|
Post by Spencer on Jul 10, 2007 12:24:27 GMT -5
A team can only earn 5 RCs per year.
A team can only use 4 RCs per year.
RCs can be rolled over.
|
|
|
Post by nova on Jul 10, 2007 12:26:20 GMT -5
Sounds good.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jul 10, 2007 12:26:34 GMT -5
Also, Im changing the "refund" rule.
If someone has an 83, and you choose to raise a player by 5, he will only be raised by 2, and I will put the remaining points into a similar rating at my discretion.
|
|
|
Post by The X-Factor on Jul 10, 2007 13:24:38 GMT -5
sounds good
|
|
|
Post by garf2000 on Jul 10, 2007 13:27:36 GMT -5
Also, Im changing the "refund" rule. If someone has an 83, and you choose to raise a player by 5, he will only be raised by 2, and I will put the remaining points into a similar rating at my discretion. like it
|
|
|
Post by garf2000 on Jul 10, 2007 13:29:08 GMT -5
I think there should be some benefit for people who make lots of articles (*cough* jeremy *cough*) and get over the 5 RC. Maybe every RC over 5 is worth a +2 change in a category rather than a +5, and the extra RCs cannot be traded.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jul 10, 2007 13:31:25 GMT -5
Im still developing a change in worth for articles, maybe making them worth less points, and also graded differently to make it a little tougher for guys to get points from articles.
|
|
|
Post by Adelaide on Jul 10, 2007 13:33:20 GMT -5
Nice
|
|
|
Post by The X-Factor on Jul 10, 2007 13:34:29 GMT -5
Why not have one person grade articles? i.e. I can do it... and give my reasons as to why I think said article is worth said amount of points.
Yes, I am going to be unbiased. I don't care who's making an article... if it's good, it's good.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jul 10, 2007 13:36:11 GMT -5
Why not have one person grade articles? i.e. I can do it... and give my reasons as to why I think said article is worth said amount of points. Yes, I am going to be unbiased. I don't care who's making an article... if it's good, it's good. I gues talk to Reilly about it since hes the one who tracks it now. if you 2 can come to an agreement on it, its cool by me.
|
|
|
Post by The X-Factor on Jul 10, 2007 13:39:32 GMT -5
I figured you'd want someone not in the league grading them... he can keep track of the total amount still but I'll just give the grade. It's cool though Reilly if you see this just get back at me.
|
|
|
Post by Vernon on Jul 10, 2007 13:41:59 GMT -5
Nice.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Jul 10, 2007 13:45:50 GMT -5
it shouldn't really be complicated. just make ordinary articles worth 20/25, and great ones worth 50.
it just seems like the scale is too high, even tho it's nice to reward activity.
besides if we use a real grading system somebody will find loopholes, and i know how much you love that!
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jul 10, 2007 13:52:17 GMT -5
I like the basic idea of a regular article getting 25 points and a very good article getting 50. I just want to make sure that we come to some kind of conclusion on what a "real good article" is.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Jul 10, 2007 13:54:23 GMT -5
jeremy's articles = 25, everything else 50
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jul 10, 2007 13:54:48 GMT -5
Simple. Nice.
|
|
|
Post by The X-Factor on Jul 10, 2007 14:05:08 GMT -5
So how do you grade a shit article? As a 25 pointer? Giving grades of increments of 10 is as simple as 25/50.
A shit article will get a minimum of 10 points. A good article 30/40. A great article 50.
Simple to grade. Reilly already counts up RC total points... it's not going to make anything hard.
|
|
|
Post by aaron2344 on Jul 10, 2007 14:18:17 GMT -5
i'm up for anything.
like martinez said, i count them regardless. not a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Jul 10, 2007 14:23:47 GMT -5
i really think if we start getting into increments of 10, it's going to stir up controversy more than anything else. but if most disagree, it doesn't really matter to me.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Jul 10, 2007 14:28:41 GMT -5
I think it needs to be more simplistic. 25 or 50.
|
|
|
Post by Lumley316 on Jul 10, 2007 14:48:47 GMT -5
Also, Im changing the "refund" rule. If someone has an 83, and you choose to raise a player by 5, he will only be raised by 2, and I will put the remaining points into a similar rating at my discretion. Will you tell us what rating you increased
|
|
|
Post by The X-Factor on Jul 10, 2007 14:55:32 GMT -5
I think it needs to be more simplistic. 25 or 50. I think increments of 10 are very easy to count.
|
|
|
Post by Bender on Jul 10, 2007 15:03:47 GMT -5
THAT IS BS
|
|
|
Post by Bender on Jul 10, 2007 15:04:16 GMT -5
HA HA JK
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Jul 10, 2007 15:16:24 GMT -5
ok
|
|