thread

Cancelled Submissions

User Tag List

Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 10 18 19 20
Results 191 to 198 of 198
  1. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 12,796
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Suberbia, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,796
    Thanks (Received)
    1054
    Likes (Received)
    1411
    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    58 Thread(s)
    Follows
    28
    Following
    23
    My comments in blue...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    I'm not understanding what you are saying here. There is a cost, therefore a penalty. Your equation above does not make sense to me, where you have "Cost 0" that's not accurate. What you would have to include in your equation above for it to be accurate would be the phrase "additional cost" if that is what you mean?

    Yes there are no additional costs - however there is in fact an initial cost, therefore a penalty when losing that investment.

    So using your example:

    Member buys a television - Cost = 3
    - Option A (Adjudication Process Complete) - Cost = 3 (the member spent 3 to accomplish this)
    - Option B (Submission Canceled) - Cost = 3 (the member spent 3 and accomplished nothing, therefore losing 3, hence a penalty since they have given up submission points and received nothing in return.)

    Given that, I'm not sure how you consider cancellation a risk-free alternative? Submitter's lose SP and receive no value for it under cancellation. They would have been better off not submitting in the first place, rather than cancel. That's a penalty.

    I think we are just splitting hairs with this. I view this as a non-refundable up front fee, a cost for initial entry to the adjudication process. You view this as a cost that's collected up front (prepaid) for services yet rendered. If it goes through the adjudication process, its an adjudication cost and if it is canceled its a cancelation penalty. Regardless of whatever you or I call it, it all ends up as 3 submission points deducted from the submitters account. There is no additional charge/penalty/fee for cancelation.

    What I mean by a risk free transaction is the submitters, who are also their own adjudicators, receive three credibility points and one submission point regardless of the adjudication workflow (Yes, No, Cancel). All they need to due is make sure their vote is No when they hit the cancel button and they receive rewards. Again, I don't think cancel or rejecting one's own submission is a behavior that improves ones credibility status but this slightly off topic. The other adjudicators take on the risk when an adjudication is cancelled. They vote based on the evidence package and their decision is supplemented with information presented in forum comments. That don't control and can't predict if, when, or why a cancel is invoked by the submitter. The submitter always knows when they will cancel a submission and vote accordingly. Other adjudicators have to monitor the forums fairly consistently to make sure they don't suffer a 5% credibility hit based a cancelation that occurs for other reasons besides information pertinent to the submission claim being reviewed.


    During cancellation, a judgement is in fact rendered on whether the submission is valid or not. That judgement is being made by the submitter themselves, and it is final. This is not a bias, this is fact and has nothing to do with design.

    This is where I have a fundamental difference. I don't think the submitter should vote on their own adjudication. They are claiming their score is valid by clicking the submission button. You don't get to vote on something you create. The submitter's responsibility is to provide sufficient proof that their accomplishment belongs on the scoreboard. In my opinion, this is causing a lot of the problems further downstream in the process. If you think submitters should also be adjudicators and stand strong on this position, every think else after this comment regarding my proposal is moot.

    The reasons for cancellation can be wide and varied, and since those reasons are not adjudicated in any way, any cancellation must instantly negate a submission due to the fact that the very person who is making a score claim is no longer willing to stand by their claim as valid.

    The very foundation of the adjudication process starts with someone making a score claim and asserting its validity throughout the entire adjudication process. When a person withdraws their claim before an adjudication is complete, there is no longer anything to adjudicate - there is no claim being made by anyone. They have ceased to assert their submission as valid.

    The bold above is where we have a different viewpoint. From my perspective, when a person withdrawals their submission, the adjudication process ceases. There is no claim to vote on and therefore, nothing to adjudicate.
    The reasons for their cancellation cannot be proven. However, it doesn't matter if their cancellation rationale can be proven - its not relevant - what is relevant is the fact that they no longer stand by their claim and have rendered a judgement on the validity of their own submission and no longer are choosing to make a claim. The claim is gone.

    Again, maybe this is were we have different perspectives and word choices on how we describe adjudication. I view a cancelation as a cease of the adjudication process. Only the completion of an adjudication process can render a Yes or No decision. The cancelation doesn't render the submission invalid, the cancelation stops / invalidates the adjudication process. From my perspective, I can't equate an invalid submission (rejected from adjudication) the same as a canceled submission (adjudication process incomplete). For example, if a committee needs eight voting members to vote on a proposal and only six members attend, the lack of a quorum invalidates the meeting, not the proposal that was to be reviewed and voted on by that committee. Again, this is a fundamental difference than the current model. If you don't agree and can't or will not consider a different point of view, there is no reason to continue discussing my initial proposal.

