"Currency" Inflation in the Gulch
Posted by freedomforall 9 years ago to The Gulch: General
"Currency" Inflation in the Gulch
Consider for a moment the point system in this online Gulch.
What is it's purpose?
Does it's purpose support the ideals of objectivism, the free market, and value for value trade?
Be assured that my purpose of posting this is to encourage discussion so by all means feel free to disagree and to add your ideas, too. Everything here is open to discussion.
The existing point system appears to me to be a Gulch function similar to "likes" on another social networking site. That serves a social purpose as far as it goes, but it's not what I think of as particularly objectivist.
In my opinon, the Gulch point system should have a goal of encouraging discussion and encouraging rational thinking by digitally rewarding the members who make rational posts and comments, and other members of the Gulch should be able to do this of their own free will.
I think the existing point system does accomplish this to a certain degree.
BUT ...
I have been thinking for some time that the "point" system in this online Gulch has something in common with the current unstable western economic system: inflation.
The issuance of currency (points) has no cost, the supply is unlimited, and therefore the supply is growing. There is no value paid-in when we award points to others so the value of each of those points is diminishing. As the Gulch grows in population this effect will be even more pronounced.
I think the free market has shown one way to make this better.
(For purposes of discussion, I call the new points GaltsGold points.)
I think that every GaltsGold point that I award to another member should reduce the number of GaltsGold points that I have earned that appear in my Gulch account. I should give value for value. If a post is really valuable, I should be willing to acknowledge that via a digital payment of a point I have earned.
I think the Gulch experience could be improved with a more objectivist, value for value GaltsGold point system.
Here are some ideas for discussion:
- In a real Gulch those arriving would be able to bring some property they earned through production, and will have to earn any more to trade and survive.
- In any trading system there must be enough currency to enable and encourage free trade. Limiting the amount of currency stifles trade by giving the impression of scarcity.
- In the digital gulch I think new arrivals must be assumed as productive members unless they act otherwise.
- Therefore, in order to encourage valuable posts and encourage free trade, I think the Gulch should make a one time loan of GaltsGold points to every member. The loan can be revoked at any time by the Gulch, of course.
Suggestions on how GaltsGold points could be earned:
1) GaltsGold Points paid by other members to a topic or to a comment. (This is paid from the paying member's bank of GaltsGold points and reduces that balance.)
2) 1 point (from the Gulch's Mulligan Bank) paid to a member for a topic posted that earns at least 3 points paid by other members
3) Members are loaned 20 points for joining the Gulch
4) 1 point (from the Gulch's Mulligan Bank) paid to a member that has earned 5 GaltsGold points from other members in a month
5) Producers are awarded 1 point for each month they are paid producers
6) Any other value for value award that the owners of the Gulch site should choose.
Please consider that the above system might be gamed via collusion of members.
The current point system also allows down-votes. I don't think that will work fairly in a value for value point system. Points that have been earned (and paid for by another member) could be considered the property of the member. Taking away someone's earned property might be considered stealing.
Allowing uncontrolled down-voting could also make it possible for a terrorist troll to attack and destroy property in the Gulch. I think it is the duty of the very limited government in the Gulch (the site owners and designers) to protect property of the members. Recovering points correctly in such a case would be a complex problem programmatically.
The Gulch owners and marketplace vendors may consider offering discounted products as a reward to members who have earned specified GaltsGold point levels in the Gulch.
All of the above is just a suggestion.
I look forward to your rational comments, suggestions, improvements, and criticism.
Consider for a moment the point system in this online Gulch.
What is it's purpose?
Does it's purpose support the ideals of objectivism, the free market, and value for value trade?
Be assured that my purpose of posting this is to encourage discussion so by all means feel free to disagree and to add your ideas, too. Everything here is open to discussion.
The existing point system appears to me to be a Gulch function similar to "likes" on another social networking site. That serves a social purpose as far as it goes, but it's not what I think of as particularly objectivist.
In my opinon, the Gulch point system should have a goal of encouraging discussion and encouraging rational thinking by digitally rewarding the members who make rational posts and comments, and other members of the Gulch should be able to do this of their own free will.
I think the existing point system does accomplish this to a certain degree.
BUT ...
I have been thinking for some time that the "point" system in this online Gulch has something in common with the current unstable western economic system: inflation.
