created by IHaventEvenGotADog on 11/10/2021 at 16:54 UTC*
18 upvotes, 7 top-level comments (showing 7)
The 15k karma cap, I don't like it.
Not the cap bit, not bothered about that, it’s the 15k bit I don't like. ~~It was applied in round 13 at a time of immense growth in the sub and felt to me very much like an arbitrary number picked without much analysis.~~
I doubt a proposal will ever pass to remove it, so I'd like to change it to a dynamic system that will adapt to any changes in activity/karma.
I've played around with the numbers for a while, just trying to figure out some options to change it to.I also asked the admins if I could get the data from the previous 6 rounds (13-18) that have the cap applied. They gave me the last three rounds worth (16-18) so some of the numbers may look different if someone else uses the data just from the .csv files.
This is just off the top of my head, please comment any changes or additions:
​
Having a different cap each round will also remove it as a target. I see a lot of users that "aim" to hit the cap each round. There are also the pro farmers who game the system with alts and switch accounts once they think they are at the cap. Its a lot harder to game something if you don't know the parameters.
Like I said above I've spent a while looking at the numbers, so in my head I'm all over it. Please comment if something isn't clear or I done messed up somewhere.
I’ve added some pro’s and con’s of each option and some of them question the constants used. This is me pre-empting the questions, I’m not losing my mind I promise. I chose those constants as I think they get the caps to a decent looking number. It’s the same thing you could ask of the 15k cap, why 15k? Why not 16k? or 14k?
Karma cap was applied in round 13, so the numbers for users at the cap in rounds 1-12 are hypothetical. This also proves that the cap is redundant if the total karma drops as there will be nobody even near to 15k
The highest karma values for rounds 16-18 are from the data the admins gave to me and not on the regular .csv's
Round 18 would be (6,017,906 / 46,554) * 100 = 12,927
This would mean that 16 users would be at the karma cap
There would be users at the karma cap in each round so far
As the total karma increases, the cap increases
As the number of users increases, the cap decreases
Pro
Con
Round 18 would be (6,017,906 / √46,554) = 27,891
This would mean that no users would be at the karma cap
No users at the cap since round 12
As the total karma increases, the cap increases
As the number of users increases, the cap decreases
Pro
Con
Round 18 would be 12 * 1000 = 12,000
This would mean that 18 users would be at the karma cap
There would be users at the karma cap in each round so far
Pro
Con
​
Round 18 would be 129.27 * 100 = 12,927
This would mean that 16 users would be at the karma cap.
There would be users at the karma cap in each round so far
Pro
Con
Round 18 would be 46,554 * 0.3 = 13,966
This would mean that 11 users would be at the karma cap.
There would be users at the karma cap in 16 of the 18 rounds.
As the users increase, the cap increases.
Pro
Con
Round 18 would be 6,017,906 * 0.0025 = 15,045
This would mean that 3 users would be at the karma cap.
There would be users at the karma cap in 16 of the 18 rounds.
As the karma increases, the cap increases.
Pro
Con
Not long after the karma cap was introduced it was counter proposed to implement a system based on a user not being able to earn any more than 1.5% of Moons in any round. This was before the karma explosion though so I took a look at how it would be now.
The cap was to be calculated as 1.5% of the total Moons for users that round, divided by the Moon to karma ratio, this then gives the karma figure.
The idea was that as the Moon amount is fixed and decreases by 2.5% per round, then it would naturally decrease the karma cap. I’m not throwing shade at whoever proposed it or figured it out, but the massive increase in karma would have rekt it rendering it useless.
If this would have been implemented in round 14 then no user would have ever come close to it. Not even Hame, the man with 3 hands and 5 dicks.
I couldn’t decide whether to make this a poll with the 6 options or not, then I thought fuck it, loads of people don't read posts before they vote anyway. Discussion in the comments will be more useful at this stage.
So I think narrow the 6 down to maybe 2 or 3 in the comments here, then I’ll throw some more numbers of hypothetical future values and we can see what happens.
Then narrow down to a final option and take it to a vote in the next Moon week if its ready.
​
My own thoughts on each option
1. Works well as a dynamic cap but the constant used will always be questioned.
2. Works well dynamically but not so useful as a cap with current numbers, but maybe it’s good to have a karma cap that is out of reach.
3. Works well but is it future proof?
4. Works well but is it future proof?
5. No like, the constant used will always be questioned.
6. No like, the constant used will always be questioned.
​
I think options 2,3 & 4 should go forward for more analysis.
What says you?
Edit because I forgot to add this bit:
Most of them are dependant on the total karma and it would change when we apply any cap.
Lets say average karma for example. You calculate the average, then apply the cap at that average, that then changes the average and thus starts a never ending loop.
So the way I see it implemented is to snapshot the data, figure out the cap from it depending on the method and then publish it like that. So the published data will have a different karma total than the one the cap is calculated from.
Comment by w00tangel at 11/10/2021 at 17:22 UTC
8 upvotes, 4 direct replies
Let me throw one in the bag.
Option 7: The karma cap is at 10th position in the spreadsheet.
This way each round we have at least 1 user hitting the karma cap and at least 9 users going above the cap.
Pros:
Dynamic Easy to explain
Cons: Why 10th?
Maybe the position could be calculated based on number of users receiving the moons that round but that complicates the ease of explaining.
Comment by fan_of_hakiksexydays at 11/10/2021 at 18:05 UTC*
8 upvotes, 1 direct replies
As the original author of the 15K cap, I totally agree with you.
Now I didn't pull 15K completely out of my ass. I pulled out a lot of data from distributions and Reddit.
The numbers were correct, except for 1 problem, it was all based on past data, and made the assumption that it would all remain the same.
Hence why I tried to make proposals to change it. But it never made it to the governance polls.
OPTION 1 has elements I like, because it takes into account both the total karma, and the relation to the number of users. Instead of multiplying by 100, maybe multiply it by the median karma. It could also be the median * 10 to be less restrictive. Including median takes into account inequality.
Essentially it would be (average)*(median *10)= cap. Simple formula.
Comment by [deleted] at 11/10/2021 at 22:00 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Thanks for putting this together, I do agree that 15k sounds like an arbitrary magic number that should be more dynamic.
Taking scale into account from the start is one less thing to cause problems later.
Comment by kindoflikesnowing at 12/10/2021 at 02:47 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Thanks for putting this together, well done.
Comment by No_Locksmith4570 at 11/10/2021 at 17:23 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Isn't total Karma also dependent on max Karma per user?
For example, if five people got 15k then 15k*5 + (karma earned by the rest of the users) = total karma
So, if we divide total karma /sqrt(# of users) for max karma wouldn't total karma and max karma both be unknown in a single equation?
Or did I miss something? :P Trust me, I'm pretty good at it.
Comment by 90DayF at 11/10/2021 at 18:11 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Most of the proposals barring #2 are kind of decreasing the karma for users with every round, which in turn would limit people earning moons as we go into the future. With the influx of new users every month, they would never be able to get a decent amount of moons, which means they would never be able to significantly participate in governance polls.
​
I think 15k karma is already quite enough. Hardly anyone hits it anyways, why change things?
Comment by [deleted] at 11/10/2021 at 16:56 UTC*
1 upvotes, 3 direct replies
I think 15,000 is fair. If anything, I’d be for raising it.
