On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:09 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 07:18, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Presumably the idea is that high-rank cases would be more difficult,
> > complicated and time-consuming to judge, whereas low-rank cases would be
> > for typical CFJspam. The problem now is for people to decide which cases
> > are important, hard to judge, and landmark-setting, and which ones are
> > just spam; everyone thinks their own CFJs are important, often...
> > --
>
> I personally dislike judging the spammy CFJs with little or no effect
> on the game, but enjoy judging those CFJs which are truly
> controversial. Under such a system I would prefer to only judge cases
> with interest level > 1. NOTE: I have been criticized for expressing
> this preference in the past.
>
Probably it's best to set IIs for fact-based CFJs low and rule-based
CFJs high.
--
ais523
