- I Naku I
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
#2 Supporter Halocharts, #11 other account.
"Ordinary love is selfish, deeply rooted in desires and satisfactions. Divine love is without condition, without boundary, without change."
You are all loved beyond measure.
I, like you, am a light-sound-vibration complex that resonates with others. I have hopes and dreams and ambitions, just like you! I AM, and so are you! Yes, we are one and the same, you and I.
Please read this again.
Each user has two numbers assigned to him - base_trust_rating and trust_modifier. They are calculated by examining the history of your account and weighting each data point by a certain value according to a formula that nobody knows but me. This system is entirely automatic. The moderators can affect it [only] in as much that they hand out bans and warnings, but those are just data points that are part of the math.
As for your main topic: no, I do not feel the trust system should be different in any particular way -- nor can we readily render such a judgment given that the specifics of the system are known only to Achronos. In fact, the only reason one would want the system changed, if they are in the dark with regard to the nuances of its operation, is if it produces results that they are dissatisfied with. I don't really see any stark discrepancies between trust ratings and those I would assess members to be at. Some people have acted silly and they've still not regained their titles, and I agree with that. I broke the rules a while ago, demonstrating a lack of adherence to them, therefore my trust level has decreased. At the same time, I do not often see posters and think gosh, that guy should have a higher trust rating.
On the other hand you can kind of think of its reliance on membership length as a positive measure of trust, if you wish; you get "rewarded" by being here longer (bar that the algorithm doesn't fit this characterization) -- and it's the sole factor that I can think of that would work well without human input. It is a sensible, predictable, and effective system as I see it.
Let me also add that I am against any sort of positive input affecting one's trust rating, whether restricted to the mods' discretion or available to the masses via up/down ratings. That's too unpredicable, unreliable, invites cronyism, and is potentially a positive-feedback system in the sense that the popular would no doubt get points solely because they're popular.
As far as your suggestion that there be other factors: there are. Membership time and ban history are apparently the largest items but it has been stated, for instance, that login frequency and such plays a part.
A lot of these threads are conflating trust and poster quality/contribution -- what does participation in a private group have to do with one's trust in the community as a whole? Not very much (not to say that it's totally impertinent). It's tempting to want to reward those who participate -- for example, Mike doesn't really get any systemic perks for interviews -- but I do not think that the aim of the trust system as it is is to discern the popular posters and community contributors. That should be left to the community members.
[Edited on 03.21.2008 2:20 AM PDT]