Should non-staff members be able to have 3+ VP?

I wouldn't go off of user titles, as it's been said previously in this thread, just because you are a dope writer (i.e. you won a title) doesn't mean you vote objectively / accurately. The highest VP should be reserved for the most knowledgeable/understanding, skillful, unbiased/objective, and accurate (meaning their breakdowns add up every step of the way) voters.

I wouldn't go off of user titles, as it's been said previously in this thread, just because you are a dope writer (i.e. you won a title) doesn't mean you vote objectively / accurately. The highest VP should be reserved for the most knowledgeable/understanding, skillful, unbiased/objective, and accurate (meaning their breakdowns add up every step of the way) voters.

[Esso]

Yeah....basing it on titles is ehhh. Have y'all met rain matrix?

[Esso]

Yeah....basing it on titles is ehhh. Have y'all met rain matrix?

If there was a "worst idea" category in the LB '17 awards stu would have just clinched it.

If there was a "worst idea" category in the LB '17 awards stu would have just clinched it.

Originally Posted by Aggo

If there was a "worst idea" category in the LB '17 awards stu would have just clinched it.

Hahaha

Originally Posted by Aggo

If there was a "worst idea" category in the LB '17 awards stu would have just clinched it.

Hahaha

[NOBLE]

I'm starting to think the ideal solution is if we totally democratize the allotment of VP.

What if we got rid of moderators' ability to raise/lower vp, and instead...
We code something similar to the star rating system. You know how when you vote and drop a 1 to 10 rating, the system takes the average of all ratings a person has received in whichever arena (text/audio) to build their "stars?"
Well, what if we make it so that after you've voted on a battle and you can now see the comments and ratings of others, you also see the option next to each comment to rate the vote itself on a 1 to 10 scale? VP then becomes the average of such ratings just like the star system. The only people that would be able to rate votes are the people who can and have voted on that particular battle. So the actual battlers won't be able to rate (cause you can't vote on your own battle) and this will help mitigate bias. Crew members also cannot rate votes since they also cannot vote, and neither can people who are blocked by either of the battlers.
Every new member to the site will start off with a vp of 0 until they receive their first vote rating, then their VP henceforth is set by the system as the average of all their vote ratings.

What do you guys think? This is actually doable because the code is already there. It's the exact same coding for the star rating system. It's only a matter of applying it toward vp and the parameters and conditions aren't anything extraordinary.

[NOBLE]

I'm starting to think the ideal solution is if we totally democratize the allotment of VP.

What if we got rid of moderators' ability to raise/lower vp, and instead...
We code something similar to the star rating system. You know how when you vote and drop a 1 to 10 rating, the system takes the average of all ratings a person has received in whichever arena (text/audio) to build their "stars?"
Well, what if we make it so that after you've voted on a battle and you can now see the comments and ratings of others, you also see the option next to each comment to rate the vote itself on a 1 to 10 scale? VP then becomes the average of such ratings just like the star system. The only people that would be able to rate votes are the people who can and have voted on that particular battle. So the actual battlers won't be able to rate (cause you can't vote on your own battle) and this will help mitigate bias. Crew members also cannot rate votes since they also cannot vote, and neither can people who are blocked by either of the battlers.
Every new member to the site will start off with a vp of 0 until they receive their first vote rating, then their VP henceforth is set by the system as the average of all their vote ratings.

What do you guys think? This is actually doable because the code is already there. It's the exact same coding for the star rating system. It's only a matter of applying it toward vp and the parameters and conditions aren't anything extraordinary.

Too much opportunity for abuse. You voted against me. 1 star. You talked shit in the forums. 1 star on every vote of yours I can find. You're my homeboy. 10 stars.

Too much opportunity for abuse. You voted against me. 1 star. You talked shit in the forums. 1 star on every vote of yours I can find. You're my homeboy. 10 stars.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Aggo

Too much opportunity for abuse. You voted against me. 1 star. You talked shit in the forums. 1 star on every vote of yours I can find. You're my homeboy. 10 stars.

