Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32881402-20171114205639/@comment-28906670-20171119145939

ProfessorArceus wrote: Psychopathotical wrote: Lazuli-Heart wrote: ProfessorArceus wrote: Lazuli-Heart wrote: ProfessorArceus wrote: '''uh oh, see the problem here is that ToTM can no longer be called ToTM if it is entirely a staff decision. We are trying to find ways to fix the likeability problem, not remove it all together, as the idea is that the community decides.''' When the public is involved, it'll become a popularity contest. Why should the community decide who the most productive person is? In fact, how? When they're eligible, what do you have to go on ASIDE from likeability? Their edit count and how much you've seen them help ppl? Edit racking is then a problem. Editcount means nothing, really. It monitors activity. If people are commenting on the thread that promotes edit racking by asking for 500 replies, it doesn't make them better than the person who didn't. Quality edits are only tracked until 'Eligible' and then they're all the same. Going off of the editcount is bad. Them helping people? Well then that's biased toward the Veterans of this community, since they've probably helped you more than the person who got 30 quality edits in 2 weeks but hasn't been able to communicate much with you. True. I never tend to look at the Edit Count, and it's true that it's biased towards the vets. A) Veterans have been helping for longer. The bias is justified. B) Arcy is winning(kinda) Right now. Your point is invalid, sorry They might have been helping for longer, but if somebody new comes and fixes all of the wiki articles, even if it's just spelling and grammar and such, they deserve it more than the Vet who RPs with you and farmed 30 edits in the first 10 days and stopped for the month. Look at point B.