MyOwnWorstEnemy's Feed

MyOwnWorstEnemy
RSS
12-19-2020 at 02:10 PM
8 Comments
Rate this Entry

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....



ThanksGarrett Holland, timmell, JJT_Defender thanked this post
LikesJJT_Defender liked this post
Comments
  1. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar

    Nothing you suggested is ever going to happen, I wager. Which is probably for the best, since this site is in enough of a mess.

    Allow me to suggest something simpler: escalating "wrong" vote penalties. Five percent, instead of being a nice & ignoreable bit of punishment, could instead be the beginning of a slippery slope. Your first "wrong" vote loses you 5% of your CR; the next one loses you 10%; next one, 25%; next, 50%; then, finally, the killing blow: 100% of your CR, down the toilet.

    Thankstimmell, MyOwnWorstEnemy thanked this post
    Likesnads liked this post
    Updated 12-19-2020 at 03:33 PM by Almighty Dreadlock
  2. thegamer1185's Avatar

    Irony; @timmell has been around TG much longer than me, submits very often, can't dispute scores. I know nothing about old TG, vote more, therefore I can dispute scores. Happy soon to be 2021 everybody!!

    ThanksMyOwnWorstEnemy thanked this post
  3. MyOwnWorstEnemy's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Almighty Dreadlock

    Nothing you suggested is ever going to happen, I wager. Which is probably for the best, since this site is in enough of a mess.

    Allow me to suggest something simpler: escalating "wrong" vote penalties. Five percent, instead of being a nice & ignoreable bit of punishment, could instead be the beginning of a slippery slope. Your first "wrong" vote loses you 5% of your CR; the next one loses you 10%; next one, 25%; next, 50%; then, finally, the killing blow: 100% of your CR, down the toilet.

    If we're being realistic, nothing you, I, or anyone else suggests in this thread will be implemented. TG has already invested time and money into the system we have today. Practically any change, even minor seems to have too much costs and those pesky unintended consequences. This post was meant as a sharing of ideas... not a call to arms.

    Your suggestion seems pretty harsh but than again, maybe that's how it should be...

    LikesIntyFanMatt liked this post
  4. EVN's Avatar

    Can we maybe cap credibility at a number so certain people don't treat it like a game with no ending making that little number go up.

    ThanksMyOwnWorstEnemy thanked this post
    LikesBarthax, datagod liked this post
  5. Barthax's Avatar

    What we humans consider credibility vs. what can be objectively calculated from the voting process: they're never going to meet in the middle.

    The 4,000 CR for dispute is simply a preventative matter: to stop multiple wild accusations from many members, It's a threshold which is too high to be "easily" attainable - requires at least a modicum of dedication - and low enough that a good portion of the active voting community can both attain and maintain that level even with the current 5% reduction.

    Both of the suggested alternatives above do nothing to adjust the skew of human credibility vs. an objective calculation.

    ThanksMyOwnWorstEnemy thanked this post
    Likesthegamer1185 liked this post
  6. Desidious's Avatar

    Get rid of credibility and sp altogether. Limit users to one submission a day or vary it however necessary. Track creation, disputes, and many others things can be done through community votes. Things become more transparent so hopefully less gaming the system.


    The only thing missing from all of this is a way to have incentives for watching others submissions to keep the queue going.

  7. datagod's Avatar

    What I hate about the credibility system is that you can vote on a submission based on a lengthy discussion. You go about your life and come back to the site to find out that AFTER that lengthy discussion, the original poster asks for the submission to be rejected based on changing their mind.

    Case in point:

    Should games that use the Braze high score save kit be allowed on original tracks? Experts weighed in and said there is NO difference in game play. People came to an agreement. I have one of these kits myself (space invaders) and was happy to vote YES. I was happy to not have to disconnect that high score save kit before submitting scores on my machine.

    ...and what do you know I lose hundreds of credibility points because after I voted people changed their mind.

    It pisses me off because to be able to submit disputes you have to be above 4000 cred. That is a LOT of adjudication.

    "You should monitor your votes"

    Yeah, and you should make the website more navigable. We both know that isn't going to happen.

    LikesMyOwnWorstEnemy, Barthax liked this post
  8. Barthax's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by datagod

    Case in point:

    Should games that use the Braze high score save kit be allowed on original tracks? Experts weighed in and said there is NO difference in game play. People came to an agreement. I have one of these kits myself (space invaders) and was happy to vote YES. I was happy to not have to disconnect that high score save kit before submitting scores on my machine.

    ...and what do you know I lose hundreds of credibility points because after I voted people changed their mind.

    Yep, that one bit me too. A submission to a track specifically for the Braze kit & people vote no for reasons other than the specifics of the submission on the track at hand. :(

Join us