CAVCON Meter

Jmp12 · **Joined:** Sun Feb 04, 2007 8:16 pm **Posts:** 99

Wait! Wait! You're all totally misinterpreting this. Isn't it obvious that 4.2 is really just a disguised form of the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything? :lol:

(/me runs away before people start throwing tomatoes.)

Mac_Fife · **Posted:** Sat Oct 13, 2012 6:58 pm

I tried to post the following last night but the MySQL server for the forums decided that it'd had enough by then...

Dalken, I agree with pretty much everything you wrote. My post was to point out the "awkwardness" you get into when trying to use the CAVCON to express detail. My belief has aways been that CAVCON describes "states" and not "values" so having 0.1 of a state was non-sensical.

What RAWA's comment maybe suggests is that there are three states: Donations < Expenses, D=E and D>E and within the first and last of those there can be a measure of how big the difference is. But trying to overlay that on the CAVCON itself gets clumsy, especially where donations fall short of expenses - you end up being usure whether 2.1 is better or worse than 2.9 (if those values even exist).

Yes, I'm sure RAWA is still working out the mechanics of this and it'll sort itself out, but maybe better to question it now rather than later

AdamJohnso · **Posted:** Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:05 pm

This is all totally excessive, IMO. If the idea here is to really emulate defcon, then just use whole numbers. If there's other information that needs to be conveyed, written words are the most appropriate means of conveying said information. I don't see any normal case where that would be true, however.

Emor D'ni Lap · **Joined:** Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:15 am **Posts:** 579

So, if "4" represents the state in which donations are exceeding operating expenses, then can the decimal (".2", for instance) represent the replenishment level of the Reserve Fund? And to keep the two concepts distinct, maybe phrase it as "4/.2" or the like?

In other words, if we achieve CAVCON 4/.9, then donations are exceeding operating expenses AND the Reserve Fund is almost full. Another .1 added to the Reserve Fund would mean it is "full"...so that could read as "4/1".

But even at such a beautiful hypothetical state, I'm not sure that a "4/1" would equate to CAVCON 5?

In any case, thanks RAWA for the effort toward increased resolution...I hope we figure a way to convey this that suits everyone.

semplerfi · **Posted:** Sat Oct 13, 2012 8:12 pm

It is just another Cyan puzzle that can be construed in a gajjillion ways. Wheeeee! :wink:

DLordofTime · **Posted:** Sat Oct 13, 2012 8:33 pm

I say, pester Rawa until he explains himself.

angelo71 · **Joined:** Sat Oct 06, 2012 4:58 pm **Posts:** 20

I think it is only fitting that CavCon should get it's own puzzle filled Age, maybe call it CavCon Tolesa.

Charura · **Joined:** Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:14 pm **Posts:** 1756

Emor D'ni Lap wrote:

...I hope we figure a way to convey this that suits everyone.

HAH! Now there's a conundrum in and of itself! :twisted:

Dalken Starbyne · **Joined:** Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:06 pm **Posts:** 152

Emor D'ni Lap wrote:

So, if "4" represents the state in which donations are exceeding operating expenses, then can the decimal (".2", for instance) represent the replenishment level of the Reserve Fund? And to keep the two concepts distinct, maybe phrase it as "4/.2" or the like?

In other words, if we achieve CAVCON 4/.9, then donations are exceeding operating expenses AND the Reserve Fund is almost full. Another .1 added to the Reserve Fund would mean it is "full"...so that could read as "4/1".

But even at such a beautiful hypothetical state, I'm not sure that a "4/1" would equate to CAVCON 5?

In any case, thanks RAWA for the effort toward increased resolution...I hope we figure a way to convey this that suits everyone.

That's assuming that there's a solid number we can base on where the reserve fund can be considered "full," which doesn't seem to be the case, based on what RAWA said. He mentioned that we would reach CAVCON 5 ("full" reserve fund and donations are exceeding server costs) basically when The Powers That Be deemed it so...so we really can't definitively say when we'll reach CAVCON 5 just based on a numerical value, regardless of if we know that value or not.