    This is an entirely separate topic and not really appropriate to have in the middle of a discussion about the cancel feature. It is absolutely true that the goal of the adjudication system is not for passive participation and it is not trying to solve for it.

    Ok - I thought that one of Twin Galaxies objectives was to attract as many gamers and promote the gaming lifestyle by changing stereotypes. My interpretation was that this is one of the problems and the current designs impact to the casual participant was unintentional. If it is by intentional design and this is a belief you hold firm on, no need to consider it in any process improvement solution.

    This just not accurate. You are trying to draw a distinction between a cancellation and a rejection in a system that is trying to establish authentication and validity of something submitted to it. Either something is valid or it is not. There is no in-between. You are suggesting that the system consider something that was placed into it is as something that did not exist or happen. That is entirely counter to transactional record keeping methodologies and function.

    The submission does/did exist. There is no escaping that fact. When a submission is placed into the system it is by default considered invalid until it is accepted as valid through the adjudication process. This is why a cancellation and a rejection are the same - both are not valid submissions - and make no mistake, both are submission types in the system - we can't deny that fact. It is completely objective in measurement here.

    Again we have a philosophical difference. This doesn't have to be a binary approach. I view the submission as null until a complete adjudication occurs. Only then is the submission approved (valid) or rejected (invalid). For example, a bill is put forth in Congress and it is pulled before the session begins. I would call the bill an invalid law? Once voted upon, it will be approved or voted down. I understand this is not a court of law, but guilty until proven innocent isn't the only way to view an adjudication process.

    Apologies, there were no intended undertones. Perhaps it can read that way depending how one is personally feeling at the moment when reading but I assure you that no negative undertones were implied/intended and items (1) and (2) were not directed at anyone specifically in any way. They were intended to only be generic statements. Clearly point #1 where I state "1) A passive voting system can not solve for this by design. " had nothing to do with anything you were saying as you were not suggesting a passive voting system - so I at least hope that can confirm that what I am saying is true in regard to there not being any intended undertones!

    Thank you for the clarification. I may have read too much into this but I also didn't have any other contexts from where this was coming from.

    I assure you that I am actually interested in hearing better ideas and discussing them. That is not just a claim. If I was not interested I promise you that I would not spend any time engaging on the subject. I'm interested!

    Now some people may not appreciate push back on suggestions, and only want the conversation to go one way. If that is your demeanor that's ok I am able to just sit back and listen. No issue there. However my assumption has been that you primary interest was in our collective goal is to find a better solution than what we currently use. Unfortunately, the solution that you laid out in your initial post, unmodified, simply does not solve the matter on its own. Either you want me to discuss and try to explain my perspective on why, or you don't, which is ok too.

    I'm fine with feedback and as long as its constructive, every idea should be subject to credible challenge, both yours and mine. I proposed an alternative view publicly so others, including you, can poke, prod and break. From ashes of ideas will rise better ideas. :)

    Please forgive me but I want to suggest that you may be a bit sensitive on this. No one is trying to be snarky. There's no reason for that and certainly nothing like that is running through my head at any point in this conversation. I don't have any emotion about this, at all. This is just problem solving. Nothing more. You may be reading more into this than what is there, at least on my part.

    When I say that finding a better solution than the one we have is not trivial, I am being quite serious. When I mention thinking things through, I'm not suggesting that you or others aren't thinking, I am saying that this is an incredibly complex and multi-layered issue that requires a tremendous amount of abstract analysis.

    To illustrate, lets take a look at just one of your statements,

    Just that one simple statement you made is loaded with engineering and systemic complexity.

    In one sentence you laid out an entire multi-layered additional subsystem of the cancellation function that needs to be completely figured out from both a logistical and user interface perspective. TG Compensates? Ok, how much? Why? Determined by those who cast a vote? How? What about prevention of collusion and manipulation of that determination to stop people from working that system for advantage? Etc. Etc. We are talking about a lot of work, time and effort just for this one piece. So while it's easy to make statements like the above as suggestions, when I talk about thinking things completely through, that type of thing is what I am referring to, that's all I meant.

    This is what I mean by "not trival!" (with exclamation point) :)

    Fair enough. Again when presenting alternative ideas, I'm doing so without constraint. Basically brainstorming to find better was to solve problems. Feasibility of what can and can't be done, cost benefit analysis, etc... usually comes later. You have a perspective being in production meetings where you can equate dollars and human capital to the equation. There are multiple meaning for trivial, so given no other contexts in which to place this statement your intended meaning and my interpretation went in opposite directions.

    As someone who has personally spent thousands of hours sitting in a room with others trying to model out all these various systems for TG, I know firsthand how out of control it can get to try to solve these things. Simple ideas on the surface turn into nightmares of complexities.

