Yes, we give T-shirts/etc for fun.

@Admin how do you do that?

Cool story.

When I teach, every time a student makes an interesting comment I give a “discussion point”.
I also conduct a game show quiz based on the day’s readings, with points up for grabs.

I agree, and that's kind of my point .... I'd like a system that doesn't encourage "needless one liner comments."

@Janeybird It was a joke, i.e., that the class of users with the highest levels in the IDW.Community hierarchy represent an aristocracy.

Yep, thanks for the feedback... we think we know what's going on in your case and hope to fix it next week.

Peanut butter tastes nothing like butter, and is not similar in texture either. Now it's time for me to speed away without engaging in a discussion!

You said: "( 1 ) to reward people who participate on the site ( 2 ) to keep content and comments relevant (somewhat thwart trolling by new bot accounts)."

For #1, I buy the psychological aspect of a 'reward' for participating. Many online games use the same system to keep people hooked and coming back.

For #2, I fail to see how it keeps comments relevant. Just yesterday, I saw a user post several responses to a thread, and all of the responses were just lunatic rankings aimed at a celebrity mentioned it the post: "F her!", "twisted socialist lackey cunt", "lying anti-America treasonous bitch", "political psycophant (sic)", "twat", etc, etc, etc. Tthese are quotes from several different posts; he had multiple posts of expletive-filled rage, all with no intelligent contribution.

That user is level 5. I don't want to see his speech censored, as idiotic as he is. He makes lots of posts and comments, sure ... but should we be rewarding him (via #1) the same as we reward people who make reasoned, intelligent posts and comments? I see plenty of people on here who I respect, even if I disagree with them, because they engage in civil conversation. Why is the ranting causer given the same rewards as them? Is that the kind of behavior we want to encourage on this site? With the current system, we are rewarding comments like "twisted socialist lackey cunt" the same as any reasoned, rationale, intelligent comment."

@Guido_Provolone I'm all for freedom - I don't advocate censoring or banning anyone.

But the level system, in my opinion, has nothing to do with freedom. Rather, it's a mechanism to reward certain types of behavior. I guess my question is: are we actually rewarding the kind of behavior we want? (I'm assuming we want rational, civil, thoughtful discussion)

Because if a five word rant gets 5 points, and a 300 word thoughtful contribution gets 10 points .... the guy who posts short, uninsightful rants is probably going to get more points than the guy who takes time writing 300 word discourses. I could be wrong, though.

@Guido_Provolone Obviously "Wordsalad" doesn't equal meaningful contribution. I guess I was using those examples as shorthand ways to differentiate between meaningful contributions, and unmeaningful contributions.

And honestly, I was surprised at how many responses it got. For me, it was just a passing thought ... didn't realize I was kicking a hornets nest!

@Guido_Provolone Actually wasn't referring to myself ... just comparing the disparate types of contributions I witnessed from two different members, both of the same high level. Got me thinking ....

@Guido_Provolone I think the community at large could rather accurately determine meaningful vs meaningless ... with the right mechanism. The level system may have some uses, but it is not a good mechanism for that.

@Guido_Provolone Yes, I'm aware that the site is still in its infancy. I hope to watch it grow into maturity as a bustling online community, where all ideas can be freely examined.

@jneedler I know there was a lot of back and forth beyond your initial response to me - but I am going to address your comments to my response directly here:

"For #2, I fail to see how it keeps comments relevant." - like I explicitly pointed out, it helps to thwart bots from creating accounts and bombarding the site with some agenda. It is in that context that I meant relevant, not in the sense their comments 'pass' some intelligent comment metric. Free speech means that sometimes people are free to say stupid shit - the point system here is not designed to regulate that aspect. It is here to keep trolls from creating multiple bot accounts and overwhelming the site with posts/comments with fake people posting 'fake' POV.

"should we be rewarding him (via #1) the same as we reward people who make reasoned, intelligent posts and comments?" - maybe yes, maybe no, but my question to you is, who and how would be 'grade' his comments to be of value? Honestly, the point system isn't about 'quality', it is about 'quantity'. If a person posts enough stuff, they get points. Is the stuff they post of high quality - that is debatable. And while most times quantity is a poor metric of judging, in this case I think it's the best we can do. If I post lots of stuff, and it consistently personally attacks other members or violates site guidelines, then I will eventually get booted. Now from what you are saying, sounds like this person is either walking the line on site conduct violations, or explicitly stepping over the line. Calling AOC a stupid cunt isn't necessarily a site violation. Calling someone who agrees with something AOC says a stupid cunt IS a site violation, and yes, that person should be booted from the site. But that comes down to ( 1 ) people reporting basic decency/community violations to @admin and ( 2 ) @admin doing their job fairly, equitably, and consistently, without any human imperfections. I would say @admin does a pretty good job, even going beyond to ensure site integrity at times, but it's hard to balance free speech and throttle malicious rhetoric at the same time.

