Rules and scoring thread

[Steve O]

@lordofthemark 169185 wrote:

This is precisely what I thought about this 1. Its way too much of a burden to think about everyone’s different activities each day and evaluate them 2. Its very likely to end up a popularity contest.

1 – Smart people can probably come up with a solution to this, like allow people to bank their points for (x) days and just assign every week or two. Not necessarily a bad thing asking people to look at the web site 2-3 times a month, since engaging people is one of the objectives.

2 – Maybe…maybe not. If that, in fact, reflects the cumulative preference of all the players, then isn’t that the optimal outcome? Or do you have some special insight to a scoring system that would more optimally reflect the preferences of all the people playing the game?

[Steve O]

@LhasaCM 169155 wrote:

However, it seems that even the discussion of some of the more significant changes being proposed, particularly trying to score a social aspect, is driving people away. To me, that’s a pretty big downside, and makes me think that any potential upside isn’t worth it. Others may feel differently, of course. (And I’m sure others are wondering why it took so long for me to get to that spot.)

OTOH, we know the current scoring system drove Subby away, and there may be others (like me) who find the same ol’ system every year boooorrrringgg and would enjoy it a lot more if the game was changed up every year.

Even better, every week! Imagine if the last place team each week got to pick the scoring system (from some pre-determined list, say) for the following week. Now, THAT would be fun!

[cvcalhoun]

@Steve O 169206 wrote:

OTOH, we know the current scoring system drove Subby away.

My understanding is that any scoring system would have driven Subby away, because the problem was that he was getting too obsessive about winning.

@Steve O 169206 wrote:

Even better, every week! Imagine if the last place team each week got to pick the scoring system (from some pre-determined list, say) for the following week. Now, THAT would be fun!

Yeah, I would definitely be out of here if that were the system. I deal with complicated rules that change frequently at work. I’m not about to do that for “fun.”

[lordofthemark]

@Steve O 169203 wrote:

1 – Smart people can probably come up with a solution to this, like allow people to bank their points for (x) days and just assign every week or two. Not necessarily a bad thing asking people to look at the web site 2-3 times a month, since engaging people is one of the objectives.

2 – Maybe…maybe not. If that, in fact, reflects the cumulative preference of all the players, then isn’t that the optimal outcome? Or do you have some special insight to a scoring system that would more optimally reflect the preferences of all the people playing the game?

1. I want to engage on the forum. But I want it to be to push for infrastructure, or even (gasp!) to debate ebikes, or to ask for help with maintenance, or give advice on routes, not to review everybody’s contributions to FS/TheCommunity.

2. Ah classic fallacy. The individual choice I make when the group choice is the accumulation of individual choices is NOT equivalent to what I would want the group choice to be. Dare I mention the “tragedy of the commons”? In this instance, if everyone is giving points based on popularity, I might as well, even though I would prefer that we all give points based on miles, or happy hours organized. Because my individual choice does not make it (or stop) a popularity contest, merely who wins that contest. But I may still prefer it not be a popularity contest. I love markets, and using markets to garner information, including on preferences, but I think this is one of those instances where “democracy” trumps markets.

How else do we discern the will of all though? Well of course we can’t strictly, given how many participants are silent. In lieu of that, we combine the opinions of those willing to speak, and also examine how FS is doing in terms of gaining and losing members.

[Steve O]

@lordofthemark 169211 wrote:

and also examine how FS is doing in terms of gaining and losing members.

If we change nothing, how do we discern this?

[lordofthemark]

@Steve O 169212 wrote:

If we change nothing, how do we discern this?

Sorry if I was unclear. I was not referring to a market experiment, where we change the rules on and off a few times and test the changes in registration. I meant look at the pattern of registration (increasing over time, IIUC) as support for the idea that the “silent ones” are happy with the old rules. If that was all we had it might be weak, but we also seem to have a near consensus among the vocal ones to keep things close to the same (keep the main score based on miles only, possibly some tweaking to the points per mile, and de-emphasize the individual leaderboards). (That by the way, should indicate the difficulty with using a change in registration to test the popularity of any rules change – no way to seperate out the effect of several different changes)

[accordioneur]

@Steve O 169212 wrote:

If we change nothing, how do we discern this?

SteveO, I think you can stop arguing your point now, as the IT scorekeeping potentates declared several pages ago that they’re going to keep scoring as-is for this year. The good news is that you won the argument! They’re going to collect data needed to discern the impact of potential scoring changes, opening the door to all manner of scoring improvements (addressing your question quoted above). The bad news is that it looks like you’ll have to put up with a season of “boooorrrringgg” status quo before you get to see your cool ideas come to fruition.

[americancyclo]

@Steve O 169206 wrote:

OTOH, we know the current scoring system drove Subby away

Also drive him away from mountaineering and months that end in “y”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rod Smith]

Ok, its decided. Time in the saddle multiplied by weight of bike plus number of changes in direction of travel.

[dkel]

@lordofthemark 169211 wrote:

…we…examine how FS is doing in terms of gaining and losing members.

@Steve O 169212 wrote:

If we change nothing, how do we discern this?

Out!
(Someone make a note of that.)

Seriously, though, crowdsourcing points—and rules, or values or something—is the most unmotivating idea I can possibly think of. Honestly, it seems like all the most humiliating parts of my my job at its worst. Attempting to make BAFS everything to everyone—and the salvation of all things cycling—will be its certain downfall.

[Bob James]

@Rod Smith 169230 wrote:

Ok, its decided. Time in the saddle multiplied by weight of bike plus number of changes in direction of travel.

Gee, I wonder who would win individual points under this scoring system Though LSG has been known to ride some squiggly routes and if HP turns count as direction changes, Judd
would be in the running.

[Vicegrip]

@Steve O 169149 wrote:

I’ve been giving some more thought to the Surowiecki System (S^2). Again, recognizing the potential technological constraints, a version of it could be used to create a completely democratized scoring system.

Essentially the participants themselves define the scoring system for themselves: no particular individuals, like me or hozn or jrenaut, have any more influence than anyone else. If you play the game, then you are the scoring system for the game.

How it works:
Each day you ride you get 100 points (or some value) that you then award to others (not on your team). The data about everyone’s riding is available, so if you think the riders who rode the farthest should get the most points, then they get them. If you like time better than miles, then those people. If you hear it snowed a lot in Germany, give more points to consularrider. If Sunyata visited 11 breweries in one day (!), then, dammit, she gets mine.

Because there are so many players, no one player can have much influence. If it turns out the vast majority of players like the simple days+miles, then that’s the way it will work out. If it turns out players like clever ride titles a lot, then that will play out in the scoring. If you learn someone is riding while sick and you think they deserve some bonus for that, then do it. Etcetera, etcetera. Your ability to influence the system is small, but not zero, and more if you ride on more days.

The scoring system IS the people who play the game. Instead of the Putin system where a top-down entity decides for us, it’s more an Athenian system of direct democracy. And it adapts as we go along. If the “crowd” senses the leaderboard is skewed, they will start reallocating their points so that it more closely comports with their sense of what it ought to be. After 78 days, the leaderboard will reflect almost exactly the cumulative preferences of the players. What could be better than that?

It completely eliminates the need to argue over a scoring system, because the scoring system itself embodies the discussion and gives each player an equal voice (weighted by daily participation). One might also think of it as a market-based system, where each player gets currency and you vote with your wallet.

Just noticed this post. Interesting concept. I see where it could become FS transmogrified into a 13 year old’s Facebook with this Instagram/snapchat/twitter sort of scoring. And I see where a small number of players would gain insurmountable visibility that would dominate the screen/click time of many other players. Few would have time or desire to click through 250 players rides every day but they will see the other folks clicking away at carefully poised and imaged rides with the right people and bikes on the right gravel roads and brewers. You might also get likes burn out for some stellar riders. “Meh, he/she often rides more than today’s 190 miles. Yawn, Lets give the points to someone else today.” Sounds more like H.S. than F.S.

[Subby]

You can’t *make* social happen. You can’t force it. You shouldn’t force it. It’s a team strategy, and should be left up to each individual team. If a team captain can get members of her team together for rides, there is a good chance the team mileage will be the better for it. With social interaction comes cohesion and camaraderie and then maybe a team member thinks twice about bitching out on the last 5 weeks of winter because he doesn’t want to let his fellow team members down. Forced social is the xmas party your office building throws every year in the lobby. Awkward. Good social is getting the majority of your team together for a 2 hour ride and caffeine or alcohol afterwards. The best way to make freezing saddles more appealing is to dump individual stuff outside of pointless prizes and to focus on teams and making the team competition and experience better.

[lordofthemark]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_gameplay

Emergent gameplay refers to complex situations in video games, board games, or table top role-playing games that emerge from the interaction of relatively simple game mechanics.[1]

[hozn]

@Subby 169289 wrote:

The best way to make freezing saddles more appealing is to dump individual stuff outside of pointless prizes and to focus on teams and making the team competition and experience better.

Yeah, I agree with this.

[Author]

Posts