    So as the most invested person on the planet into these TG systems, you can rest assured that I am always interested in looking at ways to improve it by any reasonable method possible. For anyone to think otherwise doesn't make sense. This is why I am fully engaged in this conversation.

    The goal is not to win an argument. The goal is to find the best system. That requires discussion and debate. Everything can be improved, obviously. I'm sorry that this has taken on some kind of personal nature for you, but I do understand how that is possible. Certainly never my intent!

    Well you sometimes have a funny way of responding to posts that can rub folks the wrong way. I'm using some of my free time to offer suggestion, spark ideas, an engage in productive dialogue, phrases like this "when you really think it through" and "not trivial!" came across like digs on my cognitive skills. Without any additional context to the original thread, I'm not sure how else to take those comments. All is good.


    My bottom line, the process I proposed hinges on the two points highlighted above and finding an appropriate reward / penalty system to drive credible behavior. If you feel strongly and it logically makes sense that (1) a cancelation is equivalent to a rejected submission and not an incomplete adjudication process aka no adjudication and (2) submitters are also adjudicators on their own submissions rather only present and let others judge their performance, lets just say we are a philosophical impasse. If that is so, this is my last post regarding this topic. If I could pull you toward a different viewpoint, the means to revise a behavioral driven reward mode is upon to debate which can include appropriate consideration for design implementation costs.

    Either way, this is my last post in this thread for this topic. I'll give the thread back for its intended purpose of helping adjudicators avoid their own cancelation penalty.
    Last edited by MyOwnWorstEnemy; 07-19-2017 at 05:10 PM.
    Thanks HugDD thanked for this post
    Likes HugDD liked this post
  2. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 4,659
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    St. Marys, WV, USA
    Posts
    2,844
    Thanks (Received)
    1163
    Likes (Received)
    2121
    Blog Entries
    52
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: bensweeneyonbass
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    81 Thread(s)
    Follows
    102
    Following
    63
    I just canceled this one. Uploaded the wrong iOS video again.

    http://www.twingalaxies.com/showthre...njamin-Sweeney

    This time I actually still had the right video so I just resubmitted.
  3. VERIFIED TG Head Custodian Credibility: 1,000
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    988
    Thanks (Received)
    742
    Likes (Received)
    1185
    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    51 Thread(s)
    Follows
    23188
    Following
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by MyOwnWorstEnemy View Post
    I think we are just splitting hairs with this. I view this as a non-refundable up front fee, a cost for initial entry to the adjudication process. You view this as a cost that's collected up front (prepaid) for services yet rendered. If it goes through the adjudication process, its an adjudication cost and if it is canceled its a cancelation penalty. Regardless of whatever you or I call it, it all ends up as 3 submission points deducted from the submitters account.
    Yes so as you can see, it would not be accurate to describe the process as "risk-free." 3 submission points are always at risk. Either the submitter is going to get something for that investment or they aren't. Since the process is elective and the outcome uncertain, it is accurate to describe putting up the 3 submission points as risk.

    Quote Originally Posted by MyOwnWorstEnemy View Post
    What I mean by a risk free transaction is the submitters, who are also their own adjudicators, receive three credibility points and one submission point regardless of the adjudication workflow (Yes, No, Cancel). All they need to due is make sure their vote is No when they hit the cancel button and they receive rewards. Again, I don't think cancel or rejecting one's own submission is a behavior that improves ones credibility status but this slightly off topic. The other adjudicators take on the risk when an adjudication is cancelled. They vote based on the evidence package and their decision is supplemented with information presented in forum comments. That don't control and can't predict if, when, or why a cancel is invoked by the submitter. The submitter always knows when they will cancel a submission and vote accordingly. Other adjudicators have to monitor the forums fairly consistently to make sure they don't suffer a 5% credibility hit based a cancelation that occurs for other reasons besides information pertinent to the submission claim being reviewed.

    This is where I have a fundamental difference. I don't think the submitter should vote on their own adjudication. They are claiming their score is valid by clicking the submission button. You don't get to vote on something you create. The submitter's responsibility is to provide sufficient proof that their accomplishment belongs on the scoreboard. In my opinion, this is causing a lot of the problems further downstream in the process. If you think submitters should also be adjudicators and stand strong on this position, every think else after this comment regarding my proposal is moot.
    I understand what you are saying here.

