Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="covaithe" data-source="post: 4424721" data-attributes="member: 46559">Ok, I seem to be failing at communicating effectively this morning.  Let's try this again.  Taking things slightly out of orderNot even close to what I'm doing.  We should continue to discuss this.  I'm discussing it, in the only way I know how, by explaining my opinions.  It so happens that I have some fairly strong opinions on this subject.  I believe I have good reasons behind my opinions.  I'm trying my best to express those reasons civilly.  I encourage everyone else to post their opinions, and I hope they will do me the courtesy of reading and considering mine, as I will do theirs.I would be unpersuaded, too, if someone were attempting to make that argument.  I'm not.  I do, however, suggest that when other smart people have debated a question before, come to a conclusion, and had some experience with the results in practice, it would be foolish to ignore all of that.  If we look at it and decide that our circumstances are different and we should make a different decision, so be it.  But we shouldn't be ignorant of it.  So you believe.  I believe that when presented with a metric, people will try to optimize it.  If that metric is "most wiki articles edited", then people will edit lots of wiki articles.  But editing wiki articles isn't the goal.  The goal is to have a helpful, informative wiki.  Having lots of edits may or may not lead towards the goal.  Having a policy in place to reward wiki editing -- and this should be understood as just an example that is symbolic of the whole idea of OOC rewards -- may be helpful, but it may also be harmful in surprising ways.  I've seen the latter far too many times not to be very wary of it.Well, you brought them up for discussion.  I'm trying to discuss them.  I really do appreciate your bringing them up; it's helpful.  Maybe you could indicate which of your ideas you think we should consider implementing, and why?  That would be helpful, too. I'm sorry, I seem to have failed to explain effectively.  To summarize, I think the following things: <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">We don't yet have the kind of problems that OOC rewards are supposed to fix.  We may never have them.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">OOC rewards don't actually fix the kinds of problems they are supposed to fix, because they reward things that can be easily measured rather than things that directly contribute to fixing the problem.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">OOC rewards can actually be harmful, because they create the possibility of exploitation and imbalance.</li> </ul>The rest of my excessive verbiage has been an attempt to explain and substantiate those points.  Could you please rephrase this in a way that doesn't make it sound like you're accusing me of arguing in bad faith?  I find that I'm not able to respond to it civilly in its currently stated form.DMs do judge players:  they award experience and treasure.  This is part of the basic mechanics of D&D, and I don't propose to change it.  What I think we should avoid doing is creating a situation where DMs are forced to single out a single specific player as being superior to the others, not at playing D&D, but at participating in the L4W forum.  Let's stick to D&D.  Again, I can't respond to this as stated.  Close.  What I pointed out is that in LEW, they have already tried to address the problem with OOC points, with only minimal success.</blockquote>

Verification