# Free the XP



## Libramarian (Mar 3, 2012)

The requirement to spread XP around seems to be pretty punitive, i see a lot of people mentioning it, asking people to cover for them and so forth.

I just ran into it, and said...ahh forget it. Instead of finding someone else to give XP to and then coming back to it.

It makes me use the XP system less. I also feel a small incentive to actually post less, to give the people who usually XP me time to spread it around.

It's not a big effect -- but I just wonder what XP I'm missing out on because people are hitting this wall. Not that i really care about the level itself, but just the extra communication and feedback of it.

I'm sure these are unexpected side effects -- are they worth the benefit of this limitation? what is the benefit?


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 3, 2012)

The benifit of the limitation is to prevent people from span xping people they like.  

For instance, as a result of the limitation, the Power Level Gary Gygax crowd are forced to wade through an endless number of posts to find 30 (depending on your xp power) posts that are worthy of xp before we can award Gary.  By virtue of that limit, giving Gary an XP point is much more special then it would be if I could give him an infinite amount of xp in a 24 hour span.

Of course, I could just xp everyone I see each day to accomplish the every 30 points goal, but that cheapens the experience.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 3, 2012)

Early on I reduced it from 30-odd down to more or less 20. The restriction is in place to minimize the effect of mutual fan clubs. If you need to award xp to more people, you're more likely to recognize posts from folks who might not otherwise be complimented.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 4, 2012)

Yup. The idea isn't that you XP a small number of people you like repeatedly.

It's OK that it makes you use the system less. That's the idea; it's a brake on the system. On boards with unrestricted rep, it becomes exponential and forms antisocial cliques, which are _definitely_ a disencouragement to participate in a community. XP limits prevent this, and the fact that we have no recognisable super-cliques is a good thing, in my opinion.

So I'd say - if you're often finding yourself being prevented form XPing people, it's because you XP the same people all the time. We have 100,000 members; surely more than 20 of them are worth your XP occasionally?


----------



## Libramarian (Mar 5, 2012)

I'm really not out to form a clique..I think I just tend to enter the same discussions as other people.

I actually hit the limit trying to XP someone I usually disagree with.

It's not that I only XP people I like, it's that I only read certain types of threads in one subforum (New Horizons).

Essentially the limit is proportionally more punitive if you only interact with a subsection of the community.

But given the deeply silly discussion of +1/like systems going on at the big purple I am happy enworld has at least a regulated system rather than nothing.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 11, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> the big purple





How long has calling RPG.net "the big purple" been a thing?


----------



## Whatthehell (Mar 12, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> I'm sure these are unexpected side effects -- are they worth the benefit of this limitation? what is the benefit?




Well the biggest benefit is so that people cannot artificially increase their reputation to give themselves the appearance of being helpful members of a community, when in reality they are self aggrandizing attention mongers who desperately need approval for their poorly reasoned musings in the form of a pretty green bar that doesn't critique or evaluate, just reassures.

So I guess the answer that would be most fitting is yes?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 12, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> I'm really not out to form a clique..I think I just tend to enter the same discussions as other people.




Whether you are out to do so or not, that can be the effect.  Social dynamics can get a little funny when there's a reward system.  



> Essentially the limit is proportionally more punitive if you only interact with a subsection of the community.




It is never "punitive".  Restrictive, perhaps, but there is no punishment involved.  

Consider it this way - the fact that you only interact with a few people does not necessarily make the posts by those people better, such that they should get more recognition.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 12, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Consider it this way - the fact that you only interact with a few people does not necessarily make the posts by those people better, such that they should get more recognition.




Why am I reminded of this?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6Vze7ZlLH8]The Dollyrots - "Because I'm Awesome" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Libramarian (Mar 12, 2012)

Whatthehell said:


> Well the biggest benefit is so that people cannot artificially increase their reputation to give themselves the appearance of being helpful members of a community, when in reality they are self aggrandizing attention mongers who desperately need approval for their poorly reasoned musings in the form of a pretty green bar that doesn't critique or evaluate, just reassures.
> 
> So I guess the answer that would be most fitting is yes?




This is a very silly attitude.

You know how when people in real life making a longish speech look their audience in the eye to see if they're paying attention and nodding and smiling?

That's what XP is. It's a natural thing that people do. If someone takes the time to organize their thoughts and make a longish post, you give them a little +1 to show that you were nodding while you read it. Instead of just invisibly lurking until you disagree with something enough to argue about it. A desire for feedback other than constant arguing is not indicative of deep psychological insecurity. It's normal.

I think it has a subtle but powerful effect with regard to the overall "atmosphere" of a forum. Skimming through a thread it just gives you a more positive sense. Feels more conversational.

I am thinking it's good, so more XP flying around would be even better, so I want it to be unregulated. But I am unfamiliar with cases where this kind of system has actually gotten out of hand and shown to have a dark side.

If that is a theoretical postulate then I think it is overcautious and meddling. But if it is a real thing then I probably would agree.


