BOUNTY: To get bounty either show me how to play the system, or explain why you think it’s impossible to play it.
I’m developing a reputation system for a site that allows you to start your own blog of sorts, and to comment and have favorites etc.
I aim for a very short ruleset that is easy to understand for the users and can’t be ‘played’. Note: when I write ‘answers’, I mean answers to comments, which is the equivalent of Stack Overflow’s comments to answers.
- To create an account you need one Mojo. Without it you can only answer other people’s comments.
- When you have an account, you get one Mojo a day.
- Each day you can only post as many posts and comments as you have Mojo. You can answer as many comments as you like. You don’t lose Mojo when you post.
- You can give one Mojo to someone who has less, but only once to each person.
- Alternatively, you can burn one Mojo to take one Mojo away from someone who has less, but only once.
- You can’t have your Mojo back.
The site is supposed to be invite-only, but non-members can answer member’s comments, and maybe they’ll be able to start their own blogs too, I’m not sure yet. The idea is for a system based mainly on seniority, where power can be transferred between users only in a very limited manner so basically there’s no way to inflate your reputation (Mojo only flows down.)
Giving and taking Mojo is supposed to be an act on the level of marking someone as a friend or as an enemy.
I don’t want Mojo itself to be a motivator for people to be part of the community. I want them to use it to influence how other people behave on site. By burning someone with your Mojo you effectively limit how much they can post on the site. By giving someone Mojo you allow them to express more.
I’m also planning to add ways to get extra Mojo, like ‘Post of the Day’ or ‘Favorite Blog of the Week’ contests with prizes of around 3-10 Mojo. But one of my main goals is to avoid inflation.
Here are some consequences of your design. These may or may not be what you intended, but I point them out so that you’re aware of them.
A very Mojo-ful user who has been mostly quiet is not going to care at all about stepping on some toes, because they have a huge bank of Mojo from which to draw. This seems to go against your goal of limiting negative behavior.
Likewise, users who contribute absolutely nothing to your site still get Mojo just by virtue of having an account. But an otherwise valuable contributor who makes one off-color post that’s disliked by the community will be silenced until he has enough Mojo to post again.
If someone has something very valuable to contribute, he has to make sure to have ‘reserve Mojo’ at all times — that is, he must ensure that he isn’t at his posting limit. If he doesn’t, he might lose the opportunity to say something useful that would earn him more Mojo.
The rate at which people can accrue Mojo is limited by the size of the community. If there are few people who are handing out Mojo, pretty soon they won’t be able to hand out Mojo anymore, since there won’t be anyone left who hasn’t already received Mojo from them.
The oldest users will effectively become an invincible cabal whose ideas may define and shape your site. Since you can only reduce someone else’s Mojo if they have fewer Mojo than you, these users can make statements your community vehemently disagrees with and have their Mojo ratings remain intact.
In general, by restricting the supply of Mojo, you have created an economic system in which people will probably be more hesitant to contribute to a discussion. They will need to more carefully weigh what they say, since a post that is disliked by the community may prevent them from speaking further if they get too much negative Mojo.
Playing the system
Suppose we define ‘playing the system’ as ‘artificially changing the value or quantity of one’s Mojo in ways you didn’t intend’. I would say your system is safe from artificial inflation of Mojo, but at the cost of stifling discussion that would have otherwise taken place. You must be able to make the following guarantees:
For example, if you cannot satisfy the creation condition, then malicious early users will simply make an army of new accounts. They keep a number of these new accounts in reserve, quietly accruing Mojo. They then use them as a ‘bury brigade’ to drain Mojo of factions or ideas they disagree with. Although they will lose Mojo when they do so, the collective Mojo of the bury brigade will be constant as long as they don’t go hitman on more than a single hated foe per day.
This is clearly not what you intended.
Artificial deflation
However, your system is not safe from artificial deflation of Mojo. To see why, imagine that users stream into your site to accept their invitations. Imagine a user, Mallory, with k Mojo points. Because Mojo can only flow down, there is no way for a user with k or fewer Mojo points can express their disagreement with Mallory. Only users with k+1 or more Mojo can do so.
Mallory’s reign of terror will continue unchecked unless there are enough users with k+1 or higher Mojo. In fact, if Mallory is an early enough user, there may not be any users who have the power to reduce her Mojo. Indeed, because you’ve artificially made Mojo scarce, they may not want to burn a Mojo to express their opinion, given how precious each Mojo point is — since that also weakens them and makes their opinions more vulnerable to attack.
In short, if there are enough (or maybe even just a few) Mallorys, you will be reduced to playing traffic cop and cleaning up after Mallorys instead of improving your site. The system can no longer be self-policing. Each Mojo point has now become worth much more than before, because people will see from the example of Mallory and her ilk that it is better not to burn a Mojo to open oneself to attack. Thus, Mojo deflation.
This is also clearly not what you intended.