armchairgm
all sports, all you
+ Add Friends
You are not logged-in.
Sign Up - Log In
Main Page
Sports
Write
Articles
Hot Links
Images
Meet People
Fun
Explore
MLB - NFL - NBA - NHL - College Basketball - College Football - Soccer - Nascar - Other
Article - Locker Room Discussion
All Articles - New Articles - Today's Articles
Submit a Link - Approve Links
Picture Game - Ratings - Polls - Pick Game - Quiz Game - Spring Silliness
Random Page - Random Image - Random Fan
Edit
Page history Discuss pageWhat links here

Withdrawing my Points System Criticisms


I would like to withdraw my criticism of the ArmchairGM users that only vote and nothing else.

Lately, I have been reading The Wealth of Nations, which is widely recognised as the Bible of Economics. It was written by a Scottish professor, Adam Smith, who as such, is regarded the father of Economics.

He was the first to realise, and make everybody aware, that if you have to make something (his example was a pin) then you can split it up into many smaller jobs. This has the effect of making you produce more, which is good for a business.

He also theorised a heap of interesting stuff. He suggested that in a trade, there were always two winners, since when you consider the "real" value of a good, rather than their monetary price, both parties must be satisfied they are getting a good deal from the trade.

Another thing he thought, was that an "Invisible Hand" guided a countries Economy, where if it were left to its own devices, it could more or less maintain itself.

However, the thing that got me to change my opinion was a quote from towards the very start of the book. It is infact, the very first chapter, and it describes his theory of division of labour. It reads:

First, the improvement of the dexterity of the workman necessarily increases the quantity of the work he can perform; and the division of labour, by reducing every man's business to some one simple operation, and by making this operation the sole employment of his life, necessarily increased very much dexterity of the workman. A common smith, who, though accustomed to handle the hammer, has never been used to make nails, if upon some particular occasion he is obliged to attempt it, will scarce, I am assured, be able to make above two or three hundred nails in a day, and those too very bad ones. A smith who has been accustomed to make nails, but whose sole or principal business has not been that of a nailer, can seldom with his utmost diligence make more than eight hundred or a thousand nails in a day. I have seen several boys under twenty years of age who had never exercised any other trade but that of making nails, and who, when they exerted themselves, could make, each of them, upwards of two thousand three hundred nails in a day. The making of a nail, however, is by no means one of the simplest operations. The same person blows the bellows, stirs or mends the fire as there is occasion, heats the iron, and forges every part of the nail: in forging the head too he is obliged to change his tools. The different operations into which the making of a pin, or of a metal button, is subdivided, are all of them much more simple, and the dexterity of the person, of whose life it has been the sole business to perform them, is usually much greater. The rapidity with which some of the operations of those manufacturers are performed, exceeds what the human hand could, by those who had never seen them, be supposed capable of acquiring.

Secondly, the advantage which is gained by saving the time commonly lost in passing from one sort of work to another is much greater than we should at first view be apt to imagine it. It is impossible to pass very quickly from one kind of work to another that is carried on in a different place and with quite different tools. A country weaver, who cultivates a small farm, must lose a good deal of time in passing from his loom to the field, and from the field to his loom. When the two trades can be carried on in the same workhouse, the loss of time is no doubt much less. It is even in this case, however, very considerable. A man commonly saunters a little in turning his hand from one sort of employment to another. When he first begins the new work he is seldom very keen and hearty; his mind, as they say, does not go to it, and for some time he rather trifles than applies to good purpose. The habit of sauntering and of indolent careless application, which is naturally, or rather necessarily acquired by every country workman who is obliged to change his work and his tools every half hour, and to apply his hand in twenty different ways almost every day of his life, renders him almost always slothful and lazy, and incapable of any vigorous application even on the most pressing occasions. Independent, therefore, of his deficiency in point of dexterity, this cause alone must always reduce considerably the quantity of work which he is capable of performing.

Thirdly, and lastly, everybody must be sensible how much labour is facilitated and abridged by the application of proper machinery. It is unnecessary to give any example. I shall only observe, therefore, that the invention of all those machines by which labour is so much facilitated and abridged seems to have been originally owing to the division of labour. Men are much more likely to discover easier and readier methods of attaining any object when the whole attention of their minds is directed towards that single object than when it is dissipated among a great variety of things. But in consequence of the division of labour, the whole of every man's attention comes naturally to be directed towards some one very simple object. It is naturally to be expected, therefore, that some one or other of those who are employed in each particular branch of labour should soon find out easier and readier methods of performing their own particular work, wherever the nature of it admits of such improvement. A great part of the machines made use of in those manufactures in which labour is most subdivided, were originally the inventions of common workmen, who, being each of them employed in some very simple operation, naturally turned their thoughts towards finding out easier and readier methods of performing it. Whoever has been much accustomed to visit such manufactures must frequently have been shown very pretty machines, which were the inventions of such workmen in order to facilitate and quicken their particular part of the work. In the first fire-engines, a boy was constantly employed to open and shut alternately the communication between the boiler and the cylinder, according as the piston either ascended or descended. One of those boys, who loved to play with his companions, observed that, by tying a string from the handle of the valve which opened this communication to another part of the machine, the valve would open and shut without his assistance, and leave him at liberty to divert himself with his playfellows. One of the greatest improvements that has been made upon this machine, since it was first invented, was in this manner the discovery of a boy who wanted to save his own labour.

In other words, one is best to stick to one thing that they're doing, rather than switch between jobs. I love this quote for the way he acknowledges the worst in the labour force, and how he calls them "lazy and slothful", words that are ruder today than they were when this book was written in 1776! Some things never change!

Assuming the same to be true in 2007, here's the ArmchairGM context. Switch labour for being a user of the site. He has several things to do:

  • Comment
  • Edit
  • Vote
  • Write Articles

If a user specialises in one of these "skills", then they will get more completed as they will not have to switch between each "skill". Therefore doing one well, and the others averagely, still benefits the site more than an "all-rounder" who does each and every activity about equally. It saves time going around the site. Whilst writing articles and commenting may come under the same umbrella, the point still holds. Furthermore, they will advance in many ways to speed up their own skill, ways of editing faster etc. They will improve the quality of what they do, as they can focus their knowledge on one particular aspect of the site.

To encourage this, I think it would be good if a weekly count of each skill solely were used. We used to have them until we changed skin the last time, so I would imagine it can be reintroduced without too much hassle. Also, I think it would be a nice reintroduction regardless of the current points system.

But to conclude, I apologise for any previous criticisms, and wish you the best of luck in doing whatever you choose to do!



Retrieved from "http://armchairgm.wikia.com/Withdrawing_my_Points_System_Criticisms"

This page was last modified 09:25, 31 July 2007. Content is available under the GFDL.

Contribute

ArmchairGM's pages can be edited.
Is this page incomplete? Is there anything wrong?
Change it!

Edit this page Discuss this page Page history

Recent contributors to this page

The following people recently contributed to this article.

Embed this on your site

Main Page About Special Pages Help Terms of Use Advertise