Post COunt

[xx - Camp Cannon]

Sandmen posts 12000+ and PHX 7000+ should tehy be given a higher amount of post per point i.e 100 point per post thus giving those with lower post an equal oppurtuning and advantage until we catch up to those 2 guys

[The Sandmen]

This is not an official poll, nor is it productive. I would encourage you to try this again if you think this is actually a problem and not just make it a troll poll.

[xx - Camp Cannon]

it is a problem! u post it mope intellect like than!

[The Sandmen]

You don;t need intelligence to NOT call someone names in a poll. The poll is about what is best for the league, and calling people names is not best for the league. Like, what is option 2 supposed to even mean? If the majority vote for option 2, what has that accomplished?

[The Sandmen]

Perhaps more to the point though, you can't just make a rule for 1 person. If you have a problem with the idea that active people earn more points (7000-14,000 posts compared to people like Knockouts with 500) you need to come up with a suggestion that addresses THAT problem. Not just "Phoenix needs to be held to a different standard". That is not something I can add to the rulebook.

[xx - Camp Cannon]

There changed it

[The West Coast Knockouts]

I agree , if you have over 5000 posts it should take you 200 posts before you get a point.

[The Sandmen]

200 is A LOT. Having been at 200 for about 6 seasons, I can vouch for how intense 200 is.

[The Sandmen]

Something I was kind of thinking about was exempting people below a certain post-count from FiD. I think that stops lesser-posters from having to worry about their secondary fighters so much, and they can focus on building their teams.

What if we did something like under ### posts, your whole team is exempt from FID? If we like that, what number works best, 1000? 2000? Other?

[The West Coast Knockouts]

Feb 14, 2014 20:16:36 GMT -5 The Sandmen said:

200 is A LOT. Having been at 200 for about 6 seasons, I can vouch for how intense 200 is.

it should not be a problem for you guys . There is a reason why you guys have more posts than the rest of the league after all right ?

[The Sandmen]

To an extent, but it also needs to be interesting. When I was at 200, even simming, I barely got anything. I would have to sim 10 events to get 1 point. It was tough and boring. No matter how much you posted, you were never close to a point. The end is literally never in sight. For me, as simmer, that is one thing. But you do that to a regular member, they could lose interest in the site all-together.

I am cool with changing lower-end posters to get more points (which I think solves the problem of bringing them up to the higher levels the high-posters are at) but 200 I might think is too high for even me, and I am pretty easy-going with most of this stuff.

Now, the other thing to consider is the balancing point. We are still looking to reward dedication, and whether we like it or not, dedicated people get more points, and that should be rewarded to as much of an extent as we can without breaking the system entirely.

[The West Coast Knockouts]

Feb 14, 2014 20:27:05 GMT -5 The Sandmen said:

To an extent, but it also needs to be interesting. When I was at 200, even simming, I barely got anything. I would have to sim 10 events to get 1 point. It was tough and boring. No matter how much you posted, you were never close to a point. The end is literally never in sight. For me, as simmer, that is one thing. But you do that to a regular member, they could lose interest in the site all-together.

I am cool with changing lower-end posters to get more points (which I think solves the problem of bringing them up to the higher levels the high-posters are at) but 200 I might think is too high for even me, and I am pretty easy-going with most of this stuff.

Now, the other thing to consider is the balancing point. We are still looking to reward dedication, and whether we like it or not, dedicated people get more points, and that should be rewarded to as much of an extent as we can without breaking the system entirely.

How about the Lower ranked teams get 4 points every 50 posts but once they hit 2 thousand posts it goes back to normal. It helps new members and not as active members to keep up with the elite teams.

[The Sandmen]

Things get complicated with me when someone like Bulldozers comes in. Teams such as yours need a boost - almost definitely. But if we gave Bulldozers a bunch of breaks, he hit 700+ posts in about a month, while you are sitting at 500 in 2 years. So, to give him something like 4 points for every 50, then everything normal, he would be miles ahead of you in about 3 months, which when he became one of the high-end posters in the 2000s, would put him at a HUGE advantage over someone such as yourself because of those 4 points per 50 he earned at the beginning.

Something else to consider though is the low-posters (Knockouts, Storm, Byron, and I think Underdogs) all got 1 point per 25 posts up to post 500. Because of his post-rate, I didn't give Bulldozers that little gift, but he has more than made up for it with his activity.

Now, agian, my objection was to the number 200. At 100, things are not that bad. Every post you make is 1% of the way towards a point. There is a world of difference between that and 0.5% every post you make, so I am not opposed to throwing that number around and seeing what people say/think about it. I just hated the 200 number - that was death.

[xx - Camp Cannon]

yeah 200 seems a lil high 75 / or 100 is a better number

[The Sandmen]

We've seen how 100 has worked, so if we are considering a change, I would start with 100 and if it doesn't work and is still problematic, we can look at additional options.

If we were to hypothetically introduce such a thing, at what post-count should we introduce it? The 1,500 we currently have with the new Fighters in Danger tweak?