【Absolutely baffling】: A single post adds +70 to wealth – how can there be any talk of compensation?
Thread Content
The scores were as follows: I might have really offended people today; first I questioned the scores given to SuperVersion KeepingForward, and now I’m questioning the scores of Bincheng Watcher, Bolshevik, and WSTS00100 (I’ve decided to go all out). I think this situation seems kind on the surface, but there are three things that must not be done: 1. Whose wealth should be used for compensation? If it’s one’s own, it’s still understandable; but if it’s public, no such systems or practices have been seen yet. Moreover, the poster is not a moderator, which means the action doesn’t have a \"public welfare nature\" – so how can there be any talk of a compensation of +70 in wealth? This is unacceptable ； 2. Downloading is a form of exchange, but who bears the risks associated with such exchange? If the forum takes on this responsibility, what is the basis? Many people have had such experiences; does everyone have to do the same? This cost is probably a bit too high; it’s not feasible ； 3. It’s really astonishing that the original poster could get a total of +70 wealth points for just such a post; moreover, the poster downloaded it from the recycle bin, and downloading from the recycle bin counts as a free download. Therefore, such “compensation” is even less justified; it is something that must not be done under any circumstances. I believe many people share similar ideas or practices; for now, let’s call this the “Compassionate Compensation Theory.” In contrast to this is the “Random Tuition Fee Theory,” which has two meanings: A. Compensation is possible, but it is random – not everyone will experience it – and the compensation cost is usually borne by the individual ； B. Assume risks oneself; members must be brave enough to take risks, and a mindset should be promoted in which mistakes come with consequences, emphasizing the idea that luck alone cannot prevent problems from arising. This post was last edited by Master on 2008-2-28 08:40.]
KeepingForward, Bincheng Watcher, Bolsheviks, WSTS00100 – they are all part of the leadership; they are willing to make corrections, and that is truly a sign of good character.
I didn’t even look at this post; it’s in the trash. I thought the original poster had paid to download it and found a post that lacked complete information. It should be reasonable to give them the money to make up for it, right? ! As it turned out, the Bincheng Super Edition said it was material from the recycle bin, which made my heart race; I quickly checked it, and thankfully it was a sales post requiring 50 wealth points, and there indeed was a purchase record for “Ma Chao,” which put me at ease. As a result, the original poster posted a poster, and the sound of gunfire echoed. Well, I think there’s something wrong with it; it seems like a compensation score already exists, but it should be increased to 50 wealth points as the limit. We should discuss this following the original poster’s line of thought: is such compensation-based scoring a good practice?
Correction: it’s not 61 in terms of wealth value; it’s equivalent to 70 in wealth terms, which is a bit too high.
I think the original poster has a good idea, but they are taking it too seriously. For members at a lower level like us, it’s not easy to earn wealth; anyone who loses over 50 units of wealth would feel upset about it. Everyone contributing a little shows that we are all compassionate. I’ve seen this situation happen twice at Hai Chuan, and it shouldn’t have any adverse effects.
The original poster is truly perceptive, and the leadership also provided a clarification shortly after. Everyone shares the same goal, which contributes to the development of the forum.
When I saw this post, I thought the original poster was being wronged, so I gave them points as compensation. I then saw your post (it hadn’t been edited yet, so my name wasn’t on it), and only then did I realize that the post had been moved to the trash folder. I don’t know how to modify the scores that have already been added, so I’m not sure what to do. I wonder if anyone can give some hints? Thank you for the reminder, Master Haiyou! I’ll be more careful from now on! :handshake
Hehe, there’s something wrong with it! No one is perfect, and no gold is pure! I hope everyone can view things with an understanding and peaceful mindset. One more thing worth mentioning: it’s good that fellow sailors are able to point out the problems in management, but please maintain a calm attitude when doing so. The original poster has done an excellent job and is a model for our behavior! I hope everyone will work together to build a harmonious Haichuan!
There is indeed a need for such people in the forum at present – those who are willing to raise questions about things that are confusing. This is highly beneficial for the healthy development of Haichuan. I hope this will draw the attention of the administrators, who should step up their oversight of forum management and scoring.
Just sharing my opinion: for every member of the community, downloading materials not only requires spending money but also time. Only to find later that the materials downloaded with so much effort are unusable – the frustration involved is understandable. This is precisely why the moderators and administrators provide compensation: ) Moreover, when Ma Chao pointed out the problems in the materials in a timely manner, it helped the management to identify and resolve those issues promptly, preventing other members from wasting time and money. Therefore, it’s only fair that they receive compensation. The only thing that’s questionable is whether the amount of compensation given is too high It exceeds the losses suffered by classmate Ma Chao; that’s the real issue, right?
If we consider things on their own merits, I agree with the views of those above. However, most things follow the principle of universal interconnection. I would like to discuss the underlying causes through an example. Determining the scoring criteria and grading levels is the foundation of the entire scoring process. Arbitrary scoring, an overly wide range of scores assigned to posts, and delayed correction of scoring errors not only increase the costs associated with scoring and waste the forum’s limited scoring resources, but they also significantly undermine the seriousness of the scoring process and reduce the effectiveness of members’ scoring efforts. As a result, it becomes difficult to assign timely and accurate scores to those posts that truly need to be evaluated. Finally, I would like to express my apologies to the members who provided the ratings, those who were rated, and the management involved. As mentioned earlier, I merely hope to use one example to discuss the underlying reasons behind it. That's all.