Hurt Feelings

#1

Many, many people come to Strolen's, or other rpg sites, eager to show their Game Master creativity. So instantly they submit their item, something that will make the "staff of power" pale in comparison.

We have all witnessed it, perhaps experienced it ourselves. If the feedback is bad, then some of the newcomers will react with anger, abandoning the site, tears streaming. Others do not react at all, totally disregarding the feedback...

How can we help? Are there certain articles, submissions, tips and tricks they should read before posting?

Should there be two categories for submissions, amateur and professional? Where amateurs are tutored and given encouraging feedback? Where professionals gets criticized with full honesty and bluntness? (Which I consider more constructive). Do newcomers need encouragement, and old timers honest second opinions?

Perhaps first time submitters could be redirected to a "Creation 101" thread, where tips and tricks can be found?

How can we encourage these would be creators, help them without alienating them?

Something must be done! Has been done, and I completely support that, but could it be done in an easier way?

Hurt Feelings

#2

I too would like to see something done, if anything can be done. It is fairly rare for someone completely new to the concept of gaming to make their way here, so I am concerned that some would be posters might be offended by the comment that they are 'amatuers' while these other people they dont know are 'professionals'. In essence, we dont know what sort of gamer is coming in, for every Kal, Greccio, and DL there might be a unknown MoonHunter in the works, creeping out into the virtual format.

If given the option of choosing amateur or pro, which would we have all picked? I dont consider myself an amateur, I have been gaming for years, though not so many as some peeps here. On the other hand, if I was an amateur, would I have the maturity to admit that I was?

What can be done when someone sets themselves up to get their feelings hurt? Perhaps in their game group sparse descriptions are all they need, and a nifty name, and a few bare bones evoke the same reaction from the home group that one of the Captains Lovecraftian horrors, or one of Moons eloquent treatises would evoke from us.

Hurt Feelings

#3

Heh, in my quest not to hurt feelings, I suggested the ultimate insult? You are right Scras, who would consider himself an amateur...

Then perhaps there could be a "purgatory" where submissions rest until approved by an admin? But who would feel at home in the purgatory? Perhaps such things would only scare them away?

Perhaps then, there should be warning that fair judgment shalt be passed?

Or perhaps we already have the best possible solution...

hmmmmmm....

Hurt Feelings

#4

It has been some time since the matter was discussed, but I believe that Strolen was suggested just that sort of action in the site rebuild. Incoming posts would be held in lieu until Moderator X could review the post and decide if it was worth releasing to submission, but there was a general concern that such a plan would cause a decrease in submission as there would not be the instant gratification factor.

There was also a 'hall of fame' and a 'hall of shame' idea discussed, with members voting what they considered to be the best submissions into the Hall of Fame, with the worst being shunted into the Hall of Shame. The Hall of Fame seemed to have no problems (Still support the idea, do I) but the Hall of Shame was also haunted by potential problems. Rather than take a hint/seek to become better at what they are doing, those who were dropped down into the Hall of Shame would be upset and have their feelings hurt.

It is a sticky situation, there is no doubt about that. If there was one thing I could do when someone started getting pissy about a low scoring post, I would grab them by the shoulders, and tell them, in a firm voice (adding shakes where necessary)

Dont get mad, just do better.

Hurt Feelings

#5

I like the hall of fame, it emphasizes rewards as opposed to punishment. And as we have concluded; no one wants to contribute to a site where the potential for punishment is looming on the horizon.

As for taking the hall of fame a step further:
-Strolen's seal of excellence: Could be awarded to dilligent and resourceful authors of many quality items. Could for instance take form as a golden star by the users name.
-Mark of excellence: A small golden object (sword?) after the title in the headline. Something given rarely enough to be coveted. Something that distinguish between the "run of the mill" five-flame (I know there is no such thing) and the true masterpiece five-flame submission.

These rewards could be successful if people were aware that they existed. For instance there could be a small advertisement for them next to the text area when posting...

The point is: encourage people!

Hurt Feelings

#6

Good idea. The mark of excellence should be given only two or three times in a year, and the person who gets it could have their site or ezboard linked to this site.

Hurt Feelings

#7

The Admin/Mod Approval idea, I think, is not something we would want to do. The idea is valid, and I would like to institute it, but the thing is, how do people feel when the Admin or Mod decides that their item is not good enough?

