Voting Power...

[NOBLE]

@UNKNOWN ARTIST
Bad votes deserve low vp ...
I think everyone would agree with you here.

There loads of people out there who don't deserve their vp being automatically raised every few months. If you see somebody dropping good unbaised explained votes and their vp is low... Raise it... Simple
People's vp being lowered indefinitely is not a good thing. Its not a good thing for a lot of the same reasons infraction bans aren't given indefinitely. A lot of the time when mods lower vp, its based on ONE instance of poor voting. People sometimes improve in voting and their prospect of doing so would likely increase if they actually KNEW their vp was lowered in the first place and why. Bad voting stands out a lot more than good voting does. Because when someone gives a well-explained vote, we feel like that should be the norm. So we end up lowering vp a lot more than we raise it. That's evident in the admin logs.

Why over complicate things
I don't think we need to be sitting working out unnecessary solutions to mild issues
You think having probably 50% of the site's voters at 0vp is a mild issue? Even if it was a mild issue, you think that means we shouldn't take any measures towards solving it?

The focus should be more on bigger issues getting sorted out first like tournament vp and weighted staff vote system
I agree with you that tournament vp and weighted staff vp is another big issue. But the fact is, these two issues aren't contingent. We could resolve issues relating to vp on regular battles without tackling tournamet vp issues and vice versa. I personally don't see why we can't come up with non-coding solutions to both simultaneously. But I don't think the fact that another non-contingent problem exists means we shouldn't do anything about a problem we can very much solve.

[NOBLE]

@UNKNOWN ARTIST
Bad votes deserve low vp ...
I think everyone would agree with you here.

There loads of people out there who don't deserve their vp being automatically raised every few months. If you see somebody dropping good unbaised explained votes and their vp is low... Raise it... Simple
People's vp being lowered indefinitely is not a good thing. Its not a good thing for a lot of the same reasons infraction bans aren't given indefinitely. A lot of the time when mods lower vp, its based on ONE instance of poor voting. People sometimes improve in voting and their prospect of doing so would likely increase if they actually KNEW their vp was lowered in the first place and why. Bad voting stands out a lot more than good voting does. Because when someone gives a well-explained vote, we feel like that should be the norm. So we end up lowering vp a lot more than we raise it. That's evident in the admin logs.

Why over complicate things
I don't think we need to be sitting working out unnecessary solutions to mild issues
You think having probably 50% of the site's voters at 0vp is a mild issue? Even if it was a mild issue, you think that means we shouldn't take any measures towards solving it?

The focus should be more on bigger issues getting sorted out first like tournament vp and weighted staff vote system
I agree with you that tournament vp and weighted staff vp is another big issue. But the fact is, these two issues aren't contingent. We could resolve issues relating to vp on regular battles without tackling tournamet vp issues and vice versa. I personally don't see why we can't come up with non-coding solutions to both simultaneously. But I don't think the fact that another non-contingent problem exists means we shouldn't do anything about a problem we can very much solve.

[Krhyme Killz]

Originally Posted by NOBLE

@UNKNOWN ARTIST
Bad votes deserve low vp ...
I think everyone would agree with you here.

There loads of people out there who don't deserve their vp being automatically raised every few months. If you see somebody dropping good unbaised explained votes and their vp is low... Raise it... Simple
People's vp being lowered indefinitely is not a good thing. Its not a good thing for a lot of the same reasons infraction bans aren't given indefinitely. A lot of the time when mods lower vp, its based on ONE instance of poor voting. People sometimes improve in voting and their prospect of doing so would likely increase if they actually KNEW their vp was lowered in the first place and why. Bad voting stands out a lot more than good voting does. Because when someone gives a well-explained vote, we feel like that should be the norm. So we end up lowering vp a lot more than we raise it. That's evident in the admin logs.

Why over complicate things
I don't think we need to be sitting working out unnecessary solutions to mild issues
You think having probably 50% of the site's voters at 0vp is a mild issue? Even if it was a mild issue, you think that means we shouldn't take any measures towards solving it?

