MyOwnWorstEnemy's Feed
Credibility and the Dispute System
IDEAS ONLY - NO JUDGMENTS OR NAME CALLING
Opening up this wall post for the community to discuss the merits of credibility and dispute system. Feel free to post ideas on how to improve the current ecosystem and I will promote them to the top wall post.
I'll start with this idea....
In its current state, credibility points are a poor representation of what credibility actual means. At the very best its a misplaced label and should be more aptly named to something like Voting Power or Voting Weight. At its worse, the whole system of 'earning' credibility points must be redesigned if the true meaning of 'credibility' is the goal.
For starters, I would remove the current method of earning credibility points for correctly crowd voting. Voting 'Yes' or 'No' with the crowd will yield you the same 3 Credibility points. However, the last time I checked, approximately 99% of submissions are approved. What tha means is the voting 'Yes' blindly on every submission will peak to around 6,000 CR. Voting 'Yes' on a submission is IMO, maybe the least credible think you can do on this site. You don't even have to review a submission to gain 'credibility' points.
Voting 'No' with cause is one of the most credible actions you can do for this site. If a top goal of Twin Galaxies is to promote and maintain the integrity of the leaderboard, shouldn't the reward system of credibility match that ideal? What promotes the integrity of the leaderboard / database more, voting 'Yes' and being with the crowd 99% of the time or raising a credible challenge and keeping the scoreboard free of inaccurate, unsupported, and fraudulent records.
My idea is to reset everyone's credibility to the same level say 1,000. If an adjudicator raises a 'credible challenge' to the score and results in a 'No' vote, that person gains 100 credibility points. If the adjudicators challenge is not credible, they lose 50 credibility points. This concept puts in place a balanced risk / reward system. This should ward off frivolous adjudication challenges as you risk taking a credibility deduction.
For every successful 'YES' vote you get 0 credibility points. An unsuccessful 'Yes' vote will reduce credibility by 50 points. Eventually, blind voters will lose their credibility and have no voting power.
Credibility should also be earned by raising a successful dispute. Similar to what I stated above, the dispute should be risk / reward proposition. If its a valid dispute and helps improve the integrity of the scoreboard, than the disputer gets a credibility point reward. If its a frivolous or unsupported dispute, credibility points are reduced. Perhaps a 50 point reward and a 25 point loss is a good place to start....
JJT_Defender liked this post