Monday, March 11, 2024

Proposal: Criteria Cleanup

Timed out, 2-3. Failed by JonathanDark.

Adminned at 14 Mar 2024 05:44:32 UTC

In the rule Scoring, change “may at most once respond” to “should respond, no more than once,”.

For each Seeker whose EVC on this proposal contains exactly two different numbers between 1 and 5, remove the two of their Criteria (even if blank) associated with their stated numbers and condense the remainder into three Criteria. Then, in the rule Criteria, change “set of up to five Private Criteria” to “set of up to three Private Criteria”.

Lovely to have so many players but tracking up to 40 private criteria seems overwhelming. I’m on the fence about cutting it down to three or two; even three is potentially 24 different criteria we have to work out from potentially sparse evidence.

Also making it so scoring on other peoples’ snaps is encouraged, even when not optimal.


JonathanDark: he/him

11-03-2024 22:47:06 UTC

I get that “should once respond” encourages Seekers to respond once, but it also waters down the previous language by allowing more than one response since it isn’t “must”.

Maybe something more like “should respond, but may only respond once,”

I’m also not sure about how concerned we should be about the number of total Private Criteria we will have to track. Let’s see how many Seekers are truly going to participate after a week. I’m betting that attrition will take hold and it won’t be so many after all. I actually hope I’m wrong, and if so, let’s tackle it then once there are in fact filled-in Private Criteria hashes that people are actually Scoring on.

Josh: he/they

12-03-2024 10:11:45 UTC

I dunno, even if there’s only three active players in the game that’s still 9 private criteria after this proposal and only three photos per interval to compare them against… We can always lift the cap again if necessary but it feels smarter to drop it now while we have the opportunity.


12-03-2024 13:55:07 UTC

against (insert yet another reference to my unpublished screed about “should"s here)


12-03-2024 13:55:49 UTC

Well, the screed is actually about “must”, but “should” gets caught up in it a bit, too.


12-03-2024 13:57:26 UTC

Also, as far as I can tell, scoring on someone else’s snaps is always optimal.

Kevan: City he/him

12-03-2024 18:29:32 UTC

Not really seeing what the “should” change is giving us. Making it impolite to tactically or inactively decline the action doesn’t seem like it would affect either playing style.

Also not much liking the EVC request to reveal in advance which I think my strongest Private Criteria are, when this proposal might not pass.


Josh: he/they

12-03-2024 18:43:39 UTC

So you’d prefer to work with large numbers of criteria? Or you’d prefer them to be removed at random?

Kevan: City he/him

12-03-2024 19:14:06 UTC

I’d prefer to say which ones I’d discard after the group had agreed that we should discard some, than before.

Not really sure how I feel about the numbers. It doesn’t feel overwhelming to me right now. If everyone piled in with five each then it might, but even then we’d be more focused on the active and leading players.

Clucky: he/him

13-03-2024 06:08:28 UTC


if passes we can set it back to five again

2 and 4

JonathanDark: he/him

13-03-2024 16:00:15 UTC

against I’m not finding the number of Private Criteria overwhelming just yet. Given that “Runaway Games Are No Fun” is likely to pass, let’s just keep it at the current amount, rather than reducing it, then adding it back again.