The focus should be more on bigger issues getting sorted out first like tournament vp and weighted staff vote system
I agree with you that tournament vp and weighted staff vp is another big issue. But the fact is, these two issues aren't contingent. We could resolve issues relating to vp on regular battles without tackling tournamet vp issues and vice versa. I personally don't see why we can't come up with non-coding solutions to both simultaneously. But I don't think the fact that another non-contingent problem exists means we shouldn't do anything about a problem we can very much solve.

but NOBLE...the point is, this is only an issue because we are more vigilant in lowering VP but never upping it...i'm guilty of it too..i probably lower vs. up VP in a 25:1 ratio. doing anything automatically...at least to me...only further complicates and worsens the issue. for every one person that needs their VP upped, there are 15 people who need it to stay low. so if it was automatic, we'd be lowering it 15 times, then turning around and lowering it AGAIN 14 times for the same folks

[Krhyme Killz]

Originally Posted by NOBLE

@UNKNOWN ARTIST
Bad votes deserve low vp ...
I think everyone would agree with you here.

There loads of people out there who don't deserve their vp being automatically raised every few months. If you see somebody dropping good unbaised explained votes and their vp is low... Raise it... Simple
People's vp being lowered indefinitely is not a good thing. Its not a good thing for a lot of the same reasons infraction bans aren't given indefinitely. A lot of the time when mods lower vp, its based on ONE instance of poor voting. People sometimes improve in voting and their prospect of doing so would likely increase if they actually KNEW their vp was lowered in the first place and why. Bad voting stands out a lot more than good voting does. Because when someone gives a well-explained vote, we feel like that should be the norm. So we end up lowering vp a lot more than we raise it. That's evident in the admin logs.

Why over complicate things
I don't think we need to be sitting working out unnecessary solutions to mild issues
You think having probably 50% of the site's voters at 0vp is a mild issue? Even if it was a mild issue, you think that means we shouldn't take any measures towards solving it?

The focus should be more on bigger issues getting sorted out first like tournament vp and weighted staff vote system
I agree with you that tournament vp and weighted staff vp is another big issue. But the fact is, these two issues aren't contingent. We could resolve issues relating to vp on regular battles without tackling tournamet vp issues and vice versa. I personally don't see why we can't come up with non-coding solutions to both simultaneously. But I don't think the fact that another non-contingent problem exists means we shouldn't do anything about a problem we can very much solve.

but NOBLE...the point is, this is only an issue because we are more vigilant in lowering VP but never upping it...i'm guilty of it too..i probably lower vs. up VP in a 25:1 ratio. doing anything automatically...at least to me...only further complicates and worsens the issue. for every one person that needs their VP upped, there are 15 people who need it to stay low. so if it was automatic, we'd be lowering it 15 times, then turning around and lowering it AGAIN 14 times for the same folks

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Krhyme Killz

but NOBLE...the point is, this is only an issue because we are more vigilant in lowering VP but never upping it...i'm guilty of it too..i probably lower vs. up VP in a 25:1 ratio. doing anything automatically...at least to me...only further complicates and worsens the issue. for every one person that needs their VP upped, there are 15 people who need it to stay low. so if it was automatic, we'd be lowering it 15 times, then turning around and lowering it AGAIN 14 times for the same folks

Alright. So maybe it doesn't have to be "automatic." I don't think anyone even used the word "automatic" until UA's comment. @AfterThought had suggested " lower[ing] VP for a specific period of time" but he also said that after that time period, "keepin it a 0 or raising it would be the mod's decision." So, of course we're going to use our discretion and better judgement before restoring their VP and not do it "automatically." The point is we should probably start logging these actions individually and setting a time for review to see if the person's vp should be raised rather than leaving it lowered indefinitely. Notifying users when their vp has been lowered seems to be in order as well.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Krhyme Killz

but NOBLE...the point is, this is only an issue because we are more vigilant in lowering VP but never upping it...i'm guilty of it too..i probably lower vs. up VP in a 25:1 ratio. doing anything automatically...at least to me...only further complicates and worsens the issue. for every one person that needs their VP upped, there are 15 people who need it to stay low. so if it was automatic, we'd be lowering it 15 times, then turning around and lowering it AGAIN 14 times for the same folks

Alright. So maybe it doesn't have to be "automatic." I don't think anyone even used the word "automatic" until UA's comment. @AfterThought had suggested " lower[ing] VP for a specific period of time" but he also said that after that time period, "keepin it a 0 or raising it would be the mod's decision." So, of course we're going to use our discretion and better judgement before restoring their VP and not do it "automatically." The point is we should probably start logging these actions individually and setting a time for review to see if the person's vp should be raised rather than leaving it lowered indefinitely. Notifying users when their vp has been lowered seems to be in order as well.