Timeline for Doesn't limiting voting points to 200 potentially discourage activity?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 25, 2011 at 16:19 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | @Randolf: "fair" isn't really relevant here (remember, I'm playing devil's advocate). If we were trying to discourage activity and some users don't get discouraged and manage to break past our arbitrary limit via sheer volume of effort... Well, that sucks for satan, but kinda throws your worst-case into question. | |
| Jun 23, 2011 at 6:24 | comment | added | Randolf Richardson | If that's the case, then regular users may be getting penalized unfairly. =( | |
| Jun 23, 2011 at 5:05 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | @Randolf: From what I've seen, the really obsessive users find the little chinks in the armor and bust the rep-cap all to hell anyway. | |
| Jun 23, 2011 at 4:52 | comment | added | Randolf Richardson | Some people don't have lives (I'm serious), and are likely to notice mechanisms such as reward caps. Do we really want to lose such helpful people to other online communities that don't put a cap on the reward system? Where casinos may not want to lose gamblers, because it's beneficial to the revenue stream, Q&A systems may not want to lose helpful workaholics (or should we call them volunteeraholics, perhaps?), because it's beneficial to the information stream. I appreciate why, but I doubt it solves a perceived "obsessive users" problem. | |
| Jun 22, 2011 at 15:14 | history | answered | Shog9Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |