Posted by zazenducky on October 23, 2006, at 15:42:20
In reply to Re: block length algorithm proposal, posted by Dr. Bob on October 22, 2006, at 12:46:53
>
> Thanks for your suggestion. I agree, it would be more fair, though also more complicated, not to round. But 10 felt to me like a good number to divide by.
>>>
Because the blocks are doubled (or tripled) the credit for time without blocks should also be doubled. This will be1 week without blocks=1 week credit
2 weeks without =2 weeks credit
3 weeks without =4 weeks credit
4 weeks without =8 weeks credit
5 weeks without =16 weeks credit
etc
8 weeks without=128weeks credit
etc
etc
14 weeks without=8192 weeks creditYou could then plug it into your formula dividing by 10 (which is a lovely number I agree)
This will allow even people who have a year block to begin over after 14 weeks without a block in contrast to the present wait of 10 YEARS to have a new start. An eight week block could be returned to a new beginning in 12 weeks rather that a year and a half.I think that is more likely to provide an incentive to stay block free.
At the same time it will take 4 weeks to erase a one week block. This might provide a reasonable incentive to keep block free for longer at the beginning.
PS Rounding up would be no less complicated than rounding down :)
> >
poster:zazenducky
thread:696312
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20061018/msgs/697035.html