (0*.35)+(5*.65)= 3.25 overall average, not good. 10 on spelling/2 on content, (10*.35)+(2*.65) = 4.8 overall.

Obviously, percentages only work if numbers are actually involved. If not, then spelling should simply be something to keep in mind, but not the whole argument for a SoA/GAHH/BLIS label. It would just support your position, but not by much.

Well obviously not, I could type things like

"Your mother is an enormously gay pig fucker"

all the time, which is a fine spelling, but it wouldn't make me worthy of an SoA, I know what you're saying.

I think a system of 0 to 6 would work.. everyone does a rating of someone based on A) Language usage and B) Content.

So let's say we have the 5 council people.

Person 1: A) 5 - B) 3
Person 2: A) 5 - B) 4
Person 3: A) 4 - B) 3
Person 4: A) 5 - B) 5
Person 5: A) 3 - B) 4

A) average is 22 / 5 = 4.4
B) average is 19 / 5 = 3.8

So using your weighted system, [((4.4* .35) = 1.54), + ((3.8* .65) = 2.74)] = 4.01.

Out of 6, that's a good rating, overall, but a SoA would be a 5 or higher.

GAHH would be 2.75 or lower, and BLIS would be a 1.5 or lower.

(Just random numbers, not set in stone or anything)


If there was a range of more than two, say one guy gave him a 2 on part A, and another gave him a 5, and everyone else was 3 and 4, one or both of those could be replaced by "backup council" members so to speak, to avoid bias.

Very nice titus.
One thing bothers me though, Is four months really long enough?
Someone explain why thats the "reliable" ammount of time.

Alright. Updated with Grav's example taken from BCube's idea of weighted judging. Also updated the Activity to 35%, since that is the minimum % for Staff members, and hence should be good enough for this.

Now, do we not agree that 4 months is an ample amount of time? If we really wanted, we could just as easily incorporate the system WW implemented for Senior Members, and use that as the required mimimum.

http://www.zelaron.com/forum/faq.php?