Hurt Feelings

#8

May I suggest that the little red flames and titles may in themselves be part of the problem? Unlike the judged forums, where the flames mean quality of a submission, for the persona they indicate only the quantity of submissions. Many people will be motivated to post more minimal content to secure the next "level". Conversly, a few of us are actually less likely to post, since we have a negative reaction to this kind of tracking. If those are the desired behaviors, that's OK, but accept that it rewards some of the very behaviors that initiated this thread.

Fundamental rule: You will get more of what you reward. You will tend to get less of what you ignore (but it takes patience). "Punishment" will be viewed as reward by some who are seeking attention or have even worse motivations.

IF the flames and titles are important, perhaps they should be awarded to individuals based on quality of submissions, or even by vote of the moderators: XP for positive contribution, if you will, since most of us recognize that mechanic? A simplistiic "ratings average" or similar proposal has an obvious problem of quelling a certain amount of desirable spontaneity and even silliness - a little leavening that makes the site more enjoyable as long as it doesn't overwhelm the more thoughtful discussion. It would be "challenging" to make up a mathematical model for quality that actually did what was intended: Human judgment may be the better mechanism.

While the idea of a "Hall of Fame" or "Mark of Excellence" is good, such awards should also be rare, as you both noted. On the other hand, every good or better than average contributor could be rewarded with a 3 or 4 flame rating based on merit.

Forgive me if I overstep my bounds - I'm still a newbie here, and would happily self-identify as amateur. I don't have the history with this site to understand all the prior choices, so please take this as nothing more than a bit of brainstorming, not a claim to any great fault with the site.

Hurt Feelings

#9

Excellent conversation and one that has been haunting us for a long time. I don't want to sidetrack this conversation because I am always interested to read thoughts on how to improve everything and with the rebuild this is the best time to get those ideas out there.

Figured I would quote my thought process on the new site and give you some ideas on how we propose to fix some of these problems. Keep in mind that I have had a good number of people provide VERY important feedback to the following so this is the concept in its raw form with none of the suggested changes implemented.

Since I am short on time for the time being I will provide this "as is" with no warranty expressed or implied, and subject (and will) change. (I bolded something directly relevant to this discussion)

Feel free to comment on it though because the overall concept is still solid. To see something like this in action (no, I hardly came up with all this on my own) you can check out the following websites.

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Voting%2FExperience%20System
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Honor%20Roll
---
http://www.perlmonks.com/index.pl?node=Voting%2FExperience%20System

Cheers

OK, everything is based on experience points. Experience points decide if/when you get to vote and what 'powers' you are given on the site. Each level will give something extra for the user to do on the site. As users participate and vote in the site they will gain experience points. As their experience points grow more features and options will be accessible to them.

Nobody can do anything to his or her own submission or comment.

Experience
Experience is gained and lost through submissions, comments, and votes on other people. For each positive vote on one of your submissions or comments there is a chance to earn some experience through it. Same for when you vote on somebody elses submission or comment, the author and you both have a chance to earn a random experience point from the vote. If you vote negatively on a submission the author that you voted down on has a chance to lose an experience point while the voter still has a chance to gain it. Experience points are random with varying degrees of possibility of gaining an experience depending on what the vote is on. For submissions the % chance will be greater then on a comment.

You gain extra experience points for logging in during each 24hr period.
Each submission gives you XP.
Each comment gives you XP.
Each vote has a chance to give you XP.
Each vote on your submission or comment has a chance to give you XP.
Each negative vote on submission or comment has a chance to remove XP.
Each deleted submission or comment removes XP.
Bonus XP during Quests. (explained below)
Bonus XP for Blessings. (explained below)
Bonus XP for submission nominated to Hall of Honor.

You also automatically gain 1 XP point for any comment and multiple XP points for a submission. Higher votes on submissions can give more XP. So submitting an excellent submission gets you instant XP plus a greater chance of earning more XP through votes. Poor submissions will still give you the instant XP for putting in a submission, but the negative votes may very well harm you in the long run. You will also lose the instant XP if you post is deleted or removed for editing.

Votes
The main power gained through experience is the ability to vote, which is gained at second level. Experience for the newbies will be through posts, comments, and votes by others on their submissions. Once they gain enough experience they will earn the right to vote on others.

