Rewards for participation/activity

wizardofoz01

wizardofoz01

TNPer
I'm putting this in the main RA forum since it's not really a law or proposal so to speak, but rather a general discussion amongst everyone on these boards.

As I mentioned in my campaign thread, I would throw out some ideas to encourage participation in the RA. I don't like the idea of enforced activity requirements, and I don't philosophically like the idea of "rewarding" people to participate in a democracy (which almost smacks of heresy in my personal opinion), BUT if I had to choose between the two -- I'd rather offer people rewards.

The thing is -- I'm not sure what form these rewards should take. As I mentioned, we could have a running update of what votes each RA member has participated in, but that could get complicated if we merge the RV and RA status. Another crazy idea would be to offer posting rewards to people who participate meaningfully in debate or votes (I'm sure you all can tell I'm just throwing ideas out there).

I'm also unsure whether the RA could work in some scheme with the Bank of TNP, if it gets up and running. I'm against any kind of "poll tax" but what could work is if we have some kind of "poll tax" but say that anyone who votes in any given voting thread does not have to pay.

I also had an idea about holding a debate forum here inthe RA where we'd have people debate issues, but I frankly confess I'm not sure how that would work.

The problem as I see it, is more along the lines of getting more people to participate in the discussion BEFORE the vote as well as the vote itself.
 
wizardofoz01:
I'm putting this in the main RA forum since it's not really a law or proposal so to speak, but rather a general discussion amongst everyone on these boards.

As I mentioned in my campaign thread, I would throw out some ideas to encourage participation in the RA. I don't like the idea of enforced activity requirements, and I don't philosophically like the idea of "rewarding" people to participate in a democracy (which almost smacks of heresy in my personal opinion), BUT if I had to choose between the two -- I'd rather offer people rewards.

The thing is -- I'm not sure what form these rewards should take. As I mentioned, we could have a running update of what votes each RA member has participated in, but that could get complicated if we merge the RV and RA status. Another crazy idea would be to offer posting rewards to people who participate meaningfully in debate or votes (I'm sure you all can tell I'm just throwing ideas out there).

I'm also unsure whether the RA could work in some scheme with the Bank of TNP, if it gets up and running. I'm against any kind of "poll tax" but what could work is if we have some kind of "poll tax" but say that anyone who votes in any given voting thread does not have to pay.

I also had an idea about holding a debate forum here inthe RA where we'd have people debate issues, but I frankly confess I'm not sure how that would work.

The problem as I see it, is more along the lines of getting more people to participate in the discussion BEFORE the vote as well as the vote itself.
Click to expand...
I'm all for it. Or, perhaps the amount of posts gained per post in this forum could be increased. They have a similar system in either the Meritocracy or Equilism IIRC for like national history posts.
 
It would all have to be done manually - there's no way I can alter the value of posts per forum.

If we're going to do that, I would spare the bonus for the actual votes rather than any post.
 
Hersfold:
It would all have to be done manually - there's no way I can alter the value of posts per forum.

If we're going to do that, I would spare the bonus for the actual votes rather than any post.
Click to expand...
I think we'd have to own and host our own version of IPB if we wanted to do that, now that I think about it (Meritocracy and Equilism both are IIRC).

So, guess that is out of the question. But the bonus for votes is a good idea.
 
Also, quality of participation is subjective. Perhaps a participation or rather a process for nominating people for their efforts in contributing to the process might be better? Sort of like an 'achievement award' for participation and contribution. Perhaps a specific title reserved for the recipients of that award.
 
Romanoffia:
Also, quality of participation is subjective. Perhaps a participation or rather a process for nominating people for their efforts in contributing to the process might be better? Sort of like an 'achievement award' for participation and contribution. Perhaps a specific title reserved for the recipients of that award.
Click to expand...
I'd actually like that idea better. I echo Wizard's moral concerns about giving prizes for just participating - this tones that down a bit, and rewards those who actually deserve it.
 
Wizardofoz01:
The problem as I see it, is more along the lines of getting more people to participate in the discussion BEFORE the vote as well as the vote itself.
Click to expand...

I think part of the solution to that remains where the initial discussion takes place versus the later thread for formal discussion and voting. I still think it would make more sense if we revered the current practice, and placed initial discussions in the main RA forum and then link it into a new thread for formal discussion in the Legislative subforum once formal debate begins. I still think that would increase participation at an earlier point.

Of course, if the RA/RV merger proposal that Hersfold has offered goes through, that would present an opportunity to fix this problem.
 
The prizes might be coordinated on a monthly basis? Something like that? We'd have to have some "judges"

@ Grosse - I might agree on this one. In fact I was thinking that myself last night -- putting initial discussion in a subforum might make it less visible.

However, if I were to change things, I'd want the name of the new subforum to clearly indicate it's for formal discussion on things since "legislative discussion" itself is a bit vague.
 
So it seems we have a few ideas on the table.

1.) Give bonus posts to everyone who votes on a given voting thread.

and/or

2.) Cite someone for excellence in participation.


Separate issue:

Should the forum allocation be changed? ie Formal Discussions in a subforum and Informal ones in the main forum? Would people like to have a house vote on this?

My one concern with swapping things is that would mean Formal Discussions get moved from main forum to subforum and then moved BACK to main forum when voting starts.
 
I could add a voting forum for security... it would make it easier to confirm votes. I could also set up some multi-moderation to make things easier for you to manage. Informal Discussion in main -> Formal Discussion in Legislative Discussion -> Voting in Voting -> Back to formal discussion or to the archives.
 
Yeees.. A separate voting forum is another option.

That makes me worry that we'll lose votes :lol:

Especially considering the fact that our vote threads right now are on main page + pinned (the most visible).

EDIT: I'm wondering whether the safest way to do this would be to see if Hers' proposal passes and to see if that increases participation FIRST before we move the forum placements.

I think the nonforum-related ideas, such as citing someone for excellence in participation and/or bonus posts for voting could continue independently of where we put things.

EDIT 2: I'd also like to put in a request to rename the LEgislative Discussion subforum: "Preliminary Ideas" or something of that nature to make it clear we're talking about informal discussions in that subforum.
 
Any ideas what the reward should be for getting an "Excellence in Participation" award?

Such as X posts added to your post total?
 
Hersfold:
Romanoffia:
Also, quality of participation is subjective. Perhaps a participation or rather a process for nominating people for their efforts in contributing to the process might be better? Sort of like an 'achievement award' for participation and contribution. Perhaps a specific title reserved for the recipients of that award.
Click to expand...
I'd actually like that idea better. I echo Wizard's moral concerns about giving prizes for just participating - this tones that down a bit, and rewards those who actually deserve it.
Click to expand...
Seconded (or thirded, or whatever - despite not being in the RA or an RV)...

As a merit system this is more preferable, as it works on the basis of the indivdual's contribution to the TNP, much like giving someone an OBE.

That's if you're definitely going to have a reward system. Ultimately, you should be tackling the reason why people aren't participating in the RA/RV/whatever...

For instance, I'm not in either, as I don't agree with the current sign up policy, and find it far too convoluted. I'm also vaguely unaware as to what the RA actually does - and I know that if both of these were addressed, I'd be well in there.
 
The best way to change things to make it less convoluted would be to join up and take part- and put forward ideas in the RA to change things. Having said that, I also have to ask what is convoluted about the current process for becoming an RV/RA I didn't think it was that bad.
 
Nova Sardonikker:
That's if you're definitely going to have a reward system. Ultimately, you should be tackling the reason why people aren't participating in the RA/RV/whatever...

For instance, I'm not in either, as I don't agree with the current sign up policy, and find it far too convoluted. I'm also vaguely unaware as to what the RA actually does - and I know that if both of these were addressed, I'd be well in there.
Click to expand...
I've said many times before that it really rests in part with the nations in TNP to participate, and to be willing to participate.

I've been trying to think up incentives for people to do so, as much as it personally pains me because it feels like cheapening our system of government. Having said that, if people don't wish to join the RA, we cannot force them.

I'm also sure that if any new member comes into this forum and actually reads it for a week or so, they will understand what's going on -- it's how I learned when I first came here.

It is equally easy to say that we should address the issues behind lack of participation, but in order to do that, we would have to impose harsh activity rules that people wouldn't like either. Furthermore, if I wished to be mean, I would say the lack of participation is due to people not giving a damn. And that's not something that can be fixed by outsiders.
 
