**If you reply to my first writeup on this topic, please read the following one first: at the bottom are several important changes to the initial proposal**

My excuses for posting this rebuttal in a separate node; I cannot merge
it with my writeup here,
since that would take over the entire front page. I will merge the
2 writeups as soon as my first writeup is no longer on the front page.

I would like to address the issues that everyone has brought up in reply
to my writeup: many of you have brought up valid points that definitely
need to be worked out if we would change the Level Advancement system.

## Robustness

I agree that my proposal to use the median reputation is quite sensitive to
mass-downvoting. GangstaFeelsGood is right that a small number of
*carefully chosen* downvotes could drop someone's median quite
easily. A mass-downvoter could simply downvote all the nodes that are
*exactly at* the median to achieve this, and it wouldn't take many
votes. On the other hand, *one single* downvoter would never be
able to drop the median by more than 1, even if he downvotes ALL the
nodes a user makes. But someone who is attacked by 2 mass-downvoters is
indeed in a lot of trouble.

Unfortunately the problem of mass-downvoting *by itself* is not
easily solved. Therefore, the method to calculate an "average" node
reputation will have to be more robust with respect to
mass-downvoting. Please note that in this writeup I use "average" to refer to a proper
measure of central tendency, and not the mean reputation.

You can incorporate more robustness into the calculation of an average
reputation by including a larger part of the node distribution. But
there is a trade-off between robustness and accuracy:

- Incorporating more datapoints of the node-distribution (or in the
extreme,
*all* nodes) shifts the average to unreasonably high
values. It would "value" the Toilet seat writeup about 200 times higher than a decent
factual writeup with a reputation=2.
- Incorporating fewer datapoints of the node-distribution will make the
system more prone to mass-downvoting. Or mass upvoting...

yerricde's writeup is very interesting: in his calculation we
ignore the bottom 25%, ignore the top 25% and calculate the mean
reputation of the middle half. This is indeed a more robust calculation.
It ignores the writeups that for some reason plummeted to low
reputations, and the ones that soared to very high reputations. It
calculates the mean on 50% of the node base, and is thus quite stable
with respect to mass-voting.

I do not agree with 1010011010's method of calculating an average
reputation; Node distributions are *NOT* smooth continuous curves. Let
me give you an example. Say, my lowest reputations are at 0, my highest
are at 10:

#Rep #Writeups
0 30 *
1 24
2 31
3 27
4 19
5 20 *
6 13
7 17
8 11
9 8
10 6 *

If we use a 3-point approximation, the numbers marked
with asterixes are used to calculate an "average" (30, 20, and 6). Now one of the
11 rep nodes gets C!ed, and two people upvote the node. This is what my
distribution will look like:

#Rep #Writeups
0 30 *
1 24
2 31
3 27
4 19
5 20
6 13 *
7 17
8 11
9 8
10 11
11 0
12 2 *

Now the three midpoints to calculate the "average" are 30, 13 and 1...
So I gained two upvotes, but my average dropped

*significantly*.
Thus, the method will fail, primarily because the node histograms are not "smooth
continuous curves". And what if we increase N, the number of midpoints? You then
end up with a

mean, shifted too much towards the higher end.

*"Using median size as a reference it's perfectly
possible to fit four ping-pong balls and two blue whales in a rowboat."
*

That is a **very bad analogy** that 1010011010 makes. We are trying to
determine a value that statistically is the best representation of a
population. In other words:

If I aselectively pick an object from a collection of four
ping-pong balls and two blue whales, what object is the most likely
selection?

Of course, there's a 66% chance of picking a ping-pong ball. Thus the
ping-pong ball is the best representation of the population. Your
example is *extreme* in every way; no noder would ever have a
node distribution with *only* 4 writeups at a reputation=2, and 2 writeups at a
reputation=500 (if we assume that a whale is 250x bigger than a ping-pong
ball ). Or at higher node counts: 100 writeups at rep=2 and 50 writeups
at reputation=500...

## XP

Tes and Shanoyu make some good points on the legacy of the XP
system. E2 is not just about writing nodes, but active involvement in
every way. XP is a convenient way to express this involvement, even
though some people attach far too much value to this statistic: or as
the Voting Experience System says: *XP is an imaginary number granted
to you by an anonymous stranger. Treat it as such.*

It was, and is not my intention to get rid of the XP system. The
major objective of my proposal was to reward good writers, by moving
them faster to the levels. Good writing needs to be rewarded.

