ELECTION 2025

[Jasin]

Do tell. I'm not aware of it.

[Bobby]

Do tell. I'm not aware of it.

It's here:

viewtopic.php?f=87&t=19412

[Jasin]

Hey. I like the system of a 'reward' system which you put forth.
But how would one find the statistic of a member's post count in that year specifically to justify such a system?

The percentage of say 4.25 would have to have a scale down to just 4 or up to 5 if it were 4.75.
To be bias of 'quality' of posts. Would Brian's yawn and meme repetitive postings be considered worthy content to attain a superior vote counts over, say Lee?

It's a very good system Bobby, but it's a system that takes in a lot more work and monitoring along with justified bias.
Do you have the nit comb to do all that over a year to accomplish an end result for a reward of getting a few extra vote cards more than another, but less than some other.

[Bobby]

Hey. I like the system of a 'reward' system which you put forth.
But how would one find the statistic of a member's post count in that year specifically to justify such a system?

The percentage of say 4.25 would have to have a scale down to just 4 or up to 5 if it were 4.75.
To be bias of 'quality' of posts. Would Brian's yawn and meme repetitive postings be considered worthy content to attain a superior vote counts over, say Lee?

It's a very good system Bobby, but it's a system that takes in a lot more work and monitoring along with justified bias.
Do you have the nit comb to do all that over a year to accomplish an end result for a reward of getting a few extra vote cards more than another, but less than some other.

No - It would only be the total number of posts they made -
otherwise it's too much work.
The logarithmic system balances out a lot of the silly posts.
The fractions can be taken as is and counted.

It also removes the work that you intend to do - to decide if someone is a worthy voter.
Everyone gets a vote but if they have made hardly any posts it won't count for that much.

[Black Orchid]

You'd have to change the Constitution. It's not whether a poster is 'worthy' or not. Usually some consideration is given to very long term posters who haven't posted for awhile but it's up to each EL. Socks are not allowed with or without logarithms.

[Bobby]

You'd have to change the Constitution. It's not whether a poster is 'worthy' or not. Usually some consideration is given to very long term posters who haven't posted for awhile but it's up to each EL. Socks are not allowed with or without logarithms.

But you'd get 4.4 votes.

[Black Orchid]

You'd have to change the Constitution. It's not whether a poster is 'worthy' or not. Usually some consideration is given to very long term posters who haven't posted for awhile but it's up to each EL. Socks are not allowed with or without logarithms.

But you'd get 4.4 votes.

But I wouldn't deserve 4.4 votes if I rarely ever contributed. Sure, I should be allowed a vote still, but only 1.

[Bobby]

You'd have to change the Constitution. It's not whether a poster is 'worthy' or not. Usually some consideration is given to very long term posters who haven't posted for awhile but it's up to each EL. Socks are not allowed with or without logarithms.

But you'd get 4.4 votes.

But I wouldn't deserve 4.4 votes if I rarely ever contributed. Sure, I should be allowed a vote still, but only 1.

Dear BO,
please don't undersell yourself.
How much more is your vote worth than someone like Buster Scruggs? -
an Aussie sock puppet who made 12 posts.

memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=11521

[Black Orchid]

You'd have to change the Constitution. It's not whether a poster is 'worthy' or not. Usually some consideration is given to very long term posters who haven't posted for awhile but it's up to each EL. Socks are not allowed with or without logarithms.

But you'd get 4.4 votes.

But I wouldn't deserve 4.4 votes if I rarely ever contributed. Sure, I should be allowed a vote still, but only 1.

Dear BO,
please don't undersell yourself.
How much more is your vote worth than someone like Buster Scruggs? -
an Aussie sock puppet who made 12 posts.

memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=11521

Bobby, Buster Scruggs is an Aussie sock and didn't deserve a vote. Period.

Only Aussie has allowed all of his socks to vote here to my knowledge. I banned all his socks.

[Bobby]

You'd have to change the Constitution. It's not whether a poster is 'worthy' or not. Usually some consideration is given to very long term posters who haven't posted for awhile but it's up to each EL. Socks are not allowed with or without logarithms.

But you'd get 4.4 votes.

But I wouldn't deserve 4.4 votes if I rarely ever contributed. Sure, I should be allowed a vote still, but only 1.

Dear BO,
please don't undersell yourself.
How much more is your vote worth than someone like Buster Scruggs? -
an Aussie sock puppet who made 12 posts.

memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=11521

Bobby, Buster Scruggs is an Aussie sock and didn't deserve a vote. Period.

Only Aussie has allowed all of his socks to vote here to my knowledge. I banned all his socks.

Yeah - what a joke the last 2 elections were.

Good that FD stepped in.