You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Utopian New Voting Distribution: Sustainability is Key.
Sounds good to me, so long as whats defined as the best isn't a moving target without any causality.
When I do post, I dominate the Video Tutorials category mostly because there aren't many others in the running with that kind of frequency. I also feel like that as a result of the frequency of my contributions, I am less likely to receive staff pick (You guys don't want to feature the same person over and over which I understand). I just hope this mentality doesn't spill over into voting priority.
If a new contributor comes and posts a amazing set of video tutorials, then I will gladly try to up my game as a contributor. But if I am just getting lower scores as a result of complacency then that becomes a problem.
I think this problem occurs in many categories.
Probably, though I can't personally add to that sentiment; I have only contributed to Video Tutorials and Development. Over the course of the period that I have worked with Utopian, I have seen radically different biases and trends form with the way my contributions have been moderated.
I just hope this move doesn't cause the platform to feel more centralized. They tried to minimize this problem by giving community members the ability to score other contributions, but that really was an imperfect solution since there is no real incentive to score another contribution unless its a topic that you are extremely interested in.
Moderators are part of the community, not employees. So I don't see how that could be more centralized.
Utopian can only improve the guidelines and the tools to better assess quality, as we constantly do, while trying to lower subjectivity, which is a component you can't and don't want to deny entirely.
I don't mean that the community would actually become more centralized, all I am just suggesting that it would "feel" more centralized.
With the change in how the bot works, moderators have more power then they did before. The more selective the platform becomes; the more sway a moderator's decision has over who gets a vote and who doesn't. If a moderator has a bias against a contributor, then it becomes harder for the contributor to override that bias.
Luckily, there are things like the discord channel and the help channel to combat this potential problem. All that being said, I do understand why the changes were made to the bot and I support these changes. Sometimes though it is worth talking about the potential downsides to a decision so that the proper parties can help mitigate them.