But I still love all Meta stories! So here goes:
Whether you call it Mojo, Karma, "Standing," or something else, all content rating feedback systems have some sort of currency.
There should really be some exploration of why this is. This really only needs to occur because we don't have a good way of stopping people from having multiple identities. Sites that only accept members with credit cards don't need this at all because they have authentication. Each person gets one account, and it's enforcable, at which point this entire economy system never has to come into being. People are very polite on sites like this. Over at fark, only paying members can become a member of the hand-picked goon squad of moderators, who at that point have the ability to enforce permanent or two-week IP bans. After the first 3 or 4 "Internet executions", fark's noise problem essentially stopped.
On the other hand the Slashcode system is pretty hard to game
Incorrect. The Slashcode system is unbelievably easy to game, but the people gaming it want to ensure that the people writing Slashcode don't catch on and fix it. Hence, it gets hard to detect to the average observer as well. Note that unlike on K5, where user-created discussions are frequently moderated, mod points are never used in user-created discussions on Slashdot due to scarcity of points. So comparing K5 and /. in this way is pretty flawed, since /. only works for rating comments in a story queue driven by a commercial editing staff. K5 is a system for moderating user-created content, while Slashcode is a system which only works for moderating administrator-driven content. Hence, Scoop has a much bigger task ahead of it. Slashcode's fabled "anti-crapflood" technology actually doesn't work at all in user-created discussions, which to this day still see scripted spam attacks in the 3-4 thousand comment range.
Equity should be worth something, so that one has an incentive to use a single account and keep it in good standing.
This will cause what we have already seen, the Jekyll/Hide syndrome. Every "troll" has another account, their do-gooder account, from which to access all the information hidden from the troll account. Hell I did this just to make sure that nothing would ever be hidden from me by modbombing scripts (by the way, who used the word "modbombing" before me? i suspect i will never get credit).
Poor equity isn't just a number; you notice it in terms of lost conveniences before you're effectively kicked off the site.
Don't be silly. You meant to say: "Poor equity isn't just a number; an account may notice it in terms of lost conveniences before the account is effectively kicked off the site, forcing the owner to generate ten more."
So, here I will list all your ideas for how a user should be able to gain equity:
- Leaving highly rated posts should grow one's equity, and leaving poorly rated posts should shrink it.
- It should go without saying that getting a story voted up should be worth a healthy shot of equity, and getting it to FP should be worth even more.
- Conversely, the site might sell equity outright for dollars under reasonable terms discouraging abuse.
- In order to "charge up" the economy it might be worthwhile to dispense equity simply for loading pages (at a low, humanly reasonable, capped rate) to encourage the "silent majority" of lurkers to participate
Equity from Ratings: What's to keep people (let's call them "trolls") from creating their own discussions and moderating themselves up, thereby becoming the Richest In The Land? What's to keep them from creating secret self-reinforcement discussions? I ask you this truly.
Equity from Stories: The true end of any attempt to make story selection objective, this would be the last step into the inferno. I believe the case has been more succinctly and elegantly stated here.
Equity from page loads: Do you seriously want to make drduck a rich, rich man? If ever there was a formula to bankrupt Voxel.net and bring about the triumph of the, um, "trolls", this is it. By all means, go for it.
Equity for cash : Well, as a CMF board member, I see no objections to this one. Tally ho.
So, in short, you have accurately described the problem (no working equity system) and failed to come up with a viable solution. But you have definitely thought about it a great deal, and the discussion is worthwhile. For what its worth, I can't think of a single way of dispensing equity that the most determined users could not game to the disadvantage of the rest. What you really need is a "content detector". It's a tough problem.
There should be sanity checks. There is no reason at all to allow an account like drduck to moderate faster than anyone can read.
This is, properly implemented, a good idea. Hard to do right, but it couldn't hurt. I kind of like the anti-spammer tactics where a link which no human could see (or follow) would lead to an infinite tarpit of garbage stories and bogus comments, which the script would traverse and rate, thereby revealing itself and getting its IP banned. But I digress.
My solution? Negative voting attracts negative voters. You shouldn't be able to vote against comments or stories or anything else. I wrote some of these ideas down here. I don't claim to be any more correct than you, but there are some ideas in there to kick around as well.
Still voting up your story as +1: promotes discussion cause I'm a sucker for the Meta section.
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.