Post by aarvoll (INTJ) on Sept 3, 2018 14:44:22 GMT
For this round we will have three groups going in parallel:
6 contributors to Organization
6 contributors to Academic Colloquium
? contributors to Research
A general scoring system is used to determine priority access to these groups. Using Ken’s system for the last round the scores are:
Aarvoll: 1/3
Admin: 1/4
Borges: 1/6
Flimp, Napoleoff, Westernman: 1/12
Here is Ken’s model: During evaluation, everyone votes for someone else. At the end of 14 days, the votes decrease by half, plus one for institutional weighting.
Voting: (everyone voted for A, A voted for B)
A 1+6
B 1+1
C 1
D 1
E 1
F 1
G 1
Halving: (divide score by 2)
A 3.5
B 1
C 0.5
D 0.5
E 0.5
F 0.5
G 0.5
Contribution weighting: (add 1 simply for contribution in the round)
A 4.5
B 2
C 1.5
D 1.5
E 1.5
D 1.5
G 1.5
Voting: (everyone voted for A, A voted for B)
A 4.5+9.5=14
B 2+4.5=6.5
C 1.5
D 1.5
E 1.5
F 1.5
G 1.5
Halving: (divide by two)
A 7
B 3.25
C 0.75
D 0.75
E 0.75
F 0.75
G 0.75
Contribution weighting: (add 1 simply for contributing ; G did not contribute)
A 8
B 4.25
C 1.75
D 1.75
E 1.75
F 1.75
G 0.75
Points are awarded within each group according to Ken’s model, and to extract an individual’s general score we take his percentage of the total points from that group. So in the example above A from the first voting round would have a score of 7/14, or 1/2. If you participate in more than one group we add the percentages from each, so participating in more than one group will tend to give you a higher score.
Ken’s scoring system, and the building up of weighted voting will remain specific to each group, so if you enter a group for the first time your vote weight will be 1, even if your vote weight is higher in another group.
Organization group winners become Organizational directors, having the authority to change the structure of the system for the next round.
Academic Colloquium winners become Academic Directors, acting as leaders of a research team, a team can persist until no one volunteers or is sorted into it.
Research team participants gain points toward their general score, but no new role is created for the highest scoring researcher.
——
Organization group will operate according to similar principles as round one, but volunteers will be randomly assigned a day for their post. A winner of Organization can forfeit his right to organize the next schedule, passing on that responsibility to the next highest scoring member. I recommend that Organization posts for this week include a case study of the structure of an existing organization, this is not required however.
Academic Colloquium is an open topic forum, any kind of post is accepted though we encourage topics that would make suitable subject material for a research team in case your post wins. Volunteers will be randomly assigned a day for their post. A Colloquium winner can forfeit his right to create a research team, passing on that responsibility to the next highest scoring member.
Research teams will be structured by their Academic Director, this week Ken is organizing a team on the topic of Rightist Art.
In future rounds when multiple research teams exist Research level members (those who’s score does not enable them to participate in Colloquium or Organization) will rank their preference of Research team, and their score will determine their priority in sorting.
— —
Responsibilities and penalties:
If you are signed up to post an entry on a given day, and you miss your deadline, .05 will be immediately deducted from your general score, however if you submit it before the last entry of your group goes up your post may still be voted on- though no one is then required to submit feedback on your entry.
Everyone in a group is required to post some form of feedback on every on-schedule entry in their group by the end of the second day after each entry goes up. So Monday’s entry should be commented on by all members by the end of the day (11:59PM EST) on Wednesday. If a member fails to post feedback for an entry within this time frame .02 will be deducted from their general score.
Director’s Bonus:
Every member that posts his Myers-Briggs type in his profile on the forum will be awarded .05 in general score.
Sabbaticals:
If you use a sabbatical your scores (vote weights for your groups and general score for priority sorting) will be frozen instead of being reduced by half while you take the round off. Every member is given two sabbatical points effective immediately, new members receive two sabbatical points upon entry. If you wish to use one of these points you’ll inform an Organizational Director during his roll call. These points are good for one year, September 1st, 2019 would be the reset date for distributing new Sabbatical points.
——
Schedule-
This round officially begins Tuesday, September 4th it will last until Monday, September 17th. The (6) posting days for Colloquium and Organization will be Sunday, September 9th- Friday, September 14. All voting will be submitted on Monday, September 17th. The new Organizational director will have some number of days (his discretion, but no longer than 5 days) to prepare his schematic and rules for the next round. We need to formalize a length for rounds, I suggest 14 days, not including the preparation period between rounds. If a majority votes in the poll associated with this thread to establish 14 day rounds then this resolution will be considered passed, and a new poll will be required to alter the 14 day rule.
__ __
Group Rosters-
Organization:
Aarvoll
Venny
Borges
Napoleoff
Flimp
Admin
Colloquium:
Admin
Slotahimself
Borges
Westernman
Napoleoff
Aarvoll
Ken’s Research Team: Admin, Westernman, Napoleoff, Venny, A.H., Slotahimself
If a few more entries appear by the end of the day today we’ll have to establish a new research team, the 3rd highest score from round 1 would have the right to lead this.
Since we began the roll call before making this round’s rules explicit, let me know if you’d like to change your preference, bearing in mind that the cap on groups is 6 and people with rank from the last round get priority. The idea going forward will be that most people start out in research and build up rank to get into the higher groups.
Here’s my video explaining the schematic for this round:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVDT7O-gCHY&lc=z23zuzihyn3ttpihp04t1aokgeqmvkmi2erdvbd52lserk0h00410&feature=em-comments
-- --
Final note- if logistical problems are found during this round the rules may be amended to correct for them at any point, however the scoring system will be fixed once the first post goes up.
