|Chat Index||Software||Java Chat||Guidelines||Transcripts|
Opinionated Community Chat
<MykReeve> Great. So, the next topic for this evening's debate is what criteria we think should be used to award crowns. Anyone wanting to speak say aye now...
<Necropolis> nay, but I'll just say on record I think Crowns should be scrapped.
<MykReeve> Yeah, we know Nec! :)
<TheKnight> take your time Ken, I want to roll a ciggie :)
<thanatos> nay - I've already said earlier on, don't need to repeat it.
<MykReeve> OK. Let's get going - ken, the floor is yours. Anyone else wanting to speak - message me...
<kensplace_> Im sure that there will be many more ideas put forth in the next few mins by others,
<kensplace_> so Im not going to say too much
<kensplace_> I think that crowns *maybe* should be looked at from how well they have donre
<kensplace_> in the community
<kensplace_> At present dooyoo states that ratings ARE not taken into consideration
<kensplace_> Im not saying lets go for crowns to all 100+reads, no more like if it gets a few v.us then
<kensplace_> look at it
<kensplace_> Then also, look at previous ops is the person improving? Do they need a boost?
<kensplace_> Perhaps most important, is it 1. EASY to read. 2. Useful
<kensplace_> 3 Fun
<kensplace_> ok thats me
<MykReeve> Thanks Ken. Next speaker, TK.
<TheKnight> I don't worry too much about fun
<TheKnight> for me the 'amusement' value is definitely secondary
<TheKnight> No matter how funny it may be it can never make up for a couple of useful facts
<TheKnight> for me the first criteria must be that it gives useful advice
<TheKnight> indeed, *exceptionally* useful
<TheKnight> the second must be that there are no factual errors (even where these may not actually constitute bad advice)
<TheKnight> I like it being totally seperate to ratings
<TheKnight> It means that people saying unpopular things in an excellent way still have a chance to get noticed
<TheKnight> Thats all
<MykReeve> Owww. Cat on lap - almost as tough as child on lap, I imagine. Sharper claws, certainly.
<MykReeve> Floor passes to ScotGirl.
<ScotGirl> err, I wrote mine in notepad but it's much as TK said :) I'll paste it anyway.
<ScotGirl> Criteria should be an expansion on what we all believe a VU opinion to be - i.e. *ALL* relevant facts given, well written blah blah. There is of course the all important X factor - but that should only come into play after the factual content has been considered first. Length should NOT come into it at all. Some crowned
<ScotGirl> o long looks like an automatic crown as things stand - that is wrong
<ScotGirl> woops - forget the second part
<ScotGirl> Some crowned ops are far too long for anyone to actually read all of them - well I think so anyway. Too long is as bad as too short. Too long looks like an automatic crown as things stand - that is wrong.
<MykReeve> Is that bit directed at me, Liz? :) Thanks. Next speaker is ermintrude.
<ermintrude75> well TK and liz have pretty much said it
<ermintrude75> the primary criterion HAS TO BE usefulness
<ermintrude75> and to give ratings weight would be difficult I think
<ermintrude75> when would you revisit to look at the ratings?
<ermintrude75> and we all know about VUs being overused, and NUs being used as "disagree"
<ermintrude75> I wouldn't want to carry those things over to crowns
<ermintrude75> that's all, thanks
<MykReeve> OK. Before we move on, does anyone want to add anything else, (other than "I think crowns should be scrapped", Nec...), if so, say aye.
<MykReeve> OK. Nec has the floor.
<Necropolis> To argue that crowns should be the most useful is to say that when the ratings system is fixed they become superfluous.
<Necropolis> And re: length - I write about a topic for interested readers. If it is too long for someone reading me, and not the topic, then that is not my concern.
<Necropolis> Thank you.
<MykReeve> OK. And TK.
<TheKnight> It was an earlier point by Nec, but one I think more suited to the topic of criteria that his Euthenasia op got crowned ...
<TheKnight> My belief is that that Op was very much deserving of its crown
<TheKnight> yes it was personal, but yes, that did make the op all the better, stronger and ultimately more useful to consider
<TheKnight> I hate speakers corner ops where people state the obvious but not what they *believe*
<TheKnight> I think it deserved the crown Nec, and I believe that many others including the cat manager agree with me ... with myk's indulgence I ask all who agree to say aye
<TheKnight> thats all
<Necropolis> But you said yourself my op wasn't very readble the first time you tried TK. Avi couldn't even finish it! Not crown worthy then.
<TheKnight> I had to read 1984 twice too
<MykReeve> OK. Let's continue this in private messages... thanks both.
<TheKnight> still one of the greatest things I read
<MykReeve> Kensplace up next.
<Necropolis> I hope you mean my op 8-)
<kensplace_> cutn'paste coming
<kensplace_> i agree with liz with the commment on "*all* relavent facts"
<kensplace_> But i also think that for crowns it cant always be the case, as 1000 people could cover all the known facts exceptionally well.
<kensplace_> THEN 1 person could come along and write a 75 worder that reveals ONE FACT NEVER BEFORE revealed, a fact so important, a crown is deserved!
<kensplace_> rare - but could happen
<kensplace_> what im trying to say is sometimes a one of fact, without the rest of them can be a crowner
<MykReeve> imright/imwrong's off. He says goodbye.
<kensplace_> ok me done
<MykReeve> Thanks Ken. Liz wants to make a point... Liz?
<ScotGirl> on the length thing: if length is required to get all points across then fine - but waffling is no use to anyone.
<ScotGirl> The point I was trying to make is that 3000 words of waffle is far more likely to get a crown that 400 words of usefulness. It should be the other way round - size doesn't matter ;)
<MykReeve> OK. Great.
|Chat Index||Software||Java Chat||Guidelines||Transcripts|