Gameology-Fu

[PhoenixInferno]

STOP FUCKING COMPLAINING ABOUT YOUR FU.  IT IS A DIRECT REFLECTION OF WHAT YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMMUNITY.

[Elennsar]

No, it is a direct reflection of a mixture of contributions and bashing. And the latter is playing more of a role.

[PhoenixInferno]

MORE FUCKING COMPLAINING.  You want some cheese with that whine?

[Elennsar]

I'd like my fu to be an accurate reflection of my contributions, not an accurate reflection of how many people bash me.

I won't argue that I've done nothing but the greatest things ever. I won't accept "bizzare black and white world view" or "complaining" to be legitimate measures of contributions, either.

[Tshern]

But, if not the ones adjusting your G-FU, evaluate your contributions?

[Elennsar]

Clarify?

I can give a couple examples of things I did that if someone else did I'd strongly consider giving positive fu for (and I'm not sure whether or not anyone did) and a couple examples of things of I'd give someone doing what I did negative fu for.

Digging out the latter may take longer (since I can think of a couple within-the-recent-past for the former, but I'd have to reread some of my old posts that to weigh them for the latter.), but I can produce it.

The question is, would it be worth the effort, or would it only get more "ellennsar is fail" posts in response?

[Midnight_v]

I'm so glad PI is here.

 

So many people have said what I said, about the whining.
I actually though I explained it pretty well, I rant, you whine.
I stop ranting "Wow, my fu went up!"
If you stop whining you'll be like "Wow! My fu went up!"
You've put a lot of energy into this thread imagine if you'd used that same post count
for something generally considered by your peers as constructive?
You're just being stubborn at a certain point.   I'm glad though, cause now everyone
has had a chance to see you in the light I saw you from throughout our encounter in the
rebalancing thread.
An obstinate, whiner, whose ideas aren't backed by informative query but useless hyperbole.
All this time and I didn't have to bash you at all to get the desired effect, I just had to get
out of your way long enough for you to run your mouth to everyone.  
Midnight_v is pleased by your continued suffering....

[Elennsar]

I'm glad that being stubborn in defending yourself is automatically a bad thing for the same reason that accusation equals guilt in witch trials.

Midnight_v is demonstrating douchebaggery. Congradulations to Midnight for putting being an asshole ahead of being helpful (with criticism or encouragement or both).

[Tshern]

Elenssar: I meant that you are not the one who evaluates your contributions. Gameology-fu shows what others think about your contributions, so defending your own creations isn't really a valid point. However, I agree that smiting you for fun is not valid either.

[Elennsar]

No, but saying "Ew, person disagrees, obviously they suck!" is smiting for fun whether phrased like that or not.

One thing that would be nice code wise (I've no idea how to include it, but I'm throwing it out to see if anyone has any thoughts)...

Have a star next to a post (with some other symbol for negative fu) to say "this post has already recieved fu".

That way, someone doesn't rack up enormous amounts of fu for a single post...at least, not unless people intend to do so.

Don't think that's happened in a negative sense to me and I'm not sure it happens in a positive sense.

Its more "If we could do this, would anyone think it is a good idea to do it?" than "we need to fix this".

[AfterCrescent]

I have seen a mod for the karma program (gameology-fu) that would limit the number of times a certain post could be given positive or negative ratings.

Not sure if Meg would like to include that or not. But it does exist.

[Tshern]

No, but saying "Ew, person disagrees, obviously they suck!" is smiting for fun whether phrased like that or not.

Do you have any evidence to indicate that you have received negative fu for reasons like that? Or, if you have, what makes you think that the majority of the adjustments were given in that manner? It might be that a bulk of the negative fus have come from actual gameology posts, because several people didn't like them.

I wouldn't know, I've only adjusted your fu once and even that was positive...

AC: That mod sounds really bad. People would just jump to the next post to adjust the fu.

[Elennsar]

It might be an improvement, but I don't know if it comes up as a problem, so I can't recommend it. And yeah, if you can't give one post any more (negative or positive) fu, you just give a different post that.

Tshern: I do have evidence to suggest I've recieved negative fu at least once for basically that reason. (I quote: "bizzare black and white world view".)

I'm also reasonably sure but not positive that something similar was behind some de-fuing claimed to be gameology related, and a few other things.

I'm reasonably sure some of my fu is a reflection of contributions or lack thereof, but I don't think my score, as in the overall result, is.

That is what most bothers me about the current system (as distinct from a "from 1-100, with 1 being the worst and 100 being the best" or the like). It skews results somewhat, even assuming any given award/smite is not skewed.

But that's a problem that requires a seperate code, and I don't know what would be a good one, and I certainly don't know how to translate existing scores over (since "everyone starts at 50" would bother some people and I can't blame them.)

[Tshern]

The system isn't perfect, no doubt about that, but what's the actual problem? As far as I know, Meg can shut down the fu of any individual user, so perhaps you should ask her to do that for your account. I have nothing against the fu, but I don't think anyone should feel bad about it, so closing it for anyone who doesn't want to have it sounds reasonable.

[PhoenixInferno]

I have seen a mod for the karma program (gameology-fu) that would limit the number of times a certain post could be given positive or negative ratings.

Not sure if Meg would like to include that or not. But it does exist.

I know they limit how often any person can change karma in a 48 hour period. 

[AfterCrescent]

I personally don't like that mod, but El brought it up, so I was just letting people know it exists.

Also, 24 hours, PI You can't change someone's karma for 24 hours after your last change to their karma.

[PhoenixInferno]

I personally don't like that mod, but El brought it up, so I was just letting people know it exists.

Also, 24 hours, PI You can't change someone's karma for 24 hours after your last change to their karma.

I changed my timer... 

[Prime32]

Elennsar, I want to ask you to look at how many posts you have made in this thread and the Meta Board that can be classified as "complaints". Then look at how many such posts others have made. Negating someone else's complaints does not count.

Now look at how many times Meg has ever taken sides or got angry at someone.

Ask if these posts are really contributing to the community.

[Sunic_Flames]

The hilarious thing is many of his claims are blatantly false. Such as claiming every post he makes gets a negative vote. Except he has well over a thousand posts, and less than 50 negative votes total (about a third of which are countered by positive votes).

Especially when you consider he has multiple anti fans, and therefore multiple voters.

In other news, PI wins the thread.

[Elennsar]

I don't claim every post I make get a negative vote. Don't claim that I do.

Prime: Ask whether or not the complaints are valid and legitimate before saying "hey it is a complaint! BEGONE COMPLAINTS! ALL COMPLAINTS ARE INVALID!"

Tshern: The problem is twofold. 1) getting negative fu for invalid reasons (having a black and white world view is not cause for fu). 2) A negative total that is not a good reflection of overall contributions (good, bad, and just there).