Update rating to reflect changes from JoinColony/colonyNetwork#154

reputation/reputation.tex

@@ -36,26 +36,16 @@ \subsection{Earning and losing reputation}\label{sec:earning-losing-rep}
 \subsubsection{Reputation change from contributing to a task}\label{sec:earning-rep-from-task}
 Each task requires three roles to be assigned: the manager, the worker and the evaluator (as described in Section \ref{sec:tasks}). If the bounty for the task is denominated in the colony's token, each of these roles are eligible to earn reputation when the task is completed as long as their work was well received.
 
-The performance of the user who has completed the work is established when the work is submitted and then evaluated. At this point, the evaluator grades the work submitted by the worker, and the worker rates the manager's ability to coordinate delivery of the task\footnote{These scores should be submitted using a pre-commit and reveal scheme to ensure secrecy during the rating process and avoid retaliatory grading in the event that the manager and evaluator are the same person, which we expect to be a reasonably common occurrence. In the event of a user not committing or revealing within a reasonable time, their rating of their counterpart is assumed to be the highest possible and they receive a mildly negative rating. } out of five stars.
+The performance of the user who has completed the work is established when the work is submitted and then evaluated. At this point, the evaluator grades the work submitted by the worker, and the worker rates the manager's ability to coordinate delivery of the task\footnote{These scores should be submitted using a pre-commit and reveal scheme to ensure secrecy during the rating process and avoid retaliatory grading in the event that the manager and evaluator are the same person, which we expect to be a reasonably common occurrence. In the event of a user not committing or revealing within a reasonable time, their rating of their counterpart is assumed to be the highest possible and they receive a mild reputation penalty. } on a scale of one to three points.
 
-In the case of the evaluator, a rating of 0-2 stars counts as them rejecting the work, and a score of 3-5 stars counts as accepting the work. Beyond that, we suggest the following guidelines for ratings:
+In the case of the evaluator, a rating of 1 point counts as them rejecting the work and a score of 2-3 points counts as accepting the work. Therefore ratings and the reputation lost or gained follow these rules:
 \begin{itemize}
- \item[] 0 stars: user submitted no meaningful work 
- \item[]1 star:\phantom{s} user showed little activity relevant to the task, and remains far from completion on due date.
- \item[]2 stars: user was unable to complete the task, but put in a reasonable amount of effort.
- \item[]3 stars: user completed the task following the brief but there were issues during the work.
- \item[]4 stars: user completed the task acceptably and there were no complaints.
- \item[]5 stars: user completed the task to a higher standard than requested.
+ \item[]1 point:\phantom{s} User was unable to complete the task. Reputation penalty equal to the token payout.
+ \item[]2 points: User completed the task acceptably. Reputation gain equal to the token payout.
+ \item[]3 points: User completed the task to a higher standard than requested. Reputation gain equal to $ 1.5 \times \text{token payout} $.
 \end{itemize}
 
-The actual number of reputation $r$ earned by the worker for the completion of the task is then a function of this rating $s$ and the token payout $t$:
-\begin{equation*}\label{eq:stars-to-rep}
- r = t \times \frac{2s - 5}{3}.
-\end{equation*}
-
-Reputation lost or gained as a function of the star rating therefore varies linearly between $-\frac{5t}{3}$ and $\frac{5t}{3}$ for zero and five stars respectively, and a rating of four stars earns the user exactly $t$. 
-
-Similarly, the manager gets an amount of reputation based on their grading by the worker, but on a scale that only varies between $-t_{\rm ev}$ and $t_{\rm ev}$ (where $t_{\rm ev}$ is the manager's notional token payout for the task). They only earn this reputation in the current (and all parent) domains, not in the skill reputation hierarchy as they have not actually done the task. While it is likely some knowledge is required to coordinate delivery of the task, this is not always the case; we believe that skill reputation should exclusively demonstrate ability to perform tasks.
+The manager receives reputation following the same rules as the worker, however they only earn this reputation in the current (and all parent) domains, not in the skill reputation hierarchy as they have not actually done the task. While it is likely some knowledge is required to coordinate delivery of the task, this is not always the case; we believe that skill reputation should exclusively demonstrate ability to perform tasks.
 
 Upon completion of a task, the evaluator also earns reputation based on their token reward. There is no explicit rating of the evaluator, but as with all other payments and rewards, an objection can be raised before a payout occurs; if the evaluation is changed by such an objection, the evaluator's reward is reduced or turns in to a loss of reputation. For all participants, reputation updates occur and payouts are made available only \emph{after} the objection window (described in Section \ref{sec:tasks}) has closed and all disputes  (described in Section \ref{sec:objections-and-disputes}) have been resolved at the end of the task. The reputation updates and payouts are based on the final state of the task and the difference, if any, between the initial gradings and final state of the task.