Difference between revisions of "Talk:Reflowered Graticule"
From Geohashing
Michael5000 (talk | contribs) (Created page with " *I '''support''' this proposal! ...but then I would, wouldn't I? It's MY proposal! ~~~~") |
(oppose) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
*I '''support''' this proposal! ...but then I would, wouldn't I? It's MY proposal! [[User:Michael5000|Michael5000]] ([[User talk:Michael5000|talk]]) 03:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC) | *I '''support''' this proposal! ...but then I would, wouldn't I? It's MY proposal! [[User:Michael5000|Michael5000]] ([[User talk:Michael5000|talk]]) 03:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
+ | *It is cool to go geohashing in a graticule that has been inactive for a long time, and I have done so myself twice in this month in [[:Category:Meetup in 52 14|52,14]] and [[:Category:Meetup in 53 12|53,12]]. That being said, I don't think it is a good idea to make it an official achievement. | ||
+ | :The achievement would create an incentive to ''not'' go Geohashing if the graticule in question is under the threshold. There may be a tempting Geohash, but one would not visit it because the graticule has been inactive for nine years and it would ruin next year's Reflowering. Or maybe someone else visits the location and then one would get mad at them because ''they'' ruined next year's Reflowering. I think that achievements should never create incentives like this. | ||
+ | :On the other hand, this has been the third time that this achievement has been proposed (albeit using different names: [[Talk:Proposed achievements#Necromancy|necromancy]], [[Talk:Virgin Graticule#restored virginity?|restored virginity]] - those proposals were less formal though, without their own pages, so you might have not seen them), so clearly there is some demand. I have given it some though and thought I might vote ''needs work'' - what if we make this a gradual achievement, without a hard cutoff date after ten years? What if it was similar to the [[Consecutive Geohash]], the [[Two to the N achievement]] or the [[Multihash]], rather than the [[Graticule Hopper]] (which really should be a 2<sup>N</sup>-style gradual achievement too IMO). What if we start after six months, when the graticule has just fallen into inactivity? Reflowering it then would be cool, but not ''super'' impressive, the equivalent of claiming a Consecutive Geohash for only two consecutive days. But when the time since the last expedition has been longer, the act of Reflowering becomes more impressive, the equivalent of a longer consecutive streak. | ||
+ | :Well, while I think that would be better, the main problem remains: It would still create an incentive to not go Geohashing. It would create an incentive to let active graticules become inactive to claim this achievement. It would create an incentive to not go geohashing in a graticule with two years of inactivity, because if I don't go geohashing now I could claim the more impressive three year ribbon next year. | ||
+ | :After the threshold has passed and the graticule has been revisited after a long time, that is definitely cool and it feels like there should be an achievement for this. The problem are the incentives during the time the threshold has not passed yet. Therefore, I '''oppose''' the creation of this achievement. --[[User:Fippe|Fippe]] ([[User talk:Fippe|talk]]) 10:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:21, 23 May 2022
- I support this proposal! ...but then I would, wouldn't I? It's MY proposal! Michael5000 (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- It is cool to go geohashing in a graticule that has been inactive for a long time, and I have done so myself twice in this month in 52,14 and 53,12. That being said, I don't think it is a good idea to make it an official achievement.
- The achievement would create an incentive to not go Geohashing if the graticule in question is under the threshold. There may be a tempting Geohash, but one would not visit it because the graticule has been inactive for nine years and it would ruin next year's Reflowering. Or maybe someone else visits the location and then one would get mad at them because they ruined next year's Reflowering. I think that achievements should never create incentives like this.
- On the other hand, this has been the third time that this achievement has been proposed (albeit using different names: necromancy, restored virginity - those proposals were less formal though, without their own pages, so you might have not seen them), so clearly there is some demand. I have given it some though and thought I might vote needs work - what if we make this a gradual achievement, without a hard cutoff date after ten years? What if it was similar to the Consecutive Geohash, the Two to the N achievement or the Multihash, rather than the Graticule Hopper (which really should be a 2N-style gradual achievement too IMO). What if we start after six months, when the graticule has just fallen into inactivity? Reflowering it then would be cool, but not super impressive, the equivalent of claiming a Consecutive Geohash for only two consecutive days. But when the time since the last expedition has been longer, the act of Reflowering becomes more impressive, the equivalent of a longer consecutive streak.
- Well, while I think that would be better, the main problem remains: It would still create an incentive to not go Geohashing. It would create an incentive to let active graticules become inactive to claim this achievement. It would create an incentive to not go geohashing in a graticule with two years of inactivity, because if I don't go geