On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:54:49AM -0400, Stephen Michel wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 6:36 AM, mray wrote: >> >> 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 > > Whoa. This is a significant departure from my design goals > (within the realm of us all having the same end goal) and is > certainly why we came to opposite conclusions. Mine *originally* > were: * Bring in as much funding as we can * Keep that funding as > sustainable and stable as possible - Best accomplished by a > large player base.
I agree with mray's proposed goals. I was waylaid by the current messaging as well, thinking that funding was the primary purpose of Snowdrift. It's not. The primary purpose is democracy and participation, so the primary goal is maximizing patron count and engagement. Funding is simply one aspect of the bigger challenge of managing a public good. This is just my opinion on the matter and not an official stance — though I suggest it be so. I think Aaron would agree that we would rather encourage patrons to sign up others than encourage them to increase their contributions unilaterally! Let's make that preference concrete.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
