Also, you are missing the point, which is that the system can contain seperate subsystems, allowing the meaning of XP to be more personallized.

THat's different than a University, where the whole point is to use the exact same system for everybody so that people can be stuffed into little pigeonholes by pointy haired managers. PerlMonks isn't used that way, we can afford to reward contributors by honoring individualism.

It's not as if, the XP here is expected to reflect any kind of standardized system of rating the users' Perl skills. Rather, XP just reflects trivial things like, how often you hang out in the catbox and click "vote." And that's fine. But other things are fine, too. There is, after all, more than one way to do it. Or at least, wouldn't it be nice if there was?

None of the issues you address here is inconsistent with the original (very specific) point I eluded to earlier, so I will have to chalk up any (apparent) differences of opinion to The Law of Inconsistent Assumptions and leave it at that. I don't dispute any of your remarks, opinions or statements of principle about 'experience points'.

My only (very specific) point was it would be nice to have a system that would

... allow those who wish their XP to reflect the quality of their written contributions alone ...

to do so.

If this is indeed the goal, however, all it takes to upset that goal is for *anyone* to have a subjective belief that "my XP score is not commensurate with the quality of my written contributions" ... once that happens, all the other issues become secondary ... it all boils down to how do you let someone 'contest' an XP score (or change it by individual fiat) ... so that the external numbers match up with their own perception of 'quality' ... but since we know TMTOWTDI, there will always be different ways to define 'quality' and therefore, it is just a matter of which 'anonymous stranger(s)' get(s) to dictate (the publically visible) score.

No one is preventing me from keeping my own *personalized* XP system, honoring individuality, or eschewing pointy-haired-pidgeon-holing-elitism. I just get to do it in my head instead of on your computer screen.

Problem solved.

Yes, there is somebody, though that somebody is the CPU of the PerlMonks webserver. There is not such a plugin system, or public database access to add triggers, etc., to implement some alternative scheme. If it can't be automated, it's a rather... quaint suggestion for a community of programmers.

Also the point isn't to change how others XP is calculated, but to change your own. I thought maybe that was lost somewhere in there, but maybe not.


--
Snazzy tagline here

the system can contain seperate subsystems, allowing the meaning of XP to be more personalized.

It is often (and truly) said that XP don't mean enough that they should be taken seriously. That doesn't stop people from expressing the desire that they should be made meaningful, and there seems to be desire to make that happen. I think having a "personalized meaning" falls somewhat short of that. Here are a couple ideas I think could move things in that direction.

Drop the random element

Randomness reduces information, it doesn't contribute to it.

Keep separate scores

Number of writeups is already tracked. Total number of votes cast and net number of upvotes minus downvotes received can be derived from things that are currently tracked. Each level could have a minimum score requirement for each category (as well as a total score requirement), to ensure well-rounded monks. At higher levels, the minima for upvotes and writeups would get higher, and those for voting would level out or even drop off.

Bonus things like casting all your votes or appearing in the Daily Best wouldn't have minima, but would contribute to your total.

---

Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.

You're using Colectivist arguments as if they disprove Individualist arguments. The truth is that TMTOWTDI, including more than one way to think. And if think differently, that doesn't mean the other person is wrong. In particular if you have different and conflicting philosophies, as in this case.

As an individualist, I have to say that binding the meaning of my XP to the group, introduces a "random element" whereas leaving the meaning up to me, removes any arbitrary or seemingly random elements.

Additionally, this "keep seperate scores" stuff is all fine and dandy except that users don't get to install hooks into the voting system to do so. It's like saying, an alternative to walking is time travel. No it isn't. Not before the time travel machine is made available.

I don't expect the Group to repect and honor indiviuality, but at least let us have our opinions without being told they're wrong because they're not optimized for the Aggregate. Isn't it enough to win?


--
Snazzy tagline here