|
|
Post by Mark on Feb 16, 2010 11:00:01 GMT -5
he didn't though. he did more because he thought up 13 pretty generic questions, but it really wasn't much of a difference at all. oh well there is value in it not counting against our guys though I did answer the questions myself too, and had to correct a lot of things. Also not everyone bold/italicised which I normally expect. Either way you get free points for this without it counting towards your article limits. It's a pretty damn easy way to get them on your part. Yup, and I'm saying you writing 13 generic questions, bolding a few names depending on who didn't do it, and correcting a few things isn't justification for 3 more points at all. There have been a lot of +3's given to articles where the GM spent a lot more time working on it. I don't really care because I like that Causwell was able to get RC'd again in a place I've already done it. There is value in that. But I do think we all should have gotten the same reward with 1 additional point going to you. The only reason the article got 4 in the first place was because every guy who answered questions voted at least four thinking they'd get the points. Realistically it's at best a 2 for individual work. Oh well. |
|
Tigertecz
Senior Member
Ex-GM
TANGO SUCKAA!!! BAMBI!!
Posts: 7,775
|
Post by Tigertecz on Feb 16, 2010 11:47:31 GMT -5
I did answer the questions myself too, and had to correct a lot of things. Also not everyone bold/italicised which I normally expect. Either way you get free points for this without it counting towards your article limits. It's a pretty damn easy way to get them on your part. Yup, and I'm saying you writing 13 generic questions, bolding a few names depending on who didn't do it, and correcting a few things isn't justification for 3 more points at all. There have been a lot of +3's given to articles where the GM spent a lot more time working on it. I don't really care because I like that Causwell was able to get RC'd again in a place I've already done it. There is value in that. But I do think we all should have gotten the same reward with 1 additional point going to you. The only reason the article got 4 in the first place was because every guy who answered questions voted at least four thinking they'd get the points. Realistically it's at best a 2 for individual work. Oh well. Yeah but I also answered the questions myself too... so at least a 4 is not unjustified. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Feb 16, 2010 12:27:21 GMT -5
Yup, and I'm saying you writing 13 generic questions, bolding a few names depending on who didn't do it, and correcting a few things isn't justification for 3 more points at all. There have been a lot of +3's given to articles where the GM spent a lot more time working on it. I don't really care because I like that Causwell was able to get RC'd again in a place I've already done it. There is value in that. But I do think we all should have gotten the same reward with 1 additional point going to you. The only reason the article got 4 in the first place was because every guy who answered questions voted at least four thinking they'd get the points. Realistically it's at best a 2 for individual work. Oh well. Yeah but I also answered the questions myself too... so at least a 4 is not unjustified. I didn't include your answering the questions because I only said what you did that we did not do. 3 extra points for writing questions, bolding a few names (when we also bolded our own names), and fixing something here or there (not really sure what besides what you edited on Maniac's) isn't close to a 3 point difference. I liked the article/idea, I'm not knocking that. But I wouldn't bother arguing that you somehow did THAT much more work than the rest of us because you didn't at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Feb 16, 2010 13:00:55 GMT -5
If you guys want a +2 itll count against the players 3 upgrades. If you want to do that tell me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Feb 16, 2010 13:15:54 GMT -5
Causwell wants to keep his free +1 to blocks!
|
|
Maniac
Senior Member
Ex-GM
Posts: 7,739
|
Post by Maniac on Feb 16, 2010 13:28:02 GMT -5
If you guys want a +2 itll count against the players 3 upgrades. If you want to do that tell me. Hersey will take his +1 but he has advised me to never do articles like this again. So sad.  |
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Feb 16, 2010 13:37:16 GMT -5
Its ok by me. Id rather not have 1 article give like 12-15 points in increases. Inflation and all.
|
|
|
|
Post by nova on Feb 16, 2010 14:37:39 GMT -5
What about Spree, he's already been rc'd 3 times so...
|
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Feb 16, 2010 14:56:29 GMT -5
What about Spree, he's already been rc'd 3 times so... Huh? |
|
Tigertecz
Senior Member
Ex-GM
TANGO SUCKAA!!! BAMBI!!
Posts: 7,775
|
Post by Tigertecz on Feb 16, 2010 17:00:49 GMT -5
Why not just make it the voted number of points goes to the person who writes the article and then half that for the participants?
|
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Feb 16, 2010 17:02:20 GMT -5
Why not just make it the voted number of points goes to the person who writes the article and then half that for the participants? IDC. But if its more then 1 then its gonna count towards a players 3 total times they can get RCd. |
|
|
|
Post by nova on Feb 16, 2010 17:17:25 GMT -5
spree's already had 3 rc's before this, so can he get 2 anyway or no?
|
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Feb 16, 2010 23:50:48 GMT -5
spree's already had 3 rc's before this, so can he get 2 anyway or no? lol. The +1 was a freebie. If it was gonna be a +2 itd count against his 3. If he has 3, then he'd be ineligible. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Feb 17, 2010 0:32:05 GMT -5
noves we good here now? lolz
|
|
Matthew
Full Member
Ex-GM
Posts: 4,558
|
Post by Matthew on Feb 17, 2010 1:13:36 GMT -5
+2 to the respondents +4 to Tigertecz PM them to me guys So far I only got Nova's pm, come on guys send them in. |
|
