Post Abuse of The Mods Here

[Wezil]

All my threads are of doubtful content.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Wezil


A pcr is hardly a punishment though.

Oh yes it is. I don't care for the rank as such, although it is fun when a new milestone is reached, but I want my post count to reflect how much I have contributed to the site. It doesn't do that alone, but it is a part of that equation. A person who have been here for 7 years and got 10k post have likely contributed more to the society here than one with 1k.

[Wezil]

What are you trying to say Nikolai?

[Nikolai]

Hehe, nothing against you, if that is what you think. I just saw your rank now.

[Wezil]

In all seriousness though, your logic is faulty.

Unless you keep track of PCR's handed out and mentally adjust everyone's rank accordingly, you really don't know how many posts that poster has made.

In addition, that doesn't adjust for spam/trolls or whatever. Also, I do believe OT went w/o awarding +1's for quite some time.

Rank means nothing really.

[Solver]

A person who have been here for 7 years and got 10k post have likely contributed more to the society here than one with 1k.

Absolutely no.

The person with 10k posts posted more, not necessarily contributed more. Some of the very best posters at this site still have in the range of 2000-3000 posts after 5 or more years. Darsnan and J Bytheway both have under 4000 posts after 6 years here. korn has 3300 and has been here forever. And then there are many people with 5000, 7000 or more posts whose actual contributions are minimal.

I'm not saying that high post-count people contribute little, but I do have an issue with the statement that a higher PC likely means more contributions.

[Kropotkin]

"Free YYYH and Steward Spink - We shall never forget!"

Forgotten all about that, before I saw the title of this thread.

[Aeson]

The vast majority of my posts have come since I stopped contributing to the site.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Solver

A person who have been here for 7 years and got 10k post have likely contributed more to the society here than one with 1k.

Absolutely no.

The person with 10k posts posted more, not necessarily contributed more. Some of the very best posters at this site still have in the range of 2000-3000 posts after 5 or more years. Darsnan and J Bytheway both have under 4000 posts after 6 years here. korn has 3300 and has been here forever. And then there are many people with 5000, 7000 or more posts whose actual contributions are minimal.

I'm not saying that high post-count people contribute little, but I do have an issue with the statement that a higher PC likely means more contributions.

Which is why I said "likely". I am very clear on this: High pc doesn't in itself say how much one has contributed, but it does give an important clue. And this is why I was so against post not counting in the OT before; I think all post should count, exactly because I'd like to trust it. I say it once again: Post count in itself is nothing, but it does say something!

People who post little can very well contribute, and they do. I do however think that many who have contributed in fact have a much higher post count in reality because the lifeblood of this site is the OT and the (most often) newest Civ game, and OT only began counting quite newly. And another thing: To post regularily and be a part of the community is just as important as making for example good strategies IMO. Strategies is very important, but without the daily socializing and such that makes people "friends" and make them come back, this site would have been a much worse place.

[Lancer]

Nikolai, the point he's making may be that those who post on topic have more valuable posts and are more valuable to the site.

[Nikolai]

Indeed. But my point still stands. You can have few posts, and then they either are of great value or not. You can have many post, and then they can either be of great value or not. But what is great value? It can be great strategy, and then you'll become important no matter how many post. But I believe the person who use lots of time on discussing them, and most important, helping new members/players, are just as important. And then you have the social bit again. Posts can contribute in the way of building up relationships and the community, and then more is better. Many post isn't a guarantee of being a good contributor, but it can be an important part of it.

[Lancer]

Yes I know, I agree. However when an admin posts favoritism of one group over another I have to wonder if that's good for the site. People don't like being told they are not valuable, they leave. There's reasons why Poly's competition is eating DQ's lunch.

However Solver has a right to his opinion, I just wonder if the OT is the right place for it, since posting his opinion here in the OT apparently makes that opinion less of a contribution than if he voiced it elsewhere.

[Solver]

I still don't see how post count says anything. It says just that, how much the person posts. If anything, it's a loose translation into the amount of time spent here by the person - not in the slightest a reflection or estimate of the quality.

And Lancer, I am not making this on-topic vs. off-topic here. I don't mean to say that off-topic posters don't contribute to the site, though it may be the case with individual posters (just like with on-topic posters too).

I'm not pretending to be an OTF fan, but that doesn't mean that any time I say something negative about the site I mean the OTF posters.

[SlowwHand]

Oh, yes it does. Don't lie to us. We know.

[Solver]

Actually, there are even some OTF posters whom I find interesting and whose threads I usually check out. There's even one whose threads I read every time