As you might know since this has already been reported many times, editing costs users minerals.
The problem was supposed to have been fixed, but I just realized those two facts (that might help solving this issue):
- Editing the title costs 1 mineral
- Editing the post costs 2 minerals
(Both talking of minor edits... we're talking of +/- 10 characters)

Sorry for redundancy, but I find this kind of important... and sad! I, as an organized member who likes to keep its OPs updated, is penalized for having such virtues.

Question is, do you get that amount subtracted even if you didn't change anything? Test that.

Could you please test how much the editing will cost you for longer posts (since, well, you're the only one who can afford to lose the amount)? Again, I'm leaning towards the likelihood that my assumption in this thread is correct:

Just throwing my 2 cents out there, I don't think you should retroactively be getting minerals for editing an OP and adding more to it. Edits costing members minerals is an issue, but you also shouldn't be getting more for adding more. Devourer wont be coming back to the site anytime soon it seems, so hopefully this can get relayed to him somehow and he can help with a solution. Otherwise, this will just be another thread with a handful of pages of complaints and no resolution due to the lack of a coder.

I'll try to see if Devourer has a little bit of time.

Couldn't we sic TZ or Cecil on it?

I overhauled the mineral-giving code completely, so no comment on what was wrong before, but in theory it should work now. I'm too sleepy to test super-extensively, but let me know if you find anything wrong. As is now:

-You will be gaining on average about twice as many minerals as before. Seeing a damn signature enabler being 380, this seems only fair. (standard mineral gain range is now 2-16, up from 2-7)
-Any post that is edited will modify your minerals to reflect the new total (as if you made the edited post originally). Deliberate abuse of this to edit old posts with spam for minerals will be punished accordingly.
-Not sure if deleting posts actually removes minerals yet, will check into this.

It works perfectly. ;D

I tried to edit one of my huge ass post to see if the new mineral system would give me more minerals, and it didn't.
The system is great and works perfectly. Didn't lose any mineral (nor win any) for changing 1 character in the long-ass post.

If deleted posts could remove minerals, that would be great. If not, we'll just have to be more on top of looking for spam posts and removing manually.

Oh this would be brilliant, and should be very easy to code. It would also lift a bit of the burden off of staff moderators so that they don't have to manually subtract minerals.

Thanks for the long-needed overhaul! I'm sure many people will appreciate this change.

One slight bug: Deleting a post will subtract a maximum of only 5 minerals right now (legacy code?). This results in a net gain if someone makes a very long post and then immediately deletes it. I hope that the administration has a log of this kind of activity, because it could potentially be exploited for large gains.

(The old range was 2-7? O_o. I haven't gained more than 5 minerals from one post before, regardless of how long it was.)

There was this glitch with moderators losing minerals for editing other people's posts... Want to test this? I'll make a long post below and you can delete it. Check who loses minerals I guess.

EDIT> Yes, the mineral removal on post deletion is working for posts removed via moderation; I lost minerals for the deleted post as expected. Thanks

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 19 2010, 8:03 pm by Aristocrat.

The old range might have been 2-5, now that I come to think of it. All I know is it was a lot lower than I was expecting. ('No wonder nobody is getting any minerals')

Deleting posts absolutely should subtract minerals, it's just due to the structure of the code that I need to go look for the call for mineral change during deletion (most sense actually would just be to call the existing function as an edit to nothing), so I need to go hunt for that. It will be taken care of soon.

EDIT: Oh, hell, half the moderation on this site is done in AJAX. No wonder I couldn't find it at first....

EDIT2: Deleting posts (by self-delete or by a moderator) now removes any minerals that were gained from the post. Still on todo list: moderator edits, topic deletion, (topic moving to a non-mineral forum?) As an aside, the way in which the subtraction code was implemented makes me want to smash something... there were two exact copies of ~80 lines of code in the AJAX script...

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Sep 19 2010, 9:02 pm by DT_Battlekruser.

Funny. Afaik we agreed on 2-12 or something close to that because IP veto-ed 2-16 for being too much on the high end.

16 minerals for a long post is not a bad thing; it would necessarily be constructive if it is long. 2-12 would be reasonable if the store prices weren't messed up and more than twice of what they are supposed to be.

Store prices are much too high on the price end also, so one can either fix store prices or give more minerals. And seeing how the first is never going to get done...

I was about as surprised when I opened up the code and found how the formula actually worked. I too thought we agreed on 2-12 or 2-16.

Anyway, the bigger idea is that I want to set sane, reasonable rates of mineral income first, and then we can worry about how much stuff in the store should cost.

Also, if anyone notices any significant, recurring bugs with the mineral system, please let me know. The theoretical maximum for a post, including all multipliers, is 32 minerals (this is only for topics in certain places). The fixes and tweaks are by no means final. Also, as Devlin said in the shoutbox, please leave any direct tests of the system to the Staff. If you encounter a bug during normal operation, report it, but "I was testing things" is not a general excuse for breaking SEN rules.

Just an update for this thread: a bug with edits and minerals was fixed.

If we're talking actual store prices then yes. If we're talking about the average then no.
And seeing as the store prices are bugged (stated average is incorrect, the actual average is much higher) the store prices should be fixed.
Also don't expect to be able to buy expensive items every few weeks. There's no sense in everyone having most items after a year.

Oh and DTBK while you're at it could you please code the starting capital we discussed and then remove all items in stock and used? That'd be a huge step towards a fair mineral system.

Unless you're payne.

This.

The modus operandi of payne seems to be the production of a large number of threads, followed by subsequent follow-ups in his own thread. For discussions this is good, but for threads in Mapping Assistance this gets a bit out of hand. Below is an example of how it's exploited:

• Ask question.
  
• Someone else answers.
  
• OP asks another question in his own thread, ignoring all the responses for the earlier question.
  
• More answers follow due to assumption of good faith.
  
• Repeat about 10-20 times.
  

While the thread poster contributes relatively little, he gains a vast quantity of minerals just for asking questions. If the code architecture is flexible/extensible enough that exceptions can be added easily, it would be nice if we could remove mineral rewards for topics made in BW UMS Assistance/SC2 help forums, as well as the mineral rewards for people posting in their own assistance threads. It makes no sense that the person asking questions receives more than people who provide actual help.

EDIT> This is not to say asking questions is bad. By all means, ask away; it's the deliberate spamming of help threads that goes a bit too far.