The issuance of currency (points) has no cost, the supply is unlimited, and therefore the supply is growing. There is no value paid-in when we award points to others so the value of each of those points is diminishing. As the Gulch grows in population this effect will be even more pronounced.
I think the free market has shown one way to make this better.
(For purposes of discussion, I call the new points GaltsGold points.)
I think that every GaltsGold point that I award to another member should reduce the number of GaltsGold points that I have earned that appear in my Gulch account. I should give value for value. If a post is really valuable, I should be willing to acknowledge that via a digital payment of a point I have earned.
I think the Gulch experience could be improved with a more objectivist, value for value GaltsGold point system.
Here are some ideas for discussion:
- In a real Gulch those arriving would be able to bring some property they earned through production, and will have to earn any more to trade and survive.
- In any trading system there must be enough currency to enable and encourage free trade. Limiting the amount of currency stifles trade by giving the impression of scarcity.
- In the digital gulch I think new arrivals must be assumed as productive members unless they act otherwise.
- Therefore, in order to encourage valuable posts and encourage free trade, I think the Gulch should make a one time loan of GaltsGold points to every member. The loan can be revoked at any time by the Gulch, of course.
Suggestions on how GaltsGold points could be earned:
1) GaltsGold Points paid by other members to a topic or to a comment. (This is paid from the paying member's bank of GaltsGold points and reduces that balance.)
2) 1 point (from the Gulch's Mulligan Bank) paid to a member for a topic posted that earns at least 3 points paid by other members
3) Members are loaned 20 points for joining the Gulch
4) 1 point (from the Gulch's Mulligan Bank) paid to a member that has earned 5 GaltsGold points from other members in a month
5) Producers are awarded 1 point for each month they are paid producers
6) Any other value for value award that the owners of the Gulch site should choose.
Please consider that the above system might be gamed via collusion of members.
The current point system also allows down-votes. I don't think that will work fairly in a value for value point system. Points that have been earned (and paid for by another member) could be considered the property of the member. Taking away someone's earned property might be considered stealing.
Allowing uncontrolled down-voting could also make it possible for a terrorist troll to attack and destroy property in the Gulch. I think it is the duty of the very limited government in the Gulch (the site owners and designers) to protect property of the members. Recovering points correctly in such a case would be a complex problem programmatically.
The Gulch owners and marketplace vendors may consider offering discounted products as a reward to members who have earned specified GaltsGold point levels in the Gulch.
All of the above is just a suggestion.
I look forward to your rational comments, suggestions, improvements, and criticism.
> What is it's purpose?
As best I can tell, it identifies the most active users (where 'active' is something like 'articles posted + comments posted + upvotes')
> Does it's purpose support the ideals of objectivism, the free market, and value for value trade?
1 (ideals of objectivism): Not inherently, but it can be used that way (by upvoting insightful posts).
2 (the free market): Not really. Upvoting someone else's post costs me nothing and doesn't benefit me. It does increase the other person's point total, and others can use the upvote count to quickly identify insightful posts, but that only helps their position on the 'top point earners' display.
3 (value for value trade): Again, upvoting someone's post increases their reputation (both for the post and in the aggregate point counts) but costs me nothing. It benefits others (future readers) in that it helps them identify insightful posts (ot at least posts that *I* find insightful)
For instance, at the moment on the weekly point count board, khalling has 661 points, Non_mooching_artist 435, and freedomforall has 335. What does this mean? It might mean that KH posts twice as often as FFA, or that KH's posts are upvoted twice as much as FFA's posts, or something in between. In real terms, I think it means that they all are frequent posters and commenters on this site.
It would also make things more positive because most comments I agree with and just upvote. If I disagree, I don't downvote but rather I write a response, making most of my comments seem negative. If others do this, it makes us look and feel less united around the Objectivism and more like nasty people bickering.
The numberical "scores" as they are are not useful because a comment with ten upvotes and ten downvotes looks the same as a post no one cares to comment on.
The whole notion of a button to express ideas is questionable b/c it discourages actual discussion. If someone says something I think is anti-Objectivist, I can simply click a button to express disapproval and forgo digging into the issue. We all know when you go out and do anything, some people are going to disapprove; so my saying "I disapprove" isn't very useful. All the value comes when we dig into something in a way that would be impolite or contentious with people we know and learns something from someone else's perspective.
At the same time, someone who posted Real Gems but could only spend a few hours on the site might bring large nuggets and precious stones to the party, but not in large volume.