6 contributors to Organization
6 contributors to Academic Colloquium
? contributors to Research
A general scoring system is used to determine priority access to these groups. Using Ken’s system for the last round the scores are:
Aarvoll: 1/3
Admin: 1/4
Borges: 1/6
Flimp, Napoleoff, Westernman: 1/12
Here is Ken’s model: During evaluation, everyone votes for someone else. At the end of 14 days, the votes decrease by half, plus one for institutional weighting.
Voting: (everyone voted for A, A voted for B)
A 1+6
B 1+1
C 1
D 1
E 1
F 1
G 1
Halving: (divide score by 2)
A 3.5
B 1
C 0.5
D 0.5
E 0.5
F 0.5
G 0.5
Contribution weighting: (add 1 simply for contribution in the round)
A 4.5
B 2
C 1.5
D 1.5
E 1.5
D 1.5
G 1.5
Voting: (everyone voted for A, A voted for B)
A 4.5+9.5=14
B 2+4.5=6.5
C 1.5
D 1.5
E 1.5
F 1.5
G 1.5
Halving: (divide by two)
A 7
B 3.25
C 0.75
D 0.75
E 0.75
F 0.75
G 0.75
Contribution weighting: (add 1 simply for contributing ; G did not contribute)
A 8
B 4.25
C 1.75
D 1.75
E 1.75
F 1.75
G 0.75
Points are awarded within each group according to Ken’s model, and to extract an individual’s general score we take his percentage of the total points from that group. So in the example above A from the first voting round would have a score of 7/14, or 1/2. If you participate in more than one group we add the percentages from each, so participating in more than one group will tend to give you a higher score.
Ken’s scoring system, and the building up of weighted voting will remain specific to each group, so if you enter a group for the first time your vote weight will be 1, even if your vote weight is higher in another group.
Organization group winners become Organizational directors, having the authority to change the structure of the system for the next round.
Academic Colloquium winners become Academic Directors, acting as leaders of a research team, a team can persist until no one volunteers or is sorted into it.
Research team participants gain points toward their general score, but no new role is created for the highest scoring researcher.
——
Organization group will operate according to similar principles as round one, but volunteers will be randomly assigned a day for their post. A winner of Organization can forfeit his right to organize the next schedule, passing on that responsibility to the next highest scoring member. I recommend that Organization posts for this week include a case study of the structure of an existing organization, this is not required however.
Academic Colloquium is an open topic forum, any kind of post is accepted though we encourage topics that would make suitable subject material for a research team in case your post wins. Volunteers will be randomly assigned a day for their post. A Colloquium winner can forfeit his right to create a research team, passing on that responsibility to the next highest scoring member.
Research teams will be structured by their Academic Director, this week Ken is organizing a team on the topic of Rightist Art.
In future rounds when multiple research teams exist Research level members (those who’s score does not enable them to participate in Colloquium or Organization) will rank their preference of Research team, and their score will determine their priority in sorting.
— —
Responsibilities and penalties:
If you are signed up to post an entry on a given day, and you miss your deadline, .05 will be immediately deducted from your general score, however if you submit it before the last entry of your group goes up your post may still be voted on- though no one is then required to submit feedback on your entry.
Everyone in a group is required to post some form of feedback on every on-schedule entry in their group by the end of the second day after each entry goes up. So Monday’s entry should be commented on by all members by the end of the day (11:59PM EST) on Wednesday. If a member fails to post feedback for an entry within this time frame .02 will be deducted from their general score.
Director’s Bonus:
Every member that posts his Myers-Briggs type in his profile on the forum will be awarded .05 in general score.
Sabbaticals:
If you use a sabbatical your scores (vote weights for your groups and general score for priority sorting) will be frozen instead of being reduced by half while you take the round off. Every member is given two sabbatical points effective immediately, new members receive two sabbatical points upon entry. If you wish to use one of these points you’ll inform an Organizational Director during his roll call. These points are good for one year, September 1st, 2019 would be the reset date for distributing new Sabbatical points.
——
Schedule-
This round officially begins Tuesday, September 4th it will last until Monday, September 17th. The (6) posting days for Colloquium and Organization will be Sunday, September 9th- Friday, September 14. All voting will be submitted on Monday, September 17th. The new Organizational director will have some number of days (his discretion, but no longer than 5 days) to prepare his schematic and rules for the next round. We need to formalize a length for rounds, I suggest 14 days, not including the preparation period between rounds. If a majority votes in the poll associated with this thread to establish 14 day rounds then this resolution will be considered passed, and a new poll will be required to alter the 14 day rule.
__ __
Group Rosters-
Organization:
Aarvoll
Venny
Borges
Napoleoff
Flimp
Admin
Colloquium:
Admin
Slotahimself
Borges
Westernman
Napoleoff
Aarvoll
Ken’s Research Team: Admin, Westernman, Napoleoff, Venny, A.H., Slotahimself
If a few more entries appear by the end of the day today we’ll have to establish a new research team, the 3rd highest score from round 1 would have the right to lead this.
Since we began the roll call before making this round’s rules explicit, let me know if you’d like to change your preference, bearing in mind that the cap on groups is 6 and people with rank from the last round get priority. The idea going forward will be that most people start out in research and build up rank to get into the higher groups.
Here’s my video explaining the schematic for this round:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVDT7O-gCHY&lc=z23zuzihyn3ttpihp04t1aokgeqmvkmi2erdvbd52lserk0h00410&feature=em-comments
-- --
Final note- if logistical problems are found during this round the rules may be amended to correct for them at any point, however the scoring system will be fixed once the first post goes up.