Grav's Proposition Revision Draft

It shouldn't be a negative, but it certainly lowers the ceiling a bit.. You're not going to have a bunch of people suggest that someone who types "omg i h8 dis guyz" is worthy of a SoA.

Grammar/Spelling/Vocabulary 35% (total), Content 65%. Grammar/Spelling/Vocabulary would be enough to block you from a SoA (unless you have some REALLY good posts), but probably not enough to be BLIS-ed on that one merit. Even if my percentages suck for some reason, I still think it should be a weighted average.

I agree with the weighted average thing like Blue Cube said.

I actually went over Titus's post again. With a weighted average, I think all of the rest of that sounds good.

Well, we're not machines, so this sort of thing isn't going to be solely based on input/output values. Variables always exist, these are just basic guidelines.

True, I was thinking of ratings from 0-10 or something.

If you got a 0 on spelling and 5 on content, that's (0*.35)+(5*.65)= 3.25 overall average, not good. 10 on spelling/2 on content, (10*.35)+(2*.65) = 4.8 overall.

Obviously, percentages only work if numbers are actually involved. If not, then spelling should simply be something to keep in mind, but not the whole argument for a SoA/GAHH/BLIS label. It would just support your position, but not by much.

Well obviously not, I could type things like

"Your mother is an enormously gay pig fucker"

all the time, which is a fine spelling, but it wouldn't make me worthy of an SoA, I know what you're saying.

I think a system of 0 to 6 would work.. everyone does a rating of someone based on A) Language usage and B) Content.

So let's say we have the 5 council people.

Person 1: A) 5 - B) 3
Person 2: A) 5 - B) 4
Person 3: A) 4 - B) 3
Person 4: A) 5 - B) 5
Person 5: A) 3 - B) 4

A) average is 22 / 5 = 4.4
B) average is 19 / 5 = 3.8

So using your weighted system, [((4.4* .35) = 1.54), + ((3.8* .65) = 2.74)] = 4.01.

Out of 6, that's a good rating, overall, but a SoA would be a 5 or higher.

GAHH would be 2.75 or lower, and BLIS would be a 1.5 or lower.

(Just random numbers, not set in stone or anything)


If there was a range of more than two, say one guy gave him a 2 on part A, and another gave him a 5, and everyone else was 3 and 4, one or both of those could be replaced by "backup council" members so to speak, to avoid bias.

Very nice titus.
One thing bothers me though, Is four months really long enough?
Someone explain why thats the "reliable" ammount of time.

Alright. Updated with Grav's example taken from BCube's idea of weighted judging. Also updated the Activity to 35%, since that is the minimum % for Staff members, and hence should be good enough for this.

Now, do we not agree that 4 months is an ample amount of time? If we really wanted, we could just as easily incorporate the system WW implemented for Senior Members, and use that as the required mimimum.

http://www.zelaron.com/forum/faq.php?

If there was a range of more than two, say one guy gave him a 2 on part A, and another gave him a 5, and everyone else was 3 and 4, one or both of those could be replaced by "backup council" members so to speak, to avoid bias.

Good point, if one guy gives a rating of 0/0, while the others are giving out 3/4's and the like, there's obviously something else going on.. Same as a 6/6 and a bunch of 2/4's.