For each level, you are only allowed a finite amount of votes per day. As level increases, so does the amount of votes you are allowed to cast. Votes not only include voting on submissions, but also a + or - vote on comments. Because at the lower levels you only have so many votes, you take the vote more seriously then before. Casting votes gives you and the author a chance at gaining XP.

We all know there are some bad or useless comments. Votes is a self moderating way to try and stop those kinds of comments from happening. The author can still give whatever comment they want, but if it is in bad taste or not useful then others may vote negatively on that comment taking away experience from the author. This will hopefully make authors thing a little harder before they put in a comment.

Each person will only be allowed to vote on each comment/submission one time. If the author does an update that is approved by a moderator then the votes will be reset for that submission and they will be able to vote 2+ times in these circumstances.

Justification is that voting is a privilege and for an author, receiving votes affects their XP so allowing just anybody to vote might not be a great idea. Having voting as a privilege turns it into a perk for the site to so when you earn the voting right you really have *earned* that right. You have done some good submissions and comments and the community has seen this and rewarded you for it. The integrity of the votes is higher and those that may not respect the system cannot just come in "off the street" and affect the voting.

Hall of Honor
At a certain level users will be granted the power to add submissions to the Hall of Honor. Nominating a submission for the Hall of Honor gives an instant bonus 3 XP. Hall of Honor choices will be permanently identified with a list of who nominated them viewable from that submissions view page. Hall of Honor choices will be placed on the front page of the Citadel until another Hall of Honor nominee replaces them. Not sure how many will available on the front page right now.

Any number of people can nominate the same submission. You can nominate as many different submissions as you have Hall of Honor points. Once a user gives a submission Hall of Honor points, it cannot give them again to that submission. Choose your Hall of Honor recipients carefully as you will always be identified as choosing them.

Golden Submissions
The highest honor a submission could be granted is the Golden Submission. It is given out only by the highest level users and administrators. This is the page of chosen submissions that are in the top of their category and something to aspire to. Each Golden Submission must be unanimously voted on by a certain number of admins/power users.

Quests
Occasionally we can have a time period where certain types of submissions are worth bonus points if submitted during the allotted time frame. For instance, if NPCs have been neglected for a while, we offer a "Quest" for NPCs and give bonus EXP to those that input a NPC during the time frame of the quest. Quests can be for certain submission category or for certain types of submissions in those categories. Quest for Water Plots or a Quest for Shields for instance.

Level Advancement
Both experience and minimum submission requirements must be accomplished. Posting submissions / comments just to meet that requirement could also hurt you in experience which is why both are required to level up.

Numbers shown are the minimum requirements for that level. Both XP and Submission requirements must be filled to make the level.
Level  | XP | Submis | Votes | HoH | Blessings | Sponsor 

1         0      0	    0	    0	   0	   0

2        35      10	   5	    0	   0	   1

3        75      20		9		 0		0		2

4       150      40		14		1		0		2

5       250      65		19		1		0		3

6       550      90		25		2		0		3

7      1000     125		30		2		2		4

8      1650     200		35		3		2		4

9      2500     300		40		3		4		5

10     4000     450		45		4		4		5

11     6000     600		50		4		8		6

12     9000     850		55		5		8		6

13    11000    1000		60		6		10		7

14    15000    1500		65		6		10		7
What you may earn with Experience
Level 2 - Voting rights.
Level 2 ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ Can update your Stats page with personal information. (personal webpage)
Level 3 - Moderation power I. Send a message to the Mods to review a submission for movement to the editing room.
Level 4 - Hall of Honor Points to spend
Level 5 -
Level 6 - Grant other users extra votes
Level 7 - Blessing Points. The giving of bonus XP for an extremely good comment.
Level 8 - Moderation power II. Vote and comment to influence submissions in the editing room.
Level 9 - Moderation power III. Approve or disapprove the return to the main site of submissions in editing room.
Level 10 - Golden Submission voting privileges
Level 11 - Moderation power IV. Remove a submission directly (or approve a consideration for removal) and send it to the editing room.

XP Distribution
We all know getting XP during a real roleplaying game can be a mysterious, confusing, and arbitrary form of reward. The site needs to have moods and quirks as well so that everything about the gaining of XP isn't already a known and defined thing. There are a few things that give automatic XP and there are others that only offer a chance of XP.