On the issue of rewards, I've decided to go ahead with the idea of giving people $1000 or 100 posts. Tentatively, I'm going to be the judge for now (until/if anyone suggests an alternative), and the award will probably be given once a week.

This is, of course, subject to the OK of Hers, who will have to do all the post total adjusting.
 
Haor Chall:
The best way to change things to make it less convoluted would be to join up and take part- and put forward ideas in the RA to change things. Having said that, I also have to ask what is convoluted about the current process for becoming an RV/RA I didn't think it was that bad.
Click to expand...
It's the oath.

Personally, I just don't agree with the idea of that form of public declaration, and having to make it in order to be politically active.
 
Well...i had an idea for this....I really do have odd dreams.

One night I drempt of a region in NS, don't remember which, and they had a "qualified posting authority" or QPA that would examine posts which people would bring to them as good and for the improvement of the region. That way if you posed soemthing like "indeed" it would nto count toward your qualified posting average, but if you gave a discorse on how a bill negates Locke;s theory of the social contract. The commission was elected.


We had set levels of posts that woudl give you "degrees of honor" and every so many qualified posts, you earned mroe privilages. I think a path to good moddom (not admin) could be by a similar system to the QPA.

For those debators out there...think of it as the National Forensic league point system. After x many points you get the degree of merit, then at 250, its distinction, and so on.
 
I think a path to good moddom (not admin) could be by a similar system to the QPA.
Click to expand...

Moderation on this forum will not be decided by who can spam the best. The moderators are set by who is elected to the position, in the case of the government, or those who have earned the trust of the region enough to be appointed as a Global Mod.

It's the oath.

Personally, I just don't agree with the idea of that form of public declaration, and having to make it in order to be politically active.
Click to expand...

Which reminds me...

I'll accept private applications. I think I used to when I was deputy under Flem, and I'd completely forgotten about it until now. The Oath mainly serves to let nations that apply know a little better what will be expected of them when they apply - you must stay in TNP, you can't cheat and register more than once, and you agree to abide by the laws of the region (which you should be doing anyway). It's just stating that you agree to stick by the requirements set forth in the Constitution - nothing more.
 
hers...I am not talking about spam capabilities...but degrees of honors. based upon qualifying posts. On TWP, I have over 4100 posts...yet probably only 1 or 2k were worth anything for progress.
 
freedom and pride:
hers...I am not talking about spam capabilities...but degrees of honors. based upon qualifying posts. On TWP, I have over 4100 posts...yet probably only 1 or 2k were worth anything for progress.
Click to expand...
Even so, just because you can talk well does not necessarily mean you have good moderation skills.

In any case, the RA has no place in deciding how the forum is run.
 
freedom and pride:
Well...i had an idea for this....I really do have odd dreams.

One night I drempt of a region in NS, don't remember which, and they had a "qualified posting authority" or QPA that would examine posts which people would bring to them as good and for the improvement of the region. That way if you posed soemthing like "indeed" it would nto count toward your qualified posting average, but if you gave a discorse on how a bill negates Locke;s theory of the social contract. The commission was elected.


We had set levels of posts that woudl give you "degrees of honor" and every so many qualified posts, you earned mroe privilages. I think a path to good moddom (not admin) could be by a similar system to the QPA.

For those debators out there...think of it as the National Forensic league point system. After x many points you get the degree of merit, then at 250, its distinction, and so on.
Click to expand...
This may be a commendable idea, but it's somewhat dangerous.

We don't want to make judgments on specific posts (whether the content qualifies as good).
 
THe modding was just a simple idea for a reward, Hers, not the end goal fo my proposal. I remove it then.

Now...


THe creation of a small committee to review submitted posts...would give more jobs and involve more people.


In an act that would create such a committee, it could say that a qualifying post must have at least x words, be on topic with the intent of the forum, and overall contribute to the advancement of our society. The committee would not be there to interject opinion on the side, but merely be a human voice to ensure that the posts actually are helpful. In fact, a specific requirement of non-bias should be issued.

Regardless of the actual makeup of a committee, what we could decide on is rewards. I think simple medals or degrees of honor could be earned, based on a point per post system. when the poeple running the board look for someone, they shoudl at least take the QPA points into consideration, but certainly not create an automatic system for swinging people into position.
 
