A Modest Proposal

[Eli]

So I spent quite a while writing a long thoughtful post in some thread in the Apolyton OT. I liked how that post helped me to clarify my own thoughts on the subject and I liked the I received from Arrian. And it got me thinking - We, in the Off-Topic, have an incentive to post as many posts as possible, the post count. No matter how mature one is, "who has the biggest?" contests still evoke some interest. But what we don't have is an incentive to post interesting, polite and insightful posts.

So:

Post of the Week

(naturally, whatever specifics I offer are only a basis for discussion and may be changed)

Every week, a group of moderators and/or trusted posters will choose a certain number, say 5, of posts in the OT Forum which they believe to be of high quality. Their choice may or may not depend on opinions of other posters as expressed on the forums or using PMs.

At the end of every week, a poll will be posted in which CFCers will choose which post is the Post of the Week. To avoid hassle, a simple plurality will suffice.

All people who won at least one Post of the Week award will have a Post of the Week counter below their avatar, displaying the number of awards they won.

Runner ups may also receive some award.

Criteria for receiving a nomination may include insight, clarity, eloquence, length, civility, wit etc.

A certain percent, say 10%, of the votes may be given to the best post as chosen by the moderators.

Since there are only 52 weeks in a year, there won't be an inflation of awards. Even after a few years, only a handful of people will reach double digits.

If this catches on, it would be possible to use the same mechanism to create a Funny post of the Week award, or a Post of Week in the On Topic award.

 

[Swedishguy]

Site Feedback is where you post Modest Proposals!

 

[Eli]

I didn't even know such a subforum existed here.

Oh well, the OT gets a bigger audience.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Interesting idea, but I'm sure all of us keep track of who posts high-quality material on a regular basis. Some people put other posts in their signatures. Some throw the names of other posters in their own posts in recognition of someone who phrased their opinion better than they could.

And I would think that people wouldn't be bothered to vote on good posts; we all have different criteria that we look for. Of course, I'm not a huge fan of things that are highly subjective anyway, partly because I think that people would be left out. If you only post good content but don't win anything while another poster uses the shotgun approach to spam the board in the hopes of making one insightful post, and the latter wins, it isn't a very good environment...

 

[Masquerouge]

I really like that idea, but I tend to agree with IrishCaesar. I can see how certain posters here would abuse that system...

 

[Mirc]

Won't happen, mods are terrified by anything that could provoke elitism.

 

[LucyDuke]

Not just to illustrate his point, but Irish Caesar pretty much nailed it.

It is a cool idea, but it would be very difficult to implement it well enough to be useful. And OT isn't the entire site, some people never venture outside Civ4 C&C. What about them? How do you balance an insightful explanation of a French political quirk with a presentation of the most popular Civ4 mod ever produced?

Edit: Ah, never mind, the OT was specified in the OP. That just convinces me that Mr. Admin wouldn't go for it.

 

[Catharsis]

We may as well just give the awards to Bozo now, and save ourselves the hassle of a weekly vote.

 

[WillJ]

I tend to agree with IrishCaesar.

Irish Caesar pretty much nailed it.

I nominate Irish Caesar's post!

 

[Tee Kay]

You may have noticed I tried it for a while last month. Then it just proved too hard to choose the deserving "Post of the Week" and so I gave up on the idea.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Where's the part about eating people?

 

[GenMarshall]

Sounds too much an elitist proposal.

 

[Nylan]

I think those that would want the title that bad are the same sort of people who will never get it.

 

[Ball Lightning]

I think its a great idea.

 

[Eli]

Sounds too much an elitist proposal.

Why not?

I think those that would want the title that bad are the same sort of people who will never get it.

There is a middle ground between wanting the title "that bad" and being completely apathetic to it. When you play some sports game with friends, winning the game is not everything to you, and yet wanting to win encourages you to play better.

In the same way, a poster doesn't have to be obsessed with winning another PotW award in order to want to win. I know that I often press the reply button, write a sentence or two, discover than my position is actually more complex than I thought and give up out of sheer laziness to think and explain it. The existence of such an award will make it less likely for me to do so and will increase my contribution to the level of debate on the forums.

Also remember that the PotW won't be the ultimate goal, in the same way the post count today isn't. It encourages people to post, but everyone chooses their attitude towards it and I'd say that the attitude of 99% of the posters towards the post count is a healthy one.

Irish Caesar:

And I would think that people wouldn't be bothered to vote on good posts; we all have different criteria that we look for. Of course, I'm not a huge fan of things that are highly subjective anyway, partly because I think that people would be left out.

Why would people not be bothered to vote? A simple topped poll in the OT once a week. I'm sure that it will get enough votes for a fair decision.

If you only post good content but don't win anything while another poster uses the shotgun approach to spam the board in the hopes of making one insightful post, and the latter wins, it isn't a very good environment...

Well, I do believe mots of us are mature enough to be happy when we win and disappointed when we don't but not to be too happy or too disappointed. It is merely a number in a computer, after all.

Also, I think that the popular vote mechanism will make sure such things don't happen. People will be reluctant to vote for someone who spams the board with pretentious posts hoping one of then turns out insightful.

And to add to that, it's pretty hard to write a good post. Insight is not the only criterion. A one liner cannot win, no matter how insightful it is.

 

[Nylan]

Well that was my point. We needn't worry about spam because the spammers that would try hard for the award would have to write better posts to do so. It's really a post-quality-improvement program.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Maybe Post of the Month could be easier to handle. People nominate posts to some thread, organizer(mod or fellow member) decides 12 finalists, and a voting will occur. Public poll, so people can't vote for themselves.

OR orgabuzer and mods could decide the best post from the nominations on a private voting.

 

[Perfection]

It's probably the only way I'll ever post something of high quality.

 

[Sidhe]

Why not just have a member of the month based on who has been the bestest poster/most helpful etc. Voted for by everyone. The winner could receive some sort of flashy sig thing.

People who care about there post total are generally people who post alot of crap in order to bolster it, in other words, you can take the spammers post total with a pinch of salt, it's as meaningless as the idea that post total means anything anyway. Might as well say the number of times you have slept in your life makes you a better person, completely worthless basically.

 

[Rhymes]

It's probably the only way I'll ever post something of high quality.

Well you did have some glory moments against creationism.