And so it begins:
1) I right-click on a OBJECT and find that (Rate...) is a choice. It brings up a sub-pie-menu with with three choices:
1a) (Rate BUILDER) casts a vote for the quality of the 3D build. If the object clicked is set No-Modify, then the person that originally made it gets the vote. If the current owner is allowed to make changes, he or she gets the vote. So the person who probably put the most effort in the construction gets the credit. This takes about half of the purpose of the voting poles. [Example, if someone has a really cool chair in their abode, you can rate it and the person who made it, wherever they are, gets the credit.]
1b) (Rate SCRIPTER), which is only available if the object clicked has any scripts attached to it, casts a vote for the behavior of the object. Like the Rate Builder option, if the script is set No-Modify, then the person that wrote it gets the vote. If the current owner can edit it, he or she gets the vote. So the person who put the effort in the scripting gets the credit, regardless of who's property it is on, or who made the object it is attached to. This partially takes the place of the voting poles.
1c) (Rate AMBIANCE) casts a vote for the owner of the property that is clicked, or that the object that was clicked is on. This is a reward for someone that perhaps has a completely store-bought building with store-bought contents on their property, but put it together into a great hang-out or event location. This takes the place of the proposed Dwelling system, but it avoids the problem of unintentional dwelling, or intentional over-dwelling. It takes over the rest of the purpose for voting poles. It is also a reward for event coordinators that hold events on their own property. The owner of the property does not need to be present, however, which is good for self-running events. (For event coordinators at large, see 2c.)
2) Right click on an AVATAR and (Rate...) is a choice. It brings up a sub-pie-menu with four choices:
2a) (Rate PERSONALITY) which is the same as what we currently have for rating other players on the way they behave in the game. Whether this should be it's own menu so that positive AND negative ratings are allowed is something for further discussion. (Perhaps Rate Negatively is it's own entry on the pie, and brings up a window which warns against abuse and has places to rate negatively in each category. Prevents accidental negatives, and discourages abusive negatives.)
2b) (Rate HELPFULNESS) indicates that the person in question helped you in some aspect of the game. This is the reward for mentoring and helping noobs.
2c) (Rate ORGANIZATION) is an acknowledgment of a player's event coordination ability. This is for people who run events that aren't necessarily on their own property, but they are present for (to be clicked). This option might be only available if the person in question has some "Event Leader" flag checked on themselves. How this flag is set or when it is set would be a topic of further discussion. (Perhaps setting this flag puts a system-controlled attachment above their head, and anyone can turn it on at any time. Police can be on the lookout for abusers fairly easily... There's a big red arrow pointing at them... And people attending the event know who's running it.)
2d) (Rate APPEARANCE) is a general rating for the appearance of the avatar clicked much as the Rate Ambiance is a general rating for the owner of a property. The difference here is that the value from this rating is, perhaps, split. The avatar always gets the bulk of the total, but some part of it may be split between the creators of any non-modifiable attachments the avatar is wearing. So an avatar with a completely store-bought costume might only get 70% of the rating, and the designer of the costume gets the other 30%. The exact numbers would have to be the product of experimental use and further discussion.
3) Weight the frequency of votes per user. We don't want people feeling they need to go around and re-rate everything they like (or everything owned or operated by someone they like) every day! I mean, we don't. It's boring. But people WILL do it if that helps them or their friends get more in-game money. (And be bored doing it. Go figure.) But clicking once and having the vote last forever also isn't a good option, since it doesn't promote change and the improvement of old and stale creations. So a vote needs to stick around, but not forever. Nor should it start to fall immediately, because the min-maxers out there will still go round-robin-rating every day to keep the votes close to their 100% worth. Some possible options:
3a) Have a vote last at 100% strength for a set period of time. Probably one week, since that is the predominant cycle time in Second Life. After one week, the vote may either vanish or slowly fade away. (Further discussion.) Now a player that WANTS to go round-robin-rating can spread it out over a week. This is probably enough incentive to get out and about, but without the rush of a daily circuit. It's more fun.
3b) Have votes cast by the same person over and over have less direct impact on the totals. Instead have those repeat votes maintain the value of the score, and unique voters' inputs drive it upwards. So having regulars vote positively for someone helps maintain the rated level, but it's the new voters that help INCREASE the score. This gives the "Blank-Only-Clubs" incentive to entice new members in.
3c) Negative votes act only like repeat voters. They do not have a strong, direct impact on the overall score. (So the occasional malicious negative voter doesn't hurt a player's rating.) But repeated negative votes WILL lower the value over time. (And also draw police attention to the voter/votee in question.)
Whew. Okay. That's what my mind came up with. I'm sure there are holes, but hey... Sometimes new eyes can see solutions. I'm enough of an optimist that I'll voice my ideas, but enough of a pessimist not to expect much to come from them. I've woken up the next day and gone "When they HECK was I thinking!" too many times not to be prepared for it. So lay on!
~ Tiger Crossing
~ (Nonsanity)