Before we get ahead of ourselves in making the CAVCON so many decimals and such, remember that it was put in place as a easy reference to get a rough idea of where we're at with donations. I mean, details are great and all, but if we start getting carried away with this, it's simply not going to be CAVCON anymore!

Emor D'ni Lap · **Joined:** Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:15 am **Posts:** 579

Dalken Starbyne wrote:

That's assuming that there's a solid number we can base on where the reserve fund can be considered "full," which doesn't seem to be the case, based on what RAWA said. He mentioned that we would reach CAVCON 5 ("full" reserve fund and donations are exceeding server costs) basically when The Powers That Be deemed it so...so we really can't definitively say when we'll reach CAVCON 5 just based on a numerical value, regardless of if we know that value or not.

That's exactly what I meant when I said "But even at such a beautiful hypothetical state, I'm not sure that a "4/1" would equate to CAVCON 5".

Quote:

Before we get ahead of ourselves in making the CAVCON so many decimals and such, remember that it was put in place as a easy reference to get a rough idea of where we're at with donations. I mean, details are great and all, but if we start getting carried away with this, it's simply not going to be CAVCON anymore!

I think a good part of the confusion the original CAVCON model engendered was due to conflating the two concepts of 1) incoming funds vs. outgoing expenses with 2) the Reserve Fund into one single number. RAWA has proposed one solution to this in his recent message, and Mac Fife has correctly indicated that the CAVCON numbers are variable "states" or "conditions"... whereas the Reserve Fund should be a finite (though unknown to us mortals) amount. I was suggesting one method of separating these two concepts, hopefully no more complex than RAWA's proposal.

RAWA · **Posted:** Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:43 am

More info:

The whole number portion is the CAVCON level.

CAVCON 5) MO:ULa is funded to the point and Cyan is in a position that we can do regular (even if very minor) updates (hope springs eternal)
CAVCON 4) donations exceeded expenses, overage was added to the reserve
CAVCON 3) donations were roughly equal to expenses
CAVCON 2) donations did not meet expenses, reserve covered the difference.
CAVCON 1) donations did not meet expenses, reserve was empty, Cyan paid the difference between donations and expenses (Bad thing, not sustainable)

The decimal portion roughly gives how close donations were to expenses (for completed months, or "are to estimated expenses" for the current month)

Examples:

4.5 - donations exceeded expenses by roughly 50%. Overage was added to the reserve.
3.0 - donations were equal to expenses (within roughly 10% plus or minus). Note: There are no other decimal values for CAVCON 3. The meter goes from 2.9 to 3.0 to 4.1.
2.3 - donations covered roughly 30% of the month's expenses, reserve covered the difference (70%).
1.8 - donations covered roughly 80% of the month's expenses, reserve was empty, Cyan covered the difference (20%).

A larger number is always preferable to a smaller number.

If this were one of those fund raising thermometers, it would look something like this:

4.9 (Donations = expenses + 90%)
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1 (Donations = expenses +10%)
3.0 <--- monthly minimum goal (Donations = 100% of expenses)
1.9 or 2.9 (in both cases, Donations = 90% of expenses, the whole number portion just tells who covered the difference)
1.8 or 2.8
1.7 or 2.7
1.6 or 2.6
1.5 or 2.5
1.4 or 2.4
1.3 or 2.3 <-- where we are as of 10/10 for October's donations
1.2 or 2.2
1.1 or 2.1
1.0 or 2.0

Hope that helps,

RAWA

DLordofTime · **Posted:** Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:57 am

Many thanks for the information, Rawa!

Jmp12 · **Joined:** Sun Feb 04, 2007 8:16 pm **Posts:** 99

Sweet!

This is definitely much better than just whole numbers, in my opinion.

Thanks RAWA!

matthornb · **Posted:** Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:37 pm

Thanks, RAWA, now this makes more sense.

Eleri · **Posted:** Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:41 pm

RAWA handing out information?!? Quick, someone ask him history and language questions before he gets away!

Is good info, though, and does make the meter easier to understand.

CAVCON Meter

Who is online