At the end of the day, there is some bias that will probably come into play. If a level 8 person calls someone an idiot twat, they will probably be given more leniency if they have not shown a history of being an asshole, than a new level 1 or 2 person. Is is a perfect system - no. Is @Admin a perfect person - no. Are people in higher levels going to be more intelligent and well spoken then lower levels - HELL NO. It's just one way to address multiple issues that arise with problem on a site like this - and it's a system chosen that has a bit more on the pro side than on the con. Not saying your concerns are not valid, but to address your concerns about points being tied to 'quality' posts is a whole can of worms that I don't think @admin can or wants to try and govern. Idiot people can be blocked - and leaving community policing in this manner is the best approach to take in regards to the specific issue you raise. Just my 2 cents...

A very good point. I've come across enough people who say they've been banned from FB, etc., and they've found sanctuary here. If they're implying that "so that they can carry on as they used to behave on FB, etc., i.e., being despicable, offensive, etc.", that's bad news.

@Naomi I agree, but that is what the block option is for when certain people keep stepping over the line of decency. I would rather the block option work in a different way (I can still see their posts, so I can still report them for violations), but they are blocked from responding from my comments/posts. I realize this would be a major rewrite of code, and perhaps not even possible - but I can dream!

"I would rather the block option work in a different way (I can still see their posts, so I can still report them for violations)"
Hey, that's not a bad idea! And although I'm not an expert, that sounds feasible, no?

@Naomi Well - I proposed it on Agnostic.com, but it was shot down. Again, I think the coding would be a nightmare to implement. Right now, I block someone, the PHP on the back end can filter those and then render the page. To go the other way, the blocked person would submit a comment in reply to me, the back end would have to look through my block list, allow/block the comment to register, then deal with people wondering why their comments are not showing up. Coding nightmare - plus lots of processor clock cycles used for every comment, so I can understand why it would be hard to engineer in that manner. They did allow people to see other blocked people's comments in the Community Senate - that way we could all at least try to act adult when discussing site related issues and proposed changes. Some thin skinned whiny bitches still had their panties in a wad over that - but considering how left that site leans, not really surprised there were a few like that.

Well, it's a little too much for my brain to handle, but one day your idea might be realised, so good luck.
I also heard that Agnostic, com is very left-leaning. I don't mind that so much but, I also heard that some words thrown around on that platform are contemptuous and disrespectful...

@Naomi Yea...I didn't mind the leftist views, but even when you cited multiple references and experts in the field analyzing the data - you were called ignorant, close minded, unwilling to see the truth, and cherry picking data! Yet never once was I offered any valid references or studies - usually not even offered any period, but the ones given were either decades old, disproven as bias or skewed, or just made up OpEd crap from some lib arts professor w/o any real data, or on a few occasions was one new research paper without any peer review, and very shady research methodology. I honestly don't hold on to anything too strongly. I realized from my master's studies, everything we know could easily be disproved in 50-100 years, so why be so closed minded that you think you have all the answers now?

Except, it doesn't (make you think before you post). You get points whether or not your post is thoughtful. In point of fact, it encourages more posts, not more thoughtful posts.

@jneedler do they have a system to take away points? There is another forum I am on where they can do that. They call it ‘throwing monkey shit’ and it does cause some people to leave the platform.

I didn't realize I was kicking the hornets nest with this one.

Just so you know; I'm a fan of the site ... that's why I care about seeing it get better.

Isn't that kind a binary thing, though? "Once you've reached X points, your posts no longer need to be reviewed prior to publishing."

There are other 'perks' at different point values, like the ability to see a list of people of 'like' your posts the most. I guess that stuff is cool, but I'm not really sure how it adds value for intelligent conversation, or needs to be differentiated by point levels.

@jneedler All posts are still reviewed regardless of what level you are at. As I said before, the main value of the level system is to deter scammers, which so far appears to have been fairly successful.

@SpikeTalon I haven't seen any scammers on here yet, and I do appreciate that.

I just enjoy discussing systems, and how they might be improved.

Like "Fans". Do you think being made aware of how many people like your posts/comments could potentially create echo chambers and confirmation bias?

@Naomi I rather doubt it, for every person who may like my posts, there is probably another who doesn't and may be spurred on to do a post highlighting the opposing viewpoint...