How should max allowed reading list entries be calculated?
57.14%
• 12 votes •
Stick with current system. A secret algorithm, with the benefit that no one can game the system.
42.86%
• 9 votes •
Change to new system. Simplify how entries are earned, see what contributes to getting more slots and track your progress.
How should max allowed reading list entries be calculated?
Anonymous
Gaming.
Skagging.
Fiddling.
Fixing.
Weaselling.
Cheating.
Whipping.
Undercutting.
Backhanding.
Mullering.
Foxing.
Being a Bob Cryer.
(Just translating English slang for our overseas friends.... as you were. 😎)
Skagging.
Fiddling.
Fixing.
Weaselling.
Cheating.
Whipping.
Undercutting.
Backhanding.
Mullering.
Foxing.
Being a Bob Cryer.
(Just translating English slang for our overseas friends.... as you were. 😎)
Thanks TPCP. Surely there has to be a better way to create something user-friendly all the way around without compromising integrity. But I know NOTHING of programming. HTML is evil ( no offense to new member Pure_405_Evil ). I could be suggesting colonization on Mars and not realize it.
I definitely meant gaming in a softer context then cheating. People wouldn't be cheating, but they might be changing their natural behaviour once they're armed with the knowledge of how things work. Perhaps I'll take the suggestion weaselling as a better word, because it sounds less malicious 
To address your earlier point, changing to a simpler system would require work, but we would have a simpler system at the end of it. Keeping the current system requires no work. Either way, I'm happy to let the people decide.
To address your earlier point, changing to a simpler system would require work, but we would have a simpler system at the end of it. Keeping the current system requires no work. Either way, I'm happy to let the people decide.
After suddenly earning a whopping 16 RLs today after months of struggling to earn a dozen, I reverse engineered what I did to discover what is undoubtedly the current secret algorithm.
Thusly, this poll is rendered pointless.
If you would like the secret private messaged to you, please send $20 Paypal to --- email address removed ---
Thusly, this poll is rendered pointless.
If you would like the secret private messaged to you, please send $20 Paypal to --- email address removed ---
JohnnyBlaze said:After suddenly earning a whopping 16 RLs today after months of struggling to earn a dozen, I reverse engineered what I did to discover what is undoubtedly the current secret algorithm.
Thusly, this poll is rendered pointless.
If you would like the secret private messaged to you, please send $20 Paypal to --- email address removed ---
I now have 25 RL slots and would still be willing to trade some for Food
Thusly, this poll is rendered pointless.
If you would like the secret private messaged to you, please send $20 Paypal to --- email address removed ---
I now have 25 RL slots and would still be willing to trade some for Food
JohnnyBlaze said:
I would be willing to trade you a Grand Slam breakfast at Dennys for a handful of votes from any multiple profiles you can spare.
I have an "Old Persons' 10% discount card for Denny's
I don't have time for multiple profiles, what with my chess addiction and running an Awakening Group on FB and so i have only one vote to give.
Can i still get that Grand Slam?
I would be willing to trade you a Grand Slam breakfast at Dennys for a handful of votes from any multiple profiles you can spare.
I have an "Old Persons' 10% discount card for Denny's
I don't have time for multiple profiles, what with my chess addiction and running an Awakening Group on FB and so i have only one vote to give.
Can i still get that Grand Slam?
Tallen said:
I have an "Old Persons' 10% discount card for Denny's
I don't have time for multiple profiles, what with my chess addiction and running an Awakening Group on FB and so i have only one vote to give.
Can i still get that Grand Slam?
When it came to chess, I was under the impression you were always playing with yourself.
I have an "Old Persons' 10% discount card for Denny's
I don't have time for multiple profiles, what with my chess addiction and running an Awakening Group on FB and so i have only one vote to give.
Can i still get that Grand Slam?
When it came to chess, I was under the impression you were always playing with yourself.
