Free the XP

[Libramarian]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

the big purple

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

 

[Whatthehell]

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]

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]

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]

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.