----------



## Libramarian (Mar 12, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> How long has calling RPG.net "the big purple" been a thing?




I dunno.


----------



## Libramarian (Mar 12, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Consider it this way - the fact that you only interact with a few people does not necessarily make the posts by those people better, such that they should get more recognition.




Not more recognition in general, but more recognition by me.

I don't speak for everyone when I give XP, just for me.

That is the difference in perspective here I guess.

I'm just talking about the little comment. So I see it as obvious that XP is subjective. Other people are thinking of the levelling thing, which appears to objectively measure someone's "value" to the forum.

I actually am iffy about that also. But the little comments are very good to have.


----------



## Ettin (Mar 12, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> How long has calling RPG.net "the big purple" been a thing?




It's been a thing on RPGSite for a while, at least. It seems to be common among people who get banned from RPG.net. It could have started on RPG.net and I'm misremembering though.


----------



## Lwaxy (Mar 13, 2012)

I like the way XP is handled here. I have been on boards before where the "prestige system" went so out of whack that you could recognize the greatest a-holes by the most prestige.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 13, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> That's what XP is.




That's what XP should be, pretty much.  However, without regulation, we have seen that it often becomes something else.  Be happy that you are unfamiliar with such cases.  You are better off.  You'll have to take our word for it that it does happen.



> I am thinking it's good, so more XP flying around would be even better, so I want it to be unregulated.




"A little is good, therefore more would be better," isn't a particularly strong argument.  I think you'll find that for a whole lot of things in life, too much of a good thing is no longer a good thing.



Libramarian said:


> Not more recognition in general, but more recognition by me.
> 
> I don't speak for everyone when I give XP, just for me.




But, since we report the total number of XP given, you become part of the aggregate, not a lone voice.  The limits are there to keep folks from abusing that aggregation for self-aggrandizement.



> I'm just talking about the little comment.




Ah.  Well, you can give folks comments by replying to their post, by leaving visitor messages on the profile, or by Private Message - all just a click or two away.  XP are by no means the only way we have of telling someone you like what they do.


----------



## Nagol (Mar 13, 2012)

Umbran said:


> <snip>
> 
> Ah.  Well, you can give folks comments by replying to their post, by leaving visitor messages on the profile, or by Private Message - all just a click or two away.  XP are by no means the only way we have of telling someone you like what they do.




Well, another alternative would be to remove the accumulation of points and keep the comments subsystem then, no?  In that scenario, there is no reason to limit the number of comments made as they aren't tied to anything that is aggrandizing.

But I'm biased; I don't like most forms of intra-group award systems.


----------



## jonesy (Mar 13, 2012)

Nagol said:


> Well, another alternative would be to remove the accumulation of points and keep the comments subsystem then, no?



I don't know if that's possible, but if it is and the exp system had to be removed for some reason, I'd like the comment system to stay. It's actually useful.


----------



## Nagol (Mar 13, 2012)

jonesy said:


> I don't know if that's possible, but if it is and the exp system had to be removed for some reason, I'd like the comment system to stay. It's actually useful.




It should be a trivial configuration change -- simply have everyone assign 0 points.

I expect the comments are the performance hog though.  Point assignment and tracking will take almost zero resources.  Looking up comments in a separate table and mixing in the display is where the resources get tied up.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 13, 2012)

Nagol said:


> Well, another alternative would be to remove the accumulation of points and keep the comments subsystem then, no?




Yes, but I just gave you _three other ways_ you can give verbal feedback.  Without the aggregation, the comments system alone is fairly redundant.

I understand that many folks don't like such systems.  I was skeptical of the system myself, when it rolled out.  I've come to think of it as largely harmless, in its current incarnation.


----------



## Nagol (Mar 13, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Yes, but I just gave you _three other ways_ you can give verbal feedback.  Without the aggregation, the comments system alone is fairly redundant.
> 
> I understand that many folks don't like such systems.  I was skeptical of the system myself, when it rolled out.  I've come to think of it as largely harmless, in its current incarnation.




Well, written feedback anyway .

I don't have an issue being blocked from giving xp; most of my assignments are to mark spammers as reported.

I'm just offering a lateral choice that offers a solution to both the original objection and the observed flaws in that request.  Does the solution have side effects and consequences?  Of course!  Can I live with them?  Yep!  Should the site owner adopt my suggestion?  Probably not as the consequences do stretch the system pretty far from its original intent, but it never hurts to promote a preferred arrangement.


----------



## Flatus Maximus (Mar 13, 2012)

Nagol said:


> I don't have an issue being blocked from giving xp; most of my assignments are to mark spammers as reported.




I, for one, prefer folks NOT use XP in this way. Before XP came out, when I saw a thread that was clearly spam but with no posts, I knew it hadn't been reported. Now, half the time it is a wasted effort since I can't be sure just from the post count. Not a huge deal, but it does waste time.


----------