- Instant XP for a main category submission.
-- 2 XP instantly just for the submission
-- Probability for up to 2 bonus XP depending on the length of submission. % chance for 2 XP increases with length. % chance increases up to a point for 1 XP, once that letter count is passed the 1 XP is given and the % chance for a second starts to increase.
- Instant 1 XP for a comment
- 50% chance for 1 XP for logging in each 24hr period
- For level 2 and level 3, if you use all your votes in a given day you have a 50% chance of gaining 1 XP
- Blessing from other members
- Hall of Heroes nomination grants instantly 5 XP to author and 1 XP to nominee
- Golden Submission grants instantly 20 XP to author and 1 XP to nominee
- Voting on Comments:
-- Voter gets 33% chance of earning 1 XP
-- Author gets 50% chance of gaining or losing 1XP depending on vote
- Voting on Submissions
-- Voter gets a 75% chance of earning 1 XP for each vote on a main submission
-- Author:
---- Vote of 1 = 75% chance of losing 1 XP
---- Vote of 2 = 25% chance of losing 1 XP
---- Vote of 3 = 25% chance of gaining 1 XP
---- Vote of 4 = 75% chance of gaining 1 XP
---- Vote of 5 = gain 1 XP

Hurt Feelings

#10

Well, that about clears it up for me.

Hurt Feelings

#11

I'm going to make a wild guess that you may have already given this a little bit of thought... :oops:

On initial reading I have one request for clarification:

Nobody can do anything to his or her own submission or comment.

Does this apply only to voting/nominating, or to any action on the submission? Would editing still be freely allowed, or are all original submissions and edits moderated?

---

Thank you, Strolen, and also that "good number of people", for your efforts to make this site even better than it already is.

Hurt Feelings

#12

You are right, bad wording on my part.

The author will still have full editing/deleting control of their own work but will not be able to vote or nominate it for anything.

Hurt Feelings

#13

Uhhmm *clears throat*

There may be a weakness...

If someone, of the easily hurt kind, gets well deserved negative feedback. Well, we all know how some react. What if that person were to engage on a personal vendetta and vote every comment from the "insulting party" as poor comments?(say on another authors thread)

The "judge a comment" system is designed to fight bad comments, but could be a double-edged knife...

Thus I think that the power to subtract XP because of bad comments, should be an administrator only power.

XP is not important for me, but some people happens to think it is cool... I'd guess they would get hurt if some bloke gave up his own XP just to bring them down. :roll:

Hurt Feelings

#14

There is not going to be a perfect solution to the problem, but this one at least minimizes the effect.

Right now, on the current site if that happened, the person could go to every submission of the offender and vote 1s bringing down the rating on all of the person's submissions.

The proposed system forces everybody to 'earn' the right to vote and the number of votes they have depends on their experience which depends on their submissions and the quality thereof. Chances are this person that we are voting down will not have enough experience to actually make a negative play on their attackers so the targeted revolt will be minimized. There will be some spelled out rules of appropriatness of comments and there will also be tools to direct the newbie poster to which will help with any future posts. Right now we just sort of let them flounder but in the future we will have tutorials and links for them to read to understand what is appropriate or not. These will be sort of 'canned' responses to poor postings so hopefully the rudeness will be curtailed.

XP will be important in this new system because it actually dictates what you will be allowed to do and vote for on the site. Those that have consistantly good submissions have no worries because they will easily earn the XP to keep them moving up and giving them more votes, but those that don't take the time with their submissions or make thoughtless comments are going to get dinged in their XP. This is in hopes to keep the comments useful. Criticizing is fine, as long as it is constructive and not just rude.

So, with the new system, in theory, the person that is not taking the time on posts is not going to be earning XP and will have no status on the site. Chances are if the person does have XP and does have votes to 'abuse' then they have probably gone through the 'what is expected' stage and hopefully won't have a post that gets demolished. If they do and they want to retaliate, it will be limited by their XP and the votes they have.

Does that seem to make sense? Not a solve all but a limiter anyway.

Hurt Feelings

#15

Ok, that did make sense. I just made an observation, that's all. First time I see a system I always think "how can this thing go wrong"...
Got Murphy's third law a little to embedded in my thinking I guess

All in all, this does look very good Strolen. Two thumbs up!

Hurt Feelings

#16

If someone, of the easily hurt kind, gets well deserved negative feedback.