I'll add my 2 cents here, for what it's worth!

In the Lex we offer the Poster of the Day award basically to our Spammers Extrodinaires!

I'm somewhat taken aback though at the idea of rewarding people for involvement in voting/politics.

We've simply not had this problem.

If people want to get involved they do, if they do't they don't...to me it seems as simple as that!
 
There are two concerns with the idea. First, rewards based on the Bank monetary system is premature, I think, until there is more of a certainty that it will be more than an experiment.

Second, the use of committees or individuals to determine rewards is quite subjective and I am not sure that would be a good thing because one will then have to either acknowledge that there is no accepted standard by which to measure post quality or there would have to be set of standards by which to measure post quality. That opens up a whole another issue to resolve.
 
who mentioned the money system?

I think it is preposterous to tie rewards to post count. That is why we need a body to decide what is good.


and i do nto mean that posts should be debated....they have to have a minimum word count and somehow advance debate and be on-topic. If the poster cna prove that is is on challenge, another point to him. Really, it;s not that hard.


We are not trying to analyze the posts deeply here, just on the surface is it good or is it bad. one read-through should be able to give the answer.

The idea is that any seriosuly thought out and progressibe post of any opinion would receive a point.
 
freedom and pride:
I think it is preposterous to tie rewards to post count. That is why we need a body to decide what is good.
Click to expand...
The question is will this body be unbiased.

I don't want to give control of an award system to any committee that is going to use it to promote views that they like. That is, I don't want people to say: "this post deserves an award" purely because the views espoused in it happen to be the same as those of the judges.

Furthermore, the award wouldn't be for rewarding posts, but rewarding participation. There is a difference in the RA -- this is not OOC, where people can spam it up with one word answers and hope to get credit that way. If someone is posting several posts a day, these almost always result in SOME contribution purely because we're debating serious topics.
 
REgardless of whether you count posts or not...you ahve to have some human beign make the decisions as to whom shallt eh awards be giben.


If the onyl thing we have to worry about is the sekection of the members, then i don;t see a problem. We could elect, ro we could make it random. Since this region likes lengthy laws, we could write in that law that you need x number of words and it has to be on topic and contributing to the debate. Those are pretty cut and dry. If you contribute to the progress of the region, you are participating. The more you participate , the more awards you get.


Problem solved.
 
Am I the only one who sees rewards for political participation completely ludicrious?

It's their duty to participate and this talk of awarding people who are good debaters or covers a lot of debates is equally ridiculuous I mean c'mon, what kind of threshold is that? Even I could be eligible to win one! :eyebrow:

The only thing we should be awarding in the political arena is outstanding achievement which the Minister of Culture and Education already does!
 
Giving subjective awards to "good debators" will discourage participation. Many people already feel intimidated by what they view as an overly-complicated legislative system. To separate those members that choose to participate into essentially good players and bad players marginalizes an entire group of people that would like to take part in regional activities but do not possess the time and/or skills to posit brilliant analysis.

Besides, the people who would win these awards are more likely than not to be the members who already actively participate here. Turning the place into a clique-y, old boys club that sits around and congratulates itself for a job well done will further separate the regional assembly from the average regional member.
 
Giving subjective awards to "good debators" will discourage participation. Many people already feel intimidated by what they view as an overly-complicated legislative system. To separate those members that choose to participate into essentially good players and bad players marginalizes an entire group of people that would like to take part in regional activities but do not possess the time and/or skills to posit brilliant analysis.

Besides, the people who would win these awards are more likely than not to be the members who already actively participate here. Turning the place into a clique-y, old boys club that sits around and congratulates itself for a job well done will further separate the regional assembly from the average regional member.
Click to expand...

I'd like to respond to this sentiment. Keep in mind that I specifically stated in my original posts that I found the subject of rewards in the RA to be distasteful. Having said that, I threw out some ideas just to have an open debate on the issue. I wonder if a clique-filled old boys club would even be discussing this idea or whether they would merely not even ATTEMPT to do anything about the problem. As I said, I'm not enamored of a reward system myself, but at least I am trying to delineate any idea, however seemingly absurd, in order to improve participation. Everyone agrees that this must be done; however when the time comes to actually PROPOSE ideas, there seems to be a shortage of willing volunteers.

