On 20.10.2015 19:09, Stephen Michel wrote: > !IMPORTANT! > First: I propose we set a Design Freeze Deadline of next MONDAY, OCT 26 > for the mechanism. After that date, the design shall be locked in. > > --- > > Second: I'm going to re-pitch my proposal: > > I hold these to be self-evident. If you agree with me, I don't see what > your objection might be to this proposal. If you disagree, well, this > list makes it easy to say exactly where you disagree. > > 1. People are not confused by different donation levels. They may even > expect them. Ex: > > https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/demanding > https://elementary.io/
This is comparing apples with oranges. Snowdrift changes the donation level with each new donor already. > > 2. Some people would like to donate more. > I agree, but then again 0.1¢ isn't really much when there are 93 donors. > 3. "Donate X per patron" is not a hard concept to understand. I agree. > > 4. We do not want to unnecessarily handicap ourselves in getting off the > ground (ie, by denying generous patrons the ability to donate more). > I disagree. We absolutely want to handicap ourselves "in a way": Picture a new project with about 100 donors. The average match factor is under 1¢. Most donors *DO* want to pay more - right? We effectively deny "generous" patrons to pay *WAY* more than they do in that case. It just begs the question of what is "generous" and that hard to pin down. Where would you draw the line? > 4a. We do not want to use sleazy tactics to get people to donate more. I agree. > > 5. All things equal, we'd prefer to allow the mechanism to function > naturally rather than with our intervention. > I agree. > > > Therefore, I propose the following: > > Show 4 donation levels. > 1. Minimum. Currently $1 per 1000 users. > 2. Average. This shall be the default / recommended. It is completely > clear how we came to it, is not artificially manipulated (except for the > first user) and provides a higher-than-minimum donation level to help > projects get off the ground. > 3. Double the average. Provides an option for generous donors (rather > than forcing them to decide on a value themselves). > 4. User-entered. Must be minimum or higher (duh). Provides an option for > *extra* generous donors, or those who wish to donate less but not the > minimum. > > Here's a whiteboard sketch I drew of how this might look. I *really* > don't think this is unduly complicated. > > https://img.bi/#/818IWCe!tXPyBZZ4M1n2oqQeZNDSgAtSgOzD44fyGhFBFW6u > > ~Stephen > Here is my general rationale: The idea of Snowdrift is that it has its own pace to up the game of donation levels, depending on number of patrons. Our primary goals as game designers are: a) bring in as many players as we can b) make them stick for as long as they can bare to raise donations The only interesting metric is the number of players, because if there are millions of them the donation amount gets almost irrelevant. The machine then runs smooth without interference. Having extra levels adds complexity and lowers participation and results in less players. The only way I see "levels" making sense is in having an option in the user preferences to change it or people that are interested. But not presented to all users on all projects all the time. We only need to have a sensible default. eg.: we don't want people to donate peanuts for years and only pay more if there is an ultimate superstar project we also don't want people to be surprised by being underfunded constantly because snowdrift grows quickly and many projects ask for $20 a month. My conclusion is: Keep it a simple binary decision. Let people set up different default values in their settings but don't advertise them playing in that arena.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
