Jump to content

Nicole Adams

Members
  • Posts

    470
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Nicole Adams

  1. Because he is toying with the idea is a problem. Like I said, punishment can be unpredictable and if such a course is taken it could seriously hurt Valve. (Again, not necessarily charging the $100, but using punishment in general.) In addition, there is the other problem that this idea only uses learning theory. There are of course so many other factors that play into a person's behavior, which Valve has no way of manipulating.

  2. The fact that Newell says, "Now, a real jerk that annoys everyone, they can still play, but a game is full price and they have to pay an extra hundred dollars if they want voice." is an example of positive punishment. The introduction of this extra fee is meant to decrease the unwanted behavior of the individual.

    EDIT: There are two systems of both reinforcement and punishment going on, but Valve should strongly re-evaluate their idea of using punishment.

  3. The problem with this idea is it's positive punishment. On the surface, people may think the introduction of an aversive stimulus (paying more) would deter people from acting like jerks, but studies have shown positive and negative punishment are not nearly as predictable as using reinforcement and they don't necessarily decrease the likelihood of a behavior. Like OA said on page one, "just make the players who are fun to play with get rewarded [use positive reinforcement]."

  4. Ashamee and I have talked about this a bit so I'm curious to see if there is any interest having a Vegas meetup starting on or around March 12. March would be a good time to go since hotel rates are cheaper and the temperature isn't in the triple digits. Plus a lot of people have spring break at this time. It's coming up pretty fast, though. What do y'all think?

×
×
  • Create New...