How could/should a Marketplace For Ideas be structured to reward them? Maybe my post, above?
I post here more than most and under the current system I get a point for every post regardless of objective value. I will not get GaltsGold points for that, or for just cracking a joke, or just saying LOL, or for saying that I agree with another member. None of those posts have value until another member decides they have value and gives the post one of the GaltsGold points that he/she has produced. That will help level the field for the occasional member who posts in Quality instead of Quantity.
I'm sure you have noticed that a lot of members post favorite quotes from historical figures. Those are the gems of history and the Gems of the Gulch will be recognized by members through spending of their own free will the GaltsGold they have produced.
Just noodling...
Regarding the decrease of my own points when I give points out, I think will be more miserly from now on.
Where I have a hard time continuing on with this logic is with regard to the downvote. I rarely downvote, but when I do, it is because someone has violated at least two of the following three:
a) been inconsistent with the ideals of this site, b) been taking my points out of context, and/or
c) just plain rude.
If I were to apply freedomforall's logic to the converse case of downvoting, I would feel like I was stealing points for myself, rather than just diminishing someone else's total justifiably.
As for downvoting, under the unlimited system its ok but under a system where points have value its problematic, especially if a troll or trolls want to use it to disrupt the "economy."
I don't really have any objections with the current system. Although how it is used or abused can occasionally be a problem, but over the years between producers and administrators the worst offenses have been policed adequately. It is not a currency that we can really do anything with, but it does reflect a level of dedication, productivity, support for those that exhibit reason as well as add value to the site. Even pleasure received from entertaining or funny comments though they may add little to knowledge are a value. If there is a notable downside it is the same as we regularly rail against in the form of envy. Some will place too much value on the points of others and be resentful. This is not-objecivist. I think if people think of it/liken it to money in the way described in Francisco's money speech there is no problem. "Having money is not the measure of a man. What matters is how he got it. If he produced it by creating value, then his money is a token of honor." Francisco Points are in a way the Gulch's currency...
Naturally being imperfect humans we must always work at keeping these principles in the forefront. It is within each member's capacity to produce more... to strive to create without envy towards those that have worked longer and harder to produce value and be recognized for it.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Applied it might actually create more value for your buck (point). Since you would actually be "buying" the value of that response or "buying" the value of a post that while you might not agree in part or at all... the discussion has merit and leads to a better understanding/appreciation of Objectivism/Gulch objectives.
I would advance a thought that I had begun to notice after being present for a while in the Gulch.
You make friends here -naturally. There are leaders in the group -naturally. And there is the tendency to support "friends" -naturally. These aspects are part of human nature -naturally. But, you begin to see a "favorite" status awarded among the "friends". Ex: One responds to a comment or post, "Great comment", "You said that right", "Good point", etc., the point is ( no pun intended) that if general comments such as these can earn the "friends" 5-6-7 points and the same short, general comment (on same post) from someone "outside" the "friends" group remains at -1- then is there something to be said here?
I am only trying to understand how can the system be "objective" if you will. I have tried to be correct and assign points to anyone that has "agreed" with a comment that I too am in agreement with or has introduced an interesting perspective to that post whether I agree or not.
There is no "perfect" application or resolution here. No one ever said that life is fair. It is not.
While I am very interested in the concept presented in this post, I remain somewhat skeptical that it might further deter or "limit" the liberty to freely state opinions and present ideas that should, in themselves, be their own reward.
However, that being said, I would certainly look forward to making some "Galt's Gold" and using it to pay for the unique, often great, posts and critiques found here in the Gulch.
My appreciation to all of you.
If what the enemies of liberty said was true then would there be no objectivist point trading at all? Would all objectiivists just horde their points for another personal use or would they see the value and self interest in rewarding others for valuable posts?
I know the answer, but I am an objectivist choir member. I like being able to add to the data that destroys the statists arguments. I also like that using the value point system the site could present a "greatest hits" list of posts for newcomers to the site.
What I propose is more like a free market using a currency of some value and of limited supply.
I don't understand how a value-point system would deter anyone from posting anything. There is no cost to posting at all, only to recommend another post as valuable. Could you explain, please?
Please excuse the lateness but with Easter, etc...
To answer your question- It was not my intention to suggest that there was a cost to posting but rather a possible deterrent to participating overall for those who had a low "value rating" or had no "currency" to participate. Just a thought.