JohnnyBlaze said:
When it came to chess, I was under the impression you were always playing with yourself.
I used to before i bought my own laptop
(actually, i was playing one of my hallucinations but since i am the only one who can see her i guess to the outside world i am playing with myself, eh?)
When it came to chess, I was under the impression you were always playing with yourself.
I used to before i bought my own laptop
(actually, i was playing one of my hallucinations but since i am the only one who can see her i guess to the outside world i am playing with myself, eh?)
admin said:I definitely meant gaming in a softer context then cheating. People wouldn't be cheating, but they might be changing their natural behaviour once they're armed with the knowledge of how things work. Perhaps I'll take the suggestion weaselling as a better word, because it sounds less malicious
To address your earlier point, changing to a simpler system would require work, but we would have a simpler system at the end of it. Keeping the current system requires no work. Either way, I'm happy to let the people decide.
It's your local pain-in-the-ass again - after much deliberation, because members wouldn't be gaming the system in terms of weaseling or cheating, imho, I've decided to vote for the change.
It's my belief that it is impossible to know the natural behaviour of people unless they have free choice. Therefore, to assume members here would act contrary to their natural behaviour if given a choice is an inaccurate assumption. If, when given the choice to begin with, their natural behaviour would've been to opt to utilize the challenge in order to personally advance their writing goals through those challenges.
I hear members all the time say they will never publish because they write for the joy of it. But, that should not be confused with those who do publish not writing for the joy of it, but opting to share that joy with others.
Keeping members restricted does not determine their natural behaviour, except in regards to being restricted. Or, in this case, in the dark.
I do appreciate the choice you are offering here, but still feel the question containing the term "gaming" is inaccurate to imply weaseling in this case. Choosing to utilize a functional challenge doesn't make a person a weasel. If that's the case, then the flip side logic to that would be assuming those against change want others not to have it simply because they don't want it themselves.
God, sounds like the world right now.
Again, regardless of how it ends, thank you for at least providing the option to choose.
To address your earlier point, changing to a simpler system would require work, but we would have a simpler system at the end of it. Keeping the current system requires no work. Either way, I'm happy to let the people decide.
It's your local pain-in-the-ass again - after much deliberation, because members wouldn't be gaming the system in terms of weaseling or cheating, imho, I've decided to vote for the change.
It's my belief that it is impossible to know the natural behaviour of people unless they have free choice. Therefore, to assume members here would act contrary to their natural behaviour if given a choice is an inaccurate assumption. If, when given the choice to begin with, their natural behaviour would've been to opt to utilize the challenge in order to personally advance their writing goals through those challenges.
I hear members all the time say they will never publish because they write for the joy of it. But, that should not be confused with those who do publish not writing for the joy of it, but opting to share that joy with others.
Keeping members restricted does not determine their natural behaviour, except in regards to being restricted. Or, in this case, in the dark.
I do appreciate the choice you are offering here, but still feel the question containing the term "gaming" is inaccurate to imply weaseling in this case. Choosing to utilize a functional challenge doesn't make a person a weasel. If that's the case, then the flip side logic to that would be assuming those against change want others not to have it simply because they don't want it themselves.
God, sounds like the world right now.
Again, regardless of how it ends, thank you for at least providing the option to choose.
Ahavati said:
LOL! Hopefully it won't devastate you to the point you'll lose your sense of humor.
Also, thank you for bringing this topic to light. It's given us all much to think about.
I wiould be devastated if I continued to fall behind on RL'ing your brilliantly constructed poetry all because I wasn't doing a few simple things I was never aware of. ❤📝
And of course I only voted once, People.
LOL! Hopefully it won't devastate you to the point you'll lose your sense of humor.
Also, thank you for bringing this topic to light. It's given us all much to think about.
I wiould be devastated if I continued to fall behind on RL'ing your brilliantly constructed poetry all because I wasn't doing a few simple things I was never aware of. ❤📝
And of course I only voted once, People.
