With September 15th, the starting date of the second round of the House Points Game, drawing near, we really need to rework the game mechanics, in order to address all of the issues which came up last time around:
- Points were given out too often and too arbitrarily. I still think Prefects should ultimately be allowed to give out points at their own discretion, but we need to be a lot more selective about what kinds of contributions earn points, and have stricter guidelines about the number of points which these contributions earn.
- The organization of team efforts wasn't as effective as it could have been last round. I think this was because organization was left entirely to Prefects, who, like myself, had trouble balancing team leadership with other things that needed doing on-wiki. I think we need to consider ways to more effectively organize team collaboration (like wiki-projects or common goals of some sort).
- There was too much focus on the quantity of contributions rather than the quality of contributions.
- The "Mentor" system was a convoluted way of getting Hufflepuff into the game and probably isn't necessary.
I worked out the original game mechanics on my own. I think, this time around, more than one person needs to help work out the mechanics. I'm also going away from the 8th to the 11th and may not have time to get the game running again. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 13:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to help out. Jayden Matthews 13:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd help as well! --Profiteor 16:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! Anyone have any ideas for how we can resolve some of the abovementioned issues? ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 12:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey I was not a Prefect last House Point Game nor did I even participate I joined a little late. Anyways I agree with the comment about points being given out to freely. For example looking back at last rounds House Point Game log. I found that sometimes when someone created an article they were given 10 points (example) but when someone else created an article of the same significant they were awarded more or sometimes less. I think we should be more strict and set amount a points for creation of a article. It may not be the best way to look at it but by all means tell me if I’m wrong. I'm also still thinking about your other points and will post again. --Profiteor 14:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I created some guidelines for how points should be given out for creating new articles, but I think the greater issue last time around was that the giving out of points for article creation became automatic, not that the amounts were inconsistent. I think we need to modify the rules so that the giving out of points more is more selective when it comes to article creation. Longer articles should be what earns points, and shorter articles should only earn points if there's something special that sets them apart from the average stub, like being based on a piece of trivia from the films that a lot of people might have missed. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 15:06, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
Yes I totally agree with you and for your other points you made I'm still working on answers --Profiteor 15:23, September 2, 2009 (UTC)