Here's a great example: http://konghack.com/member_profile.php?m=5659

Thought it would be smart to submit every fucking 4byte value as a separate hack to get insane points.  I've started deleting them, but this assclown has way too many.  They've also managed to submit an assload of hacks I don't have time to test.


So, here's my proposition.  You can submit a hack, but you won't get any points till at least 5 accounts vote for your hack as working.

This leads to a bit of a conundrum.  

If we don't award hack points till 5 people +vote the hack, we would have to remove the 5 posts needed to vote so everyone can vote.
If we remove the 5 post limit on voting, ass clowns will start downvoting all of the hacks again.

Right now, points are awarded when you submit the hack.  If you update it 50 times, you don't get any additional points.
If we award points at +5 working, you would get points every time it hits +5.  If you updated your hack, the counter is reset to 0, so you could get another 150 if 5 people +vote your hack.
This also means some douchebag could submit a bullshit hack, use a bunch of other accounts to +vote it, edit their hack to reset it, rinse and repeat to get a ton of points for nothing.

I'm just trying to keep the bullshit down and make things easier.  What should I do?

Can it be "Disable" the hack if gettng, said, 10 down vote?
"Disable" means, point is deducted from submitter, the entries not displayed at Hack list, but submitter still can edit/delete his hack entries.
1. it is compatible with current system;
2. for normal hack, down vote is more like a notification for update, seldom reach a high down vote, but  if the number of down vote do go that high, and update is not done for whatever reason, I think it is fair to deduct the point from submitter;
3. for abused/annoying hack, I think members able to vote can make his decision, let the community decide.

bye~

basically what he said but downvotes flag the hack as "not working/patched". I would be careful with points deduction because a small group of people or even dummy accounts could lead people that make hacks to be point dropped. That's what I would do
 

• Points per upvote on your hacks: 25
• Points per hack vote: 15 (no more than 150 a day)
• Points per hack submission: 0

Pros:

• Encourages users to update their hacks, as that will earn them more points
• Discourages submitting bogus hacks.
• More hacks for popular games?
• The post limit for voting is still in place => fewer erroneous votes, harder to abuse

Cons:

• No immediate reward may demotivate users.
• Fewer hacks for less popular games?

I was thinking along the lines of what KongregateHack said.  Instead of being awarded for submitting the hack, get points when people use it.

Some hacks get 30+ votes on them, especially for new games or the game of the day.  That's 750pts for what you would have previously only earned 150.

Increasing the voting points and putting a cap sounds like a great idea.  When I get back from this xmas stuff, I'll get on it.

Anyone have any objections, questions, comments, concerns?

If I'm not wrong, dataming was a project that TIM had and that had people (workers of the company that TIM works) to review the mining. The difference here was that people were actually being paid to do the job, one way or another. It's not like we have people getting paid to review hacks. So, once again, it would have to be volunteer work, which I'm not agaisnt, but the gist of the idea is this when I said to have someone review the hacks.

My only worry is that which I've said before, people who submit hacks for old or/and not popular games. Those people wouldn't get any points whatsoever, since people would not even get to see their hacks much less try them.
However, if you just want that people stop submitting hacks to old and not popular games then that solution is perfect. I only fear that those games would be left aside. It's an ok solution, but I don't think it's the perfect one.
I still believe that having someone to review the hacks and award them points would be better. If not review them and then allow it to be seen by other people, then at least to award people with points.
In the end, I don't see another way to fairly reward everyone.
Also, I aprove the idea of awarding points for each positive review of a game, but I think that being the only reward for submitting hacks is unfair in itself for not contemplating all the sort of games, which are the majority of them aren't popular and never will be. Which doesn't mean that they aren't worth hacking.

Sounds good to me. Now we just need to think of the new value for the hack submission and we're good for it I believe.
Since people will now get points for the hacks, then reducing the amount of points that you can get from the hacks sounds logical. In case a hack hasn't earned a single vote then how much points would it be worth?
I was thinking of something of about 150 points as a set value for hack submition. Now we could have three scenarios I think:

A)The hack has achieved 150 points (6 votes) and therefore he could earn a bonus for submitting the hack. (How about 75 points on this case? Since the person has not got enough points for it) This would total 225 points, which isn't that much but it's good enough no? Or we could make it so that the person also gets the full 150 points for submitting the hack (300 points in total) and the hack would be considered as "safe" for it to continue living.


B) The hack has not enough votes for that in a week, be it not even a single one or enough for it to complete 150 points, then it could "auto-complete" to 150, in case the hack has earn at least 1 vote? (Though I think 1 is still not really enough for it to be marked as "valid hack", I guess 3 would be better?) In this scenario then the hack could be marked for review and once the staff has marked it as "valid hack" then the person could be awarded the 150 points.

C)The hasn't scored a single vote in 7 days and someone has to review it. The hack is considered "valid" and is therefore worth the 150 points. The staff who marks the hack as valid is then awarded points for doing his work as a "hack moderator" (100 points or something around that value as TIM suggested).

D) The hack hasn't earned a single vote in 7 days and is reviewed by a staff as a not valid hack. The reason for this could be that there's already another hack for this, the hack doesn't work, the hack has been stolen from other place, etc. The hack is then marked as "not valid" or w/e, the hack is still in the database but it won't show for others, that is, if the hack doesn't work, so that the said person can fix his hack. If the hack is not valid not because it's outdated but because it's been stolen, submitting the same hack that another person has submitted (but not if it's a hack that does the samething but through another means, which I think would make the hack valid nonetheless(?)), a hack that has never worked and probably never will, then the person could either get a warning or banned depending on the severity of the charge.

Well, that's some of the scenarions that I could think of, but I think those illustrate the cases that would be possible under this system. The only thing that isn't portrayed in this system, and consequently in any of the scenarios that I've described, would be if the person is submitting value hacks one after the another, for the same game, meaning, the person is spamming hacks. In this case, I think TIM would be more than agree that this person should be banned right? (Or if you're feeling nice and it could be the first, and only, case that the person does this, be warned or something of the like.)

I don't have any objections, if this won't bar me from reviewing games in the future