    This got discussed previously in my post #162 but it looks like you may have missed it? (http://www.twingalaxies.com/showthre...l=1#post909647 )

    I agree that if a user rejects their own submission, they should not get CR for it. I was pretty sure that we had eliminated that computation in the design but its looking like perhaps that may not be the case.
    So the issue that you seem to be describing was not intended and we are looking at that.
    Jace Hall
    Head Custodian and Caretaker
    www.TwinGalaxies.com
    Thanks MyOwnWorstEnemy thanked for this post
  4. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 12,796
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Suberbia, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,796
    Thanks (Received)
    1054
    Likes (Received)
    1411
    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    58 Thread(s)
    Follows
    28
    Following
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Jace Hall View Post
    Yes so as you can see, it would not be accurate to describe the process as "risk-free." 3 submission points are always at risk. Either the submitter is going to get something for that investment or they aren't. Since the process is elective and the outcome uncertain, it is accurate to describe putting up the 3 submission points as risk.

    I don't think we are going to ever agree on the label to call the 3 point submission fee. My perspective it is a non refundable fee for submission. You will never get submission points back regardless of the outcome (Adjudication = Yes, Adjudication = No, or Canceled). The "risk free" piece references two things. (1) There is no additional penalty for cancelation and (2) the submitter has the advantage of knowing if the will use the cancel button. They will never be penalized by a 5% credibility hit since all the need to do is either unvote or change their vote to no. This is especially problematic when the submission is sitting in the queue for a few days and the evidence package provides sufficient proof for a yes vote.

    I think we have different perspective in trying to define similar things and the fundamental differences in our back in forth probably won't change anytime soon. I think adjudicators should maintain a neutral position and not have an invested outcome in the adjudication results. The current system allows submitters to vote on their own submission, which they have vested interest in the outcome. I think a cancellation stops the adjudication process (no verdict) and the current system views cancellations as a rejected (verdict).


    I understand what you are saying here.

    This got discussed previously in my post #162 but it looks like you may have missed it? (http://www.twingalaxies.com/showthre...l=1#post909647 )

    So the issue that you seem to be describing was not intended and we are looking at that.
    I did see that you acknowledged that this is a problem in your past post. However unless I misinterpreted the engineer response and fix, I still think that the submitter receives 1 submission point and 3 credibility points for a 'No' vote in which a submission is either cancelled or rejected through adjudication. I'll run a quick test and let you know and send you the results... one way or the other.
    Last edited by MyOwnWorstEnemy; 07-22-2017 at 05:48 PM.
  5. VERIFIED TG Head Custodian Credibility: 1,000
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    988
    Thanks (Received)
    742
    Likes (Received)
    1185
    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    51 Thread(s)
    Follows
    23188
    Following
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by MyOwnWorstEnemy View Post
    I did see that you acknowledged that this is a problem in your past post. However unless I misinterpreted the engineer response and fix, I still think that the submitter receives 1 submission point and 3 credibility points for a 'No' vote in which a submission is either cancelled or rejected through adjudication. I'll run a quick test and let you know and send you the results... one way or the other.
    No this is being addressed. Not sure if it is fixed yet ( @admin staff )
    Jace Hall
    Head Custodian and Caretaker
    www.TwinGalaxies.com
  6. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 11,778
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    milwaukee
    Posts
    2,908
    Thanks (Received)
    2208
    Likes (Received)
    2422
    Blog Entries
    43
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    69 Thread(s)
    Follows
    35
    Following
    15
    Entered race time instead of lap time, cancelling tonight:

    http://www.twingalaxies.com/showthre...9-john-brissie
    john m brissie
    Thanks HugDD thanked for this post
  7. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 4,659
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    St. Marys, WV, USA
    Posts
    2,844
    Thanks (Received)
    1163
    Likes (Received)
    2121
    Blog Entries
    52
    Live Streaming Channel(s)
    View Channel: bensweeneyonbass
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    81 Thread(s)
    Follows
    102
    Following
    63
    I gained SP and CR on a recently canceled submission of my own.

    The problem may have been addressed in between the original cancellation and the completion of the process (the submission being moved from the Canceled archive to the Rejected archive). Just wanted to let people know that.

    Here's the submission:
    http://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/174447
  8. VERIFIED TG Head Custodian Credibility: 1,000
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    988
    Thanks (Received)
    742
    Likes (Received)
    1185
    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    51 Thread(s)
    Follows
    23188
    Following
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by bensweeneyonbass View Post
    I gained SP and CR on a recently canceled submission of my own.

    The problem may have been addressed in between the original cancellation and the completion of the process (the submission being moved from the Canceled archive to the Rejected archive). Just wanted to let people know that.

    Here's the submission:
    http://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/174447
    It is not addressed yet. We will get to it.
    Jace Hall
    Head Custodian and Caretaker
    www.TwinGalaxies.com
Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 10 18 19 20