First of all, I believe that any rewards given out (of any form) would in fact at least show new people that we welcome their ideas. I'm not sure if it would give them the impetus to debate heavily in here, but it would be a step. Secondly, I realize people may not have the time to post long-winded responses: I'm not even asking for that. I would be happy if newer/less-heard-from RA members posted brief one or two-sentence posts on what they think about an issue, ONCE in awhile. Surely that's not asking too much.

It is also equally ironic that this topic has brought out participation from many people who don't normally participate a great deal. While this itself (in my opinion) is a great sign, it makes me wonder what this issue has that all the other issues do not. If only all issues could be as controversial as this one (sarcasm).

For all those who find the reward concept a bad idea, I in particular do not want to hear those same people mention lack of RA participation as a problem unless they furnish some ideas in a true participatory style.

If I sound frustrated, it is because I am, to a degree. I hope that other people can understand this frustration -- everyone would like to have great numbers participating in here. Indeed, as Speaker, it comes partially within my province to encourage and foster participation in the RA, which is why I spend a great deal of time thinking about the problem. But when ANY idea is proposed on such an important matter, only to be shot down without replacement ideas, that does not make me happy at all.
 
Many people already feel intimidated by what they view as an overly-complicated legislative system.
Click to expand...

I agree, the constitution is foolishly long and the legal code is as well. Simplicity is needed, but we are nto proposing any change to that. If anything, more awards/incentives to participate will make people want to actually dive into the meat of our discussions.
 
freedom and pride:
Many people already feel intimidated by what they view as an overly-complicated legislative system.
Click to expand...

I agree, the constitution is foolishly long and the legal code is as well. Simplicity is needed, but we are nto proposing any change to that. If anything, more awards/incentives to participate will make people want to actually dive into the meat of our discussions.
Click to expand...
Actually soon to come is an updated Constitution and Legal Code for Dummies.

Wiz - I personally don't see a problem with activity, if some don't want to join the debate that's their prerogative. I hold strong opinions about everything but I don't always jump into the fray because sometimes it's not needed. Debate is good but actual votes is what we should be concentrating on. With the passing of the election, we've had two platforms to address this issue: mine about presenting the constitution in a more simple manner and Hers' new approach to registering new nations and getting them involved in regional affairs.

We live in a great inclusive region, we accept people who even I personally wouldn't :shifty: but goading people into the region with tacky prizes instead of a true passionate stake is not the answer.

There's no need to get frustrated! (knowing fully that I've been more than frustrated myself over the lack of ethusiasum over my own proposals.)
 
mr_sniffles:
.
Wiz - I personally don't see a problem with activity, if some don't want to join the debate that's their prerogative.
Click to expand...
That's good, but I still invite those who believe participation is an issue to offer alternatives to a reward system if they do not like it.

What really annoys me is when members who normally do not participate (and I agree that is their perogative; that is why I've been against mandatory activity clauses) are coming out of the woodwork to speak out against ideas attempting to encourage participation. That is the ultimate irony.
 
mr_sniffles:
Actually soon to come is an updated Constitution and Legal Code for Dummies.
Click to expand...
Hey! I've got copyright on that! :P

Anyway, I'm going to try to put a little more gas into the recruitment program now that I'm not as tied up with other things... hopefully this will help boost activity some. [/sorta-off-topic]
 
wizardofoz01:
What really annoys me is when members who normally do not participate (and I agree that is their perogative; that is why I've been against mandatory activity clauses) are coming out of the woodwork to speak out against ideas attempting to encourage participation. That is the ultimate irony.
Click to expand...
I presume this is aimed at me (I saw no "annoyed" comments following the posts of others). My comments appeared within hours of my application and acceptance as a member of the regional assembly.

I had not been a member during my time as vice-delegate because I wanted to maintain a politically neutral stance (this was stated publicly in my VD campaign thread).

Now that I am unencumbered I sought out a venue to participate in the region. I have a few ideas about attracting new and active members but thought it presumptuous to drop them on the RA my first day.

I apologize for any offense I have given. I will try to post my opinions in a more diplomatic and productive fashion in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top