Thanks for the interesting post.
I didn't see this as a replacement for the existing points but an additional feature. In Galt's Gulch when you have no GaltsGold currency you have to produce something of value (or use fiat points.)
GG is a place for discussion of IDEAS. Ideas have value (allegedly) to the person posting them. They're a bit like Landing In The Valley and offering to do some work for anyone who needs work done so that you can be 'employed' and earn rewards (the gold currency) that you can trade for tangible goods in the marketplace.
But the only 'buying' we can do here is to support (buy) the idea someone posts or discard it (toss it in the dustbin.)
From that point of view, I support the 'voting system' that's here already, but maybe tweaking it to make it a better gauge of 'market feedback.'
Unless the 'rules' have changed, the upvotes were supposed to indicate "added to the discussion" and downvotes indicated "I think that was spam."
Sort of carrot or stick with no shades of gray.
I'd hoped that there might be a +10 to -10 rating scale for "how much did this comment CONTRIBUTE to The Valley's Discussions?"
Spammers or "gee, that's a dumb idea" posts might get a lot of negative scores, while real 'contributions' to debates and intellectual interchange would garner more positive votes.
And "Meh" comments would get 'zeroes.'
That's my two rubles (or kopeks or whatever) for the discussion.
Cheers!
I agree with your ideas on the "rules" for points but the rules are as only effective if they are followed. When people have no incentive to follow rules they are "more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules" and other interests often take priority. Along with unlimited supply of points, that has resulted in a system that does not represent the value of each comment/contribution; it greatly inflates some and simultaneously reduces the value of others. If the supply of points is limited to those earned, then self interest has the effect that Rand so eloquently wrote about and value grows with productive actions.
You also pointed out that the GaltsGold product selection would be limited to spending on upvoting.
Under the GaltsGold point system there is nothing to prevent me from offering my services (programming, recipes, gardening tips, etc) in exchange for GaltsGold points. Nothing prevents you from doing the same, assuming that you and I agree that we have confidence in using the GaltsGold currency.
Gaming almost any system is possible through collusion and ingenuity. Perhaps a method to limit use of such "earnings" for upvoting can be devised, while allowing them to be spent on services of other members.
"I'd hoped that there might be a +10 to -10 rating scale for "how much did this comment CONTRIBUTE to The Valley's Discussions?"
Spammers or "gee, that's a dumb idea" posts might get a lot of negative scores, while real 'contributions' to debates and intellectual interchange would garner more positive votes. "
But how did the gold coins in The Valley come into being? Did Midas give everyone a 'starter kit'?
How did _I_ 'get my first gold'? My parents gave me theirs until I could sell my services to someone or some ones who'd pay me for my services... called 'getting your first job.'
So if someone is invited to the Valley, what's the Process followed after they've arrived?
And as for 'confidence in the GaltsGold Point System,' where does 'confidence' come from? Is the system effective and efficient and does it achieve its intended goals? What, exactly ARE the 'goals'?
Damn you, Socrates! Damn you! :)
I'm sure Midas had a vetting process in the Gulch for new residents but imo this Gulch must make an initial loan assuming each member has something to offer. Those initial loans establish enough currency for the economy to start trading.
This Gulch doesn't require invitations.
My goals for the value point system have been stated in these posts, and the Gulch members may cause them to expand with their input and actions in the free marketplace.
Those two choices have seemed ok, but there's no mouseover equivalents for anything at a lower level when 'voting' on a response comment.
So, again, what's the purpose of voting, again?
I'd be happy with "I agree/I disagree" voting if the viewer doesn't want to add a reply...
The point inflation came about with the exponential growth of the user base. After a year or so, I was giving away hundreds of points a day because that's what I was receiving for my early contributions. Now, I can't imagine anyone planning a dive trip without going to DiveBuddy.com to learn more about the hundreds of underwater destinations around the world.
The point is, of course, that you can only pay what you earn. Frankly, I didn't even know I had any points here.
In a real Gulch you would not just have the value you earned but the value you created where none exists before. This is, the core, of a producer based system.
We need to encourage production, not make a distribution based system.
Taking some previously mentioned ideas into consideration, these are my thoughts on a revised point system.
You earn 5 points when you join Galt's Gulch.
I agree all posts/replies should start at Zero.
Any Post or Reply you make costs you (subtracts) a point. (Production cost, in a sense.)
Only up-votes allowed. (One up-vote offsets your cost.)