This was the core of your original question, and has not really been answered by the XP discussion (which is great, just not quite the needed response). Maybe we need to consider several separate issues:
- Setting expectations for posts;
- Tempering constructive criticism until we know people better (training the existing members);
- Accepting that the site may not be the best fit for all people, nor should it try to be.

Setting expectations is relatively straightforward: For example, add a note/link right on the posting form that clearly indicates "Expect Criticism" and explain that is the whole point of the site - not having the perfect idea, but developing ideas with feedback.

How to give positive, honest, constructive criticism is so well documented that I need not review here... :roll: No, that's obviously the hardest issue, and especially in a written forum with wildly diverse cultural norms, expressive abilities and maturity levels. Constructive Criticism could be an immense thread on it's own. Perhaps it deserves it's own place in the XP guide to encourage it?

Finally, accept that all web sites self-select for those with similar interests. The joy of the web is a variation of the old line: "You can choose your friends but not your relatives." Some people will be hurt by any negative feedback at all. But if so, it is also unlikely that they will have much interest in this site, since a large part of its purpose is built around discussion, comment and criticism. Yes, criticism should be friendly, tempered by how well one knows the recipient, constructive, etc, but most of all it should be honest and detailed. That is why most of us (scary, I'm beginning to self-identify...) seem to be here: The companionship, certainly, but also the open, wide-ranging discussions and diversions with a decidedly literary, anti-munchkin, rule-system-agnostic set of similar spirits. That won't appeal to a great many people, in fact the vast majority of the planet, but there are many, many other sites that fill other needs. So, while we should strive never to hurt anyone unnecessarily, we also don't need to change the goals or the mechanics of the site to artificially keep people who would be happier elsewhere.

Comment?

Hurt Feelings

#17

Well said!

The only thing the new system might do is limit the amount of non-constructive negative criticism. It will be easy to vote negatively on those kind of posts (burning their XP) and those that will be against it will have the votes to use against those posts. So it probably won't take long to curb that behavior, especially when there will be easy ways to link to helpful threads to get the person on track. We will have some generic threads talking about mistakes in submissions that anybody can link to so instead of ragging on a post individually they can be linked to a thread with "common mistakes."

You make a lot of valid comments.

I think that is a good idea about a criticism warning on the posting page. Nothing crazy but just a little "Hey, expect some feedback" type thing.

Hurt Feelings

#18

Something I was just thinking about, I was recently flipping through some of my books on publishing, and came across something of interest, levels of critique.

This basically divides critique into three levels, determined by the experience of the writer. I think this could have some applications, or it could just be the sleep deprevation.

1. Beginner - At this point, critiques would be basically limited to what the reader liked, with emphasis on what is good, so that aspect of the writing can continue to improve, and as one aspect improves it is a natural process that the other skills too, will improve. At this point, strong, or negative criticism can discourage, and send a would be writer/gamer away in disgust, perhaps with the deliverer of the critique, or with themselves. (These are the guys who get cheesed off when their 35 word character gets the People's Elbow from our resident PostNazi. Guess that might make me the Post-stappo...now that is sleep deprivation there)

2. Intermediate - The writer has become more assured of their skill and have identified their strengths. The writer at this point can invite What is Good/What is bad critiques, confident that while there might be flaws, their work will be able to survive at least mostly intact. I think most people would fall into this region.

3. Advanced - These are the tough guys. It may sound arrogant, but they are well aware of their strengths, and constantly probe at their own literary/gaming weaknesses. A critique pointing out good points doesnt help much at this level, at this level, the writer is asking for the critique to be made with axes and blood.

While most writers/gamers are in the second category, recieving the wrong sort of criticism can be...discouraging. The advanced gamer getting a dozen 'Good Job' posts is just as likely to be discouraged (though in a different manner) than the Beginner who gets the Conan treatment on his latest piece.

ZANG!

Hurt Feelings

#19

I was to lazy to read this whole thread, but if you want my opinion, i think the whole ranking system on the items, settings, characters, all that is a little cruel. I mean, you know if you want to use it or not, you don't have to give someones idea a 1 if you think its terrible, thats just being cruel.

Hurt Feelings

#20

So what do you expect us to do? Give no feedback? Some people need it put in numerical terms. Are we supposed to let all the worthless crap that needs to be rated badly accumulated in our databanks?

And in any case, you have no right to contribute to the thread if you were too lazy to read it.