Shanoyu claims that this reward system would lead to more "sex with
horses" nodes. I do not share this opinion. There are indeed *some*
noders that solely rely on noding "entertaining crap" to pep up their
stats, even in the current system, but their numbers are *small*.
Editors and gods notice these people, and eventually their
"contributions" get nuked... I do not think that we will get *more*
of these people, but if we do, **we will spot them more easily, as they
shoot up through the levels, and we deal with their
"contributions".**.

## Modified Advancement System - Reward System

I have given the system some more thought, and I am currently
thinking of something like this:

- The "regular" Level Advancement System remains in place, with XP and
#Node Requirements. Perhaps the XP requirements could be adjusted to
follow more closely what the average noder is already accumulating.
- For noders who node
*above* the average reputation, there is an
"Honor Roll"; the #Writeups to Level-up decreases for increasing
average reputations. Drop back to the average reputation or below, and
you end up with the regular advancement system.

This system has the advantage that **no one will lose his/her current
level: noders are ***not punished* for having low average reputations, but
they are *rewarded* for writing high quality nodes. Noders are
still encouraged to participate in voting, to meet the requirements for
the "regular" XP requirements for Level Advancement.

This system needs a lot of detailing still; especially establishing a
fair and robust method of measuring the "average" node-reputation. I
will most certainly take another look at the node statistics, to see
what impact a modified system would have.

Many thanks for the comments, questions and suggestions that I have received.

I realized that my explanation on the Honor Roll system was a bit too
short. I hope that this explanation clears things up. The following
table shows the proposed Level Advancement System.

**Note that the numbers given for the Honor Roll and the required "average" are **__preliminary__. This data is just to show the concept. Don't calculate any "potential" level gain based on this data, as the final Honor Roll requirements will be stricter!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------
|REGULAR REQUIREMENTS | HONOR ROLL -- "average" >=3
Level |XP Req. WU Req. | "average" x #writeups
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1 | 0 0 | N/A
2 | 50 25 | N/A
3 | 200 70 | 210
4 | 400 150 | 450
5 | 800 250 | 750
6 | 1350 380 | 1140
7 | 2100 515 | 1545
8 | 2900 700 | 2100
9 | 4000 900 | 2700
10 | 7500 1215 | 3645
11 | 13000 1800 | 5400
12 | 23000 2700 | 8100
13 | 38000 4500 | 13500
---------------------------------------------------------------------

*Every* noder advances after meeting the XP and WU requirements (second and third columns).
- The Honor Roll - Noders can advance levels with fewer
writeups if they meet the following requirements:
- Meet the regular XP requirements.
- Obtained Level 2 through the Regular Requirements.
- Obtain an "average" writeup reputation of 3 or more.

- Level advancement in the Honor Roll goes according to the product of
the "average" node reputation and the number of writeups.

The following table shows how the Honor Roll works, giving the
required number of writeups as a function of the "average" writeup
reputation.

------------------------------------------------------------
Level | "average Writeup Reputation
| 3 4 5 6 ... >=10
------------------------------------------------------------
1 | N/A N/A N/A N/A ... N/A
2 | N/A N/A N/A N/A ... N/A
3 | 70 53 42 35 ... 21
4 | 150 113 90 75 ... 45
5 | 250 188 150 125 ... 75
6 | 380 285 228 190 ... 114
7 | 515 386 309 258 ... 155
8 | 700 525 420 350 ... 210
9 | 900 675 540 450 ... 270
10 | 1215 911 729 608 ... 365
11 | 1800 1350 1080 900 ... 540
12 | 2700 2025 1620 1350 ... 810
13 | 4500 3375 2700 2250 ... 1350
------------------------------------------------------------

For an "average" writeup reputation = 3, the Writeup-requirements are
identical to those of the Regular Requirements. (*e.g.* 3 x 70
writeups = 210 points). Any higher "average" writeup reputation will
reduce the required number of writeups for leveling up
(*e.g.* only 113 writeups at an "average" reputation=4 are required
at to obtain level 4). There is a cap for "average" reputations greater
than 10. This cap ensures that writeup requirements do not fall below
acceptable limits.

**The XP requirements remain as they are.** In order to level up
according to the Honor Roll system, a noder still needs to meet the XP
requirements. This rule ensures participation through voting.

When a noder's "average" reputation falls below 3, the Regular
Requirements for leveling up apply.

__notes:__

The best method of calculating a robust, accurate "average" writeup
reputation is still in the air. I am currently leaning towards
yerricde's method of calculating the interquartile mean. I am
evaluating the sensitivity of this method towards mass downvoting.

The required "average" reputation for entering the honor roll, and
the level points need to be verified. This also depends on the method of
calculating the "average"