Unless I'm missing something, a system like this would better reflect a member's value added to The Gulch. Posts/replies that are not considered 'valuable' will not earn as many up-votes, and could just stay at the original zero with the original point cost. If a member continues to make similar comments, then he will languish in a low or Negative point total that is self-induced.
To distinguish low participation members from those commenting with little value, a new feature that allows you to see a member's total posts/replies next to their point total (when 'hovering over' their name) would be very useful. If someone doesn't comment much, the low post/reply count would explain a low point total. If someone makes valuable comments regularly, then their point total will well exceed their post/reply count. If a member is consistently making comments with little value, then their post/reply count will be high with a low point total.
Anyway, I've probably given way too much thought to this, but it's my two copper coins worth. :)
Regarding applying a point cost to each post or reply, if posts or replies have a cost, people will be discouraged from posting/expressing thoughts, and in currency terms will be deflationary which will in turn reduce economic activity(thoughtful participation by members.) That is not the effect that benefits the Gulch, imo.
Activity is a good thing; it should not be rewarded in and of itself, but neither should it be discouraged (also imo.)
For the same reason, I proposed a larger number of initial points to encourage others to spend thoughtfully but not to suppress activity due to perceived scarcity of currency. Scarcity of currency imposed by the banking cartel has been the cause of many business failures and steep drops in economic activity. I don't have the experience to stipulate the currency level or expansion needed. Your suggested level of 5 original points may be exactly right, but subjectively I think it should be higher;^) This is an area that a free market can best define but if anyone has more ideas I would enjoy hearing them.
(I haven't programmed mouseovers recently but if there is a way to turn them off or lengthen the activation time I would prefer it. The web is full of mouseovers that occur unintentionally and interrupt reading/thinking. Some 'features' are only features in the programmer's dreams of glory;^)
You are right that I did assume the intent of a point system was to better reflect the quality of a member's comments in a more objective display. Thanks again, for the topic.
In your example, hopefully your comments and post garner offsetting up-vote points, at a minimum. Additional up-votes would show that you've written something of additional value to the site. I think that typically appreciation posts are reciprocally up-voted anyway, so they would not be a huge drain on anyone's point total.
Up-voting a post/reply costs nothing. That may not have been clear in my original proposal.
I think if you review post counts you will see the effect of inflation is far greater than that, and that means that the comparison you mention would be inflated and biased.
I do agree that currently we have huge "point inflation" in the sense of getting an arbitrary point for any post or reply. High activity members accrue points for just being active. That content may be considered valuable by members, or it may not. The current points are not a reflection of value-added content. If that was changed and the posts/replies all started at zero, then points awarded by other members would better reflect value added in the exchange of ideas.
We currently don't have a way to see a member's total post/reply count. I think that is a valuable piece of information, if viewed in conjunction with a point total. If a member's current post/reply total was subtracted from their current total points, then we could have a rough baseline for any new changes. It's not flawless, it's not 'play money', but it would provide a better gauge of valued commentary.
At this point, we may just be discussing how many trolls are dancing on the head of a pin. ;)
Here is an example of 3 posts together that got 17 points:
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/1f...
(I have nothing against saying "well done" or making a funny remark or applauding that remark.)
That profusion/inflation of points is caused by not having a limit to points. If you allow negatives, you are still allowing unlimited points to be created. There would be nothing to encourage members to use points to indicate superior posting. I already said I saw the attraction in your creative suggestion on the mouse-over 'member quotient', but they are of little value if the points are unlimited.
My original proposal uses a value backed limited point system, your proposal still has unlimited points created from nothing. The former gives objective value to post quality; as the example demonstrates, the latter does not.
What I propose is more like a free market using a currency of some value and of limited supply.
Just an idea.
It occurs to me that just like a real economy, there's unlimited possible value to be created. Someone created networking protocols, someone turned them into a hosting company, someone set up this site, and now we use it to create point-worthy value.
KISS is a concept that would help here. Several proposals are just too complicated.
Maybe I am just plain tired. Puzzle Lady's point #10 suits me to a T
I suppose we could normalize point counts to a less intimidating fixed range possibly using a Logarithmic scale.
But perhaps what we are groping for here is a notion of "depreciation" since we can regard past earned points as previous contributions of intellectual capital that loose value if associated with dated, closed, or otherwise non-productive topics.