I don't see how this will necessarily create any more opportunities for abuse than the status quo. People already vote against other people who voted against them or give them low ratings and they buddy vote and give their friends high ratings.
What I'm saying is...If that occurs under this system that I'm proposing, it won't be because of the system. It will be because it's already happening and people are the same as they are now.
Obviously, we wouldn't make it where people can see the vp of others or know who rated their votes. How can they hate back and down-vote the vp of another when they don't know that person gave them a low rating, or even any rating at all?

---------- Post added at 12:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:10 AM ----------

It will be pretty much as it is now in the sense that...
You won't know your own vp or the vp of others unless a mod tells you. There won't be any visible "stars" to indicate a person's vp. It will be hidden in the system and only mods would be able to tell.
Also, you won't be able to tell when your vp is raised or lowered or by whom, just like now.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Aggo

Too much opportunity for abuse. You voted against me. 1 star. You talked shit in the forums. 1 star on every vote of yours I can find. You're my homeboy. 10 stars.

I don't see how this will necessarily create any more opportunities for abuse than the status quo. People already vote against other people who voted against them or give them low ratings and they buddy vote and give their friends high ratings.
What I'm saying is...If that occurs under this system that I'm proposing, it won't be because of the system. It will be because it's already happening and people are the same as they are now.
Obviously, we wouldn't make it where people can see the vp of others or know who rated their votes. How can they hate back and down-vote the vp of another when they don't know that person gave them a low rating, or even any rating at all?

---------- Post added at 12:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:10 AM ----------

It will be pretty much as it is now in the sense that...
You won't know your own vp or the vp of others unless a mod tells you. There won't be any visible "stars" to indicate a person's vp. It will be hidden in the system and only mods would be able to tell.
Also, you won't be able to tell when your vp is raised or lowered or by whom, just like now.

No one really pays attention to the star system & the star system isn't accurate.

No one really pays attention to the star system & the star system isn't accurate.

The Star Idea sounds good in theory but I think in practice it would be a disaster. The star system hasn't really worked ever, do we really want to now apply that same broken system to VP.

The Star Idea sounds good in theory but I think in practice it would be a disaster. The star system hasn't really worked ever, do we really want to now apply that same broken system to VP.

[NOBLE]

It's an accurate reflection of what the community thinks of a person's skill level. If you hover over someone's stars with a mouse, you will see the exact number. Compare people that are considered strong battlers today (or in their era) and you'll see that the stronger battlers always have higher stars.
The only "inaccuracy" is when you're comparing battlers from two different eras, because people used to give much higher ratings than they do today, so a newer account with less stars might actually be considered a stronger battler than an older account with more stars. I remember a time when it used to be considered "hate voting" if you rated someone less than a 7.
It isn't broken and it does work. People don't pay attention to a lot of things, but that doesn't mean they don't work.

---------- Post added at 09:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 AM ----------

Thinking on it further, I can see that the standard deviation (how much a person's rating fluctuates from one rating adjustment to the next) may lessen over time...So averaging out a low rating for someone who has dropped one shitty vote against their long history of having dropped much better votes with higher ratings won't affect them that much...but it will affect them if they are now habitually dropping shitty votes and those are getting rated. I actually like this idea the more I think about it. This is a much better alternative than a mod lowering or raising vp after seeing just one or two votes.

[NOBLE]

It's an accurate reflection of what the community thinks of a person's skill level. If you hover over someone's stars with a mouse, you will see the exact number. Compare people that are considered strong battlers today (or in their era) and you'll see that the stronger battlers always have higher stars.
The only "inaccuracy" is when you're comparing battlers from two different eras, because people used to give much higher ratings than they do today, so a newer account with less stars might actually be considered a stronger battler than an older account with more stars. I remember a time when it used to be considered "hate voting" if you rated someone less than a 7.
It isn't broken and it does work. People don't pay attention to a lot of things, but that doesn't mean they don't work.

---------- Post added at 09:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 AM ----------

Thinking on it further, I can see that the standard deviation (how much a person's rating fluctuates from one rating adjustment to the next) may lessen over time...So averaging out a low rating for someone who has dropped one shitty vote against their long history of having dropped much better votes with higher ratings won't affect them that much...but it will affect them if they are now habitually dropping shitty votes and those are getting rated. I actually like this idea the more I think about it. This is a much better alternative than a mod lowering or raising vp after seeing just one or two votes.