I wanna see advisor-points!..

[zanzibar]

I'm surprised you didn't lock the thread.

Didn't really feel the need to.  It's not a flamewar here, or really any ranting.  From my point of view it's mostly confusion and whining.  If it get's any worse, yeah, one of us will lock.

Advisor points don't, and never did, do anything.  I might understand complaining if you could use them to buy other useless stuff, but you can't.  The spam penalty on AP is still there, it's just silent now.  People with signifigantly negative AP might get rejected for GMship, but frankly that's all we'd ever care to use them for.

neko kyouran:  You hit the nail on the head with this:  "Remove them from the players view all together."  Honestly, the better approach would've been to tell you that we removed the system altogether (which we pretty much did) and not tell you that we're still keeping a tally of things.

The spam detection system is still flawed though.  Taking myself as an example, I have around -20 advisor points which I lost despite the fact that I wasn't even spamming.  I'm sure there are better indicators to weed out GMs.

People like to see their advisor points for the sake of competition.  That's what the points "do".

[DaveG]

People like to see their advisor points for the sake of competition.  That's what the points "do".

Yup, and that's why they were removed.

[zorbels]

"Remove them from the players view all together."  Honestly, the better approach would've been to tell you that we removed the system altogether (which we pretty much did) and not tell you that we're still keeping a tally of things.

What you don't kow can't hurt you (in this case bother you) or another one of my favorites, ignorance is a bliss. So seeing as this is supposed to be a realistic world and all .... lets just all forget that those points/numbers ever existed and move on to what does exist in the world Yialkum. YAY! No more trying to figure out how to explain the numbers in character.      

[zanzibar]

People like to see their advisor points for the sake of competition.  That's what the points "do".

Yup, and that's why they were removed.

Yup.  I pointed that out in an earlier post of mine.

[Janner]

People like to see their advisor points for the sake of competition.  That's what the points "do".

Yup, and that's why they were removed.

 Correction SOME do not all of us do, but because of the few every one is punished, same could be said for Duel Points but there still there.

[DaveG]

The only people who were "punished" were those who considered this a punishment.

Duel points exist to give bragging rights, and that's what they were created for.

[Kerol]

Just yesterday I read an article of the chamber of commerce and industry (Germany) about protection of data privacy.
Simply put, it states that a firm or organisation must survey and use (the german terms are defined by law) as little as possible person-related data as possible, meaning that if the usage is not clear or "collecting data ahead" is not allowed.
Person-related data are (§3, 1 BDSG (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz - Confederation Law of protection of data privacy):
particulars of personal or factual relations about a specific or determinable natural person (for instance name, adress, personal number, but also assessments).
The data must be removed if the purpose of saving isn't given anymore. The purpose must be defined and must be clear to the person about whom the data are.

Usually a business (also organisation) is allowed to collect data if the concerned clearly stated his allowance in a contract.
If there is no contract, the legitimacy depends _on the acceptance of the concerned_.

Notification of the concerned:
If the concerned isn't aware that a business is saving his person-related data, he must be notified. The business must provide information about the sort of data and on what purpose they are being stored. Also the business must tell who is responsible for them.

I translated those important parts as good as possible, don't sue me if something is wrongly translated >.>

However, Talad: the non profit org is registered in Texas, USA.
So the above concerning the German law might not or only partly take affect in this matter.

The reason why I posted this was the statement of DaveG and the mere non-understanding reactions on Janners mentioning of legal terms. I hope this may sensitize the legal understanding of this matter, although after the German law, the devs wouldn't have to tell the points, only that they are stored and to which purpose.

[DaveG]

Person-related data are (§3, 1 BDSG (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz - Confederation Law of protection of data privacy):
particulars of personal or factual relations about a specific or determinable natural person (for instance name, adress, personal number, but also assessments).

Yeah, that's really the main point here.  We store no "personal or factual relations" about any "natural" people.  (aside from the email address, as already stated; however you gave that up willingly, and we already agreed not to abuse it)  The data in question is our own internal data about accounts on our server, not about people.

Theoretically, one could argue we should (but really aren't required to) state in the EULA in the installer that we store stuff we're obviously storing.  Duh, we store your IP; every server on the 'Net does that, etc.  Simply put, if you don't like the fact that we might store meaningless crap about your account, then don't install the game.

[Kerol]

My main point being was that it should be stated in the EULA _what_ is being stored, but the data don't have to be revealed (here the amount of AP).
Using the IP and emailadress given, all statistical data, logs and so forth can be seen as person-related data as the person can be determined (with some effort).

Theoretically, one could argue we should (but really aren't required to) state in the EULA in the installer that we store stuff we're obviously storing.  Duh, we store your IP; every server on the 'Net does that, etc.  Simply put, if you don't like the fact that we might store meaningless crap about your account, then don't install the game.

I wouldn't say "meaningless crap" in that context
If data is meaningless, it mustn't be stored, according to German law.
However, I have no idea how that is being handled according to Texas law, which would be most interesting here.

[DaveG]

In Texas law, we can shoot you for asking. 

[Peacer]

In Texas law, we can shoot you for asking. 

hmm so if i lived in texas i could say "hey give me visible advisor points or i'll whop yo but" ;]

[AryHann]

There was a plan, long time ago, to bring back the advisor's points as soon as a prettier system would have been implemented.
Drastic removal of information is never good, but I was not the one making the operation. However, it is true that in an RPG game "numbers" should be not splatted in front of the face of the user, but not so many people agree with my vision of what an real RPG game is, so I am afraid that anyway if they will be restored - hopefully, again - then they will be again just numbers!

[Xordan]

Imo we should just get rid of them completely if they matter that much to people.

[AryHann]

For me the whole advising system as it is  doesn' t make so much sense. But, well, I am not the boss ;-)

[Vengeance]

I'm the one who came up with the Help channel and the advisor point concepts so I'll go ahead and weigh in also here.  Although I am disappointed in the "power-gaming" of advisor points (and a bit surprised at it), the whole idea of the points was to measure and thereby encourage people to advise.  The Help channel is useless if it isn't staffed when someone needs it.  I did agree at the time with removing access to see your points because low quality advice was a big problem.  We made the points automated because we wanted the advice feature to feel as seamless and automatic as possible, especially to the clueless newbies who need it most.  I think it is the automation of the points awarded that caused the downfall of the points.

I would like to see us bring back the points, so people are visibly rewarded and can track their progress, but remove the automatic award of points.  Instead perhaps we should make it so that when the session ends, we popup a box for the questioner that says "Did the advisor answer your question well?" and let them click yes or no.  Then a "yes" answer would give the advisor his/her 1 point.  This would give people the reward of seeing their point progress but would put the progress in the hands of the questioners, not the advisors, which would prevent a lot of the abuse I've heard of in the old system.

What do you think?

-Venge