RE: Higher level posts (kudra: exp escalation, not unqualified monks)

I guess the real question is what makes someone deserving of a rank. The current exp system would suggest that writing posts, voting and logging in all contribute towards making someone deserve a rank. If these are not the ways that someone should be able to earn a rank, wouldn't it make more sense to change how exp is given out? Personally, I think that exp should remain at least partially influenced by other forms of participation.

Not wanting newbies to hold higher levels sounds to me more like a subset of the ongoing debate on exp escalation due to the increased number of users. Describing gaining levels as 'increasingly' easy lends to this interpretation.

Gaggio's suggestion of required minimum reputation will suffer from the same problem.

I think the real problem is the scalability of the exp system. Note the following: "This is not meant to be offensive toward the higher level monks we have now." This suggests that the changes wouldn't be applied retroactively, which strikes me as a bit unfair.

It looks as if lhoward saw something similar in the original post (he posted while I was writing this). I can't say I like having monks in competition with one another for levels, however. I guess I favor one of the suggestions from the previous discussion, which I believe was to have the required exp for each level to be related to the total number of votes available. But however the exp system is changed, if it is, it probably shouldn't include exact numbers as it does now.

Comment on RE: Higher level posts (kudra: exp escalation, not unqualified monks)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
RE: RE: Higher level posts by jjhorner (Hermit) on Jul 07, 2000 at 18:35 UTC
Actually the line about not meant to be offensive to our currently high level monks was just said to make sure they know I don't believe any of them to be unworthy of their current rank. Nothing more. Don't read too much into it. I feel I'm not completely worthy of my rank, but that is merely because I think I need to do more "theoretical" stuff, like FAQs, HOWTOs, and tutorials. It should almost be like a college where someone has to do a doctoral thesis to become a saint, or whatever. All in all, though, good post. J. J. Horner Linux, Perl, Apache, Stronghold, Unix jhorner@knoxlug.org http://www.knoxlug.org/	[reply]
RE: (3) Higher level posts (Thesis, not XP overhaul) by ybiC (Prior) on Jul 07, 2000 at 23:20 UTC
If I understand jjhorner right, I agree wholeheartedly: Gaining XP by voting (and being voted on) appears to work very well to encourage positive participation. What may be needed is a mechanism to prevent an intermediate-at-best Perler like myself from advancing to Friar, Bishop or such just by being a reasonably well behaved Monk for a long time. Make me advance in my coding ability if I want to advance as a Monk. XP could still work as it does now. When XP earned to advance level, Monk must author documentation that benefits PM before gaining new level. Alternate methods of demonstrating Perl expertise are also possible. Monk earns no further XP until doc presented and approved by group of high-level Monks. Monk could be pre-emptive by presenting doc before XP earned, but only for the next level. Review process might begin at Monk (5) level. Having said that, I still have questions or concerns: how would the review board be selected? how could plaguerism be prevented? retroactive or not?	[reply]
RE: Thesis, not XP overhaul by PipTigger (Hermit) on Jul 08, 2000 at 00:49 UTC
There's something to be said for being a reasonably well behaved Monk for a long time... and I don't see how to fairly (or nicely) evaluate coding ability for XP directly. There already is incentive to contribute... with every post, you can get many votes and presumably more points than just those for your daily votes if the content is worthwhile. Put up a little 3 line obfuscated JAPH and you'll get 30+XP. I think any point scheme is bound to have seemingly problemmatic issues but it would take a long time for someone to get to abbot or bishop only by voting... and if they're voting so faithfully, why would they also not feel compelled to contribute to the community they're frequenting? I think the system werks as well as possible as it is. -PipTigger p.s. Initiate Nail Removal Immediately!	[reply]
RE: RE: Higher level posts by PipTigger (Hermit) on Jul 08, 2000 at 01:16 UTC
There are several problems inherent in scaling rank according to percentages... Let's assume that Saint is the 99.9th percentile automatically... That might equate to one person right now... whoever has the most XP (merlyn) would be the only one which is no real problem... but examine what happens near the middle as the site grows... Let's say the monk level begins at 50 percent. If the site grows thickly in the bottom half (where more newbies are creating accounts everyday and gathering lots of collective XP), this will oversaturate the bottom half of the breakdown and thrust everyone upward constantly even if they don't do anything (and as long as their XP level is not surpassed by the average of the growing bottom half). This would mean that the bottom half would constantly drive users with lower and lower XP amounts (and presumably contribution levels) into the higher user levels. I just don't see an easy answer to this escalating XP problem. It would take a long time just voting everyday to reach high levels and why would anybody want to do nothing but vote unless they wrote a bot to do it for them =). I think static thresholds are probably the best way to go but they should be more widely spaced. I just can't help but feel that the average hacker using PerlMonks should get to stay at the Monk level for a much longer time before progressing beyond (like approximately twice as long as it took them to attain Monk status). This would help to have more Monk loyalty and ownership I think. Anyways, it's a tricky issue. Hopefully any changes that can be made will ultimately be for the better. We should all keep thinking about this as some Monk is bound to have a brainstorm (er epiphany) as to the right way to do it. Hope this helps the discussions somewhat. TTFN. -PipTigger p.s. I'm Not Really I!	[reply]