pull down to refresh
20 sats \ 6 replies \ @Coinsreporter 2 Aug \ parent \ on: Fun Fact Friday- Best Fact gets 10k sats meta
Okay. I suggest we create a game where two sides shall compete each other. There shall be two teams. The Stackers shall decide which team they wanna join. 10-10 or 15-15 players shall be max. We play it weekly. The side that posts the most valuable (have to be decided on number of factors) content wins.
I like it. We just need to figure out how the game will work.
reply
Just make it simple. The team that posts better content. Factors deciding better content
- Top posts (points given in descending order)
- Top Comments (points given in descending order)
- Number of posts and comments (points given in descending order)
If the total number of participating Stackers is 30, the points shall start from 30 for the top post, comment and top Stackers with number of posts and comments.
For example: let's play this between you and @Undisciplined. To calculate, we need to use top + week filter.
Your post #626862 ; Meme Monday gets 2 points
and @Undisciplined's post #628725 ; Masculinity gets 1 point.
Boom 💥 you win the tug of war. No just wait we need to check the number of posts and comments as well.
@Undisciplined has more posts. He gets two points and you get 1
You have more comments so you get two points and he gets one.
So, your total points are 2+1+2 = 5
While @Undisciplined got 1+2+1 = 4
So, this is the game. If we have 30 players in total, the tally of points will start from 30 and the last one will recieve 1 point.
After calculating, The team that gets more points wins!!
reply
Ok let’s try it next week.
reply
Don't take it as the final blue print, just make amends wherever you like.
I can visualise that this game has the capability to generate more engagement.
What I didn't just mention there was how we can reward all players, or can/should we only reward the top Stacker?
reply
Instead of this weird ad hoc'ery, why not just use the weekly and cowboy leaderboards?
And, yes, I am just being a sore loser.
reply
We like weird ad hoc’ery.
reply