121 sats \ 2 replies \ @Car 3 Apr \ on: Opinionated MSM Community Feedback Summary meta
Thanks for sharing this @ek!
I think your points are spot on and something I never saw the whole time, until you pointed it out today.
This is a great point, having just done a competition with Top Builder, it really didn't start getting really competitive until the last and final round. Also keep in mind this was a competition going on for 3 months. The point I am driving to is the only outcome during the 3 months that I kept reiteretaing to the teams competing was their could only be one Top Builder. That was the goal that every one knew from the beginning. So no surprises or reason to get upset.
The problem with MSM was I am not sure what the main goal was? Internally or Externally? Also could be wrong as I have a terrible memory for these kinds of things.
If it was competition for the sake of competition that's awesome or experimenting for experimentation sake that's also fine.
But it should be opt in, that would solve a ton problems. Allowing the stackers that want to play MSM can continue doing that and the ones that don't just continue on as normal.
This also falls inline with the cowboy hat game as well that only a few stackers play.
The thing that makes stacker news unique is the experiments. So I will always say keep experimenting. This just a comment I am adding based off of what you shared.
But I think the underlining insight you brought to the table @ek is that the sn community all gets something different from sn. The hard part is trying to solve what can you add or take away that doesn't affect other stackers experience using sn.
it really didn't start getting really competitive until the last and final round
How did this show?
The problem with MSM was I am not sure what the main goal was? Internally or Externally? Also could be wrong as I have a terrible memory for these kinds of things.
@Undisciplined mentioned something similar here:
On the broader issue of monthly rewards, most of the biggest "beneficiaries" of the contest don't seem to be very fond of it. In fact, I'm not aware of anyone who's a big advocate for it. It does seem worth asking "Who is this for, then?" and "What is this for?"
I think we wanted to approach multiple things with it:
- attract new stackers with more prominent rewards (one big pool of monthly rewards vs many smaller daily pools)
- prevent sat farmers to get a chunk of rewards via shorter tail of rewards / more competitive rewards
- competition between stackers should bring better content
- more rewards for better content
So this was intended for SN (growth + better content) and stackers who consistently create good content (more rewards) while simultaneously getting rid of stackers who were only here to game the daily rewards (shorter tail of rewards).
Allowing the stackers that want to play MSM can continue doing that and the ones that don't just continue on as normal.
Yes, this is similar to what someone who wants to stay anonymous mentioned to me:
They don't like SN to be a competition but since others are now more competitive, they feel sucked into this competition to keep up with them and not get left behind. So essentially competitive stackers make everyone else feel pressured to also be competitive, at least to some degree.
Opt-in might solve it but if there is enough money on the table that is only eligible if you opt-in to a more competitive SN, I don't know why one would not opt-in. Not opting in and "optimizing the fun out of SN" requires discipline that some might not have (as @Scoresby mentioned here). So it's essentially still "sucking stackers in" which sucks (pun intended).
reply
I appreciate the point about reducing sat farming by truncating the tail, but there's so much less volatility in the monthly contest that I think it's actually much easier game. That's a different issue, but it's another variety of disingenuous engagement.
There may have been better content last month, but I think it was basically the result of a little economic bubble.
if there is enough money on the table that is only eligible if you opt-in to a more competitive SN, I don't know why one would not opt-in
Maybe splitting the rewards pot between normal rewards and the competition can be a best of both worlds scenario. It would reduce the rewards going to sat farmers, so there should at least be less of that activity, and the people who want privacy will still get rewarded without having to be in a public competition.
reply