Points associated with active topics and "best of" gems could have reduced depreciation rates and the rate of depreciation could also be accelerated by down votes and retarded by up votes. That way points "earned" through more substantive content would outlive those arising from transitory chatter.
Another way to make mega point balances be less intimidating to recent arrivals would be if, as in a real economy, "rich" members could spend some of their points in direct payment to other members.
For example, posit two members, an old timer named HereFromTheStart with 17,000 points and a recent arrival named LateToTheParty with 17 points.
If HereFromTheStart needed help sifting through 30 pages of Google results on some topic, she could compensate LateToTheParty 200 points to summarize them for her.
Or if LateToTheParty was making an apparently well intended but missguided series of collectivist sounding comments about "Income Inequality" as a problem, for the purely selfish reason of wanting to end the madness, HereFromTheStart might offer the newcomer some of her points for reading and explaining the meaning of relevant sections of "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal".
1. It's much too complicated. It takes all the fun out of perusing others' ideas and interacting with them.
2. The time I invest in reading comments is worth a lot to me. That alone should be rewarded, not penalize me for agreeing with someone's comments by giving them a thumbs up. Is that supposed to be like leaving a tip on the table?
3. The numbers of votes are not a zero-sum proposition. In the real world, more resources are always coming into currency from the environment. A plus vote given is an acknowledgment of value received. It need not be like Monopoly moey spendable in turn.
4. The whole thing smacks too much of wanting the approval of others and thus writing comments catering to or fawning upon the known preferences of others.
5. Making the system so complicated that I need a professional accountant to sort out my assets is a turn-off.
6. I like to be able to express my responses based purely on the concepts under discussion, not keep an ulterior or alternate agenda in mind to seek approval as more important than promulgating truth.
7. The time spent reading and the time spent thinking and writing comments are the highest value I have: pieces of my irreplaceable life. For me to spend that here in the Gulch with people whose exchanges I value is already a transaction paid for. No artificial points and fictional coinage required. And when comments some people write here bore me or offend against reason and truth, how can I be reimbursed for loss of time with nothing gained? Can I demand reparations?
8. I engage in these exchanges of my own volition. The pay-off is that truth is discovered and strengthened, that the greatest values of our existence are stated and promulgated. In brief, the memes we hold dearest are given a chance to live and spread and make the world better and a greater source of happiness.
9. If there are no conflicts of interest among rational individuals, then the discussions are for the purpose of discovering our mutualities, of sharing pleasures, of identifying premises and disposing of contradictions. Those new to Objectivism and with a genuine interest in finding rational answers can gain much from the oldtimers who have much experience with vocalizing explanations of the philosophy. This process should not engender acrimony between participants if everyone maintains intellectual honesty rather than defending faulty premises and irrational principles, such as faith-based beliefs.
10. Productive conversations are their own reward. If the Gulch wants a point system to recognize the most active and intelligent contributors, like a report card or merit badges, that's fine. But I basically ignore the whole point system. I am more interested in the substance of the conversations, and we all know who are the brightest lights with the most interesting and worthwhile comments.
11. It would be helpful if the thumbs-ups given showed who gave them, like Facebook's "like" button. A thumbs-up generally means "I agree" or "well said", and I am happy to click one after reading without necessarily adding a written comment, yet let the writer know it came from me.
12. A thumbs-down is a stronger response and probably should be accompanied by a rebuttal or explanation of the reason for disagreement. There is the meat of the discussion. After all, if we all agreed about everything all the time, we'd have not much to say. Perhaps there should not even be a thumbs-down (Facebook has no "don't like" button), since it invites nastiness, especially if the individual giving the thumbs-down is anonymous. Without a substantiated reason, a thumbs-down is just a slap in the face.
13. In sum, I would not like to see comments and posts monetized. Our time and attention is payment enough. If such a system were instituted, I would cease my participation and go elsewhere for stimulating, unconstrained, rational conversations.
The other major rationality site I belong to is LessWrong.com, and they use a similar point system. The biggest difference being that you have to get your total to at least 20 before you're allowed to post top level articles (and of course, political argument there will make you unpopular).
Perhaps it could also be based on a high point total for a specific topic, indicating higher interest by members?
The chart legend shows the member point stats categorized by range of points earned followed by the number of members that make up that range.
I estimated the number of members in the 0 to 1 point range at 20,000.
Chart is shown on this new Gulch topic:
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/2b...