My read of it was that after a teething period of karmic back-rubbing (ENFPs haha ), the forum will settle into rewarding the right posts vs only negativing things you do not like. I think the only one who got really badly repped was t07, no?
I'd argue that the length of a post does not necessarily correlate to its quality.
But that is an individual choice what to make with the feedback, is it not. If for e.g. you had 1 negative comment, vs 10 positives. Vs 10 negatives and 1 positive, surely that is cause for reflection?
I think as the forum grows, if a certain amount of self-discipline is not enforced, sooner or later, the modmins decisions will be challenged at most turns. I couldn't think of a better way actually.
Between a bunch of wildcats or a bunch of wildcats who know the boundaries, which system would we rather be in?
And Haight did say this was a test anyway. . If it doesn't work, or someone can come up with a better system of organisation, why not share it? I've been thinking through the past nights, but couldn't come up with a better idea, actually. It is flawed, but not without merits. Personally I feel more pros than cons. Perhaps that should be the vote?