Hurt Feelings

#21

Azuma writes:

I was to lazy to read this whole thread, but if you want my opinion, i think the whole ranking system on the items, settings, characters, all that is a little cruel. I mean, you know if you want to use it or not, you don't have to give someones idea a 1 if you think its terrible, thats just being cruel.

I disagree that a ranking system is cruel. Misuse of it to 'get even' or other vindictive behavior is always a risk - but that can be done as effectively (if less anonymously) with comments. We have addressed that possibility to some extent in the previous discussion.

I also disagree with CaptainPenguin that you have no right to comment without reading the whole thread. The essence of your objection is "I disagree with the entire program" - Does one have to read all the details of some abstruse technical discussion to argue that the base premise is incorrect? So, I'll argue instead that your objection to ranking systems has merit, but can be addressed directly.

The piece of work, whether item or plot or whatever, is separate from the author. The work can be judged, even harshly, without impugning the author; this is a fundamental part of good criticism. The collections on this site are not just about "if you want to use it or not" - it's about improving our individual skills and also improving the games we run or play. We improve by discussion, criticism and, yes, by ranking things on a nominally standard scale. Ranking is not about individual egos and feelings: Ranking is about the quality of the work.

The rankings further help by providing a quick organization mechanism for the sizeable and increasing number of submissions - maybe not the best one, but an efficient one. People can quickly see what it takes to get a 5 or a 3 or a 1, and seek to emulate good practice and avoid bad. In many cases, the difference in scores is not due to the quality of the core idea, but rather the clarity of expression and depth of development, and that is an important lesson to learn. I've used a number of things that were rated 3, even a rare 2: They typically just need a lot more work to flesh out before use. On the other hand, a 1 or most 2's are really not worth reading, except as negative object lessons. So the ranking system works quite well as both an educational aid and as a 'value' screen as the items, plots, etc grow into the hundreds and become too numerous to read individually.

Now, if there is some lingering fear that rankings are not applied fairly, then maybe it's worth considering some modifications to the mechanism. Maybe the items, plots, etc, should be posted anonymously for the first few weeks, when most of the comments and rankings are made. That might eliminate the tendency to give well-known contributors and friends a break - but it would also eliminate the ability to moderate comments according to the author's known skill (sorry, you'll have to go read Scrasamax's post to get the details). Besides, anybody who participates regularly can probably tell who posted the article by style, structure, formatting, etc.

That is my argument that a ranking system is a valuable part of this site, and not a cruel adjunct. I hope you will do us the courtesy of expanding on your points if you are not convinced.

Hurt Feelings

#22

You misinterperated my message, i was saying that you shouldnt rank things low, or be overly criticle. not point out the many many things that they did bad, but rather suggestions that they could do to make it better.

Hurt Feelings

#23

You misinterperated my message, i was saying that you shouldnt rank things low, or be overly criticle. not point out the many many things that they did bad, but rather suggestions that they could do to make it better.

First and foremost I can understand and appreciate your opinion. But one of the reasons I contribute to this place IS the honest and good feedback.

There are many talents using this site, more than I have ever seen gathered on any other website. I like to imagine that is part because of the honest feedback system.

Take the two of the most senior members of this site, apart from the owner; MoonHunter and CaptainPenguin. While many deem their feedback as painful and insulting, I consider them to be the greatest assets of this site. There are no false smiles and no false claps on the shoulder. There is only honest feedback and being told where room for improvement lies.

Just what I need!

That being told I also want to quote Oliver Stone, an oft criticized director:

Some criticism is great, too much criticism is too much. I don't read it anymore.

And I agree. When you tell someone what they need to improve, there is no need to beat them senseless with the fact. Tell it once or twice (per reviewer) and then wait until they finally improve, or stay silent. Silence can be effective too! There is no use in harrassing a struggling GM until he surrender and abandon the site. But if they refuse to learn there is no use in criticising either, they probably won't listen anyway.

But I reserve my right to vote AND criticise, even giving low grades. If the Administration feels we should stop giving low votes, I trust that they will remove the lowest two grades from the options we are presented with.

Edit: Corrected text to reflect that there are many senior contributors on the site.

Hurt Feelings

#24

Actually, Ria Hawk, Manfred, Ephemeralstability, and a couple others are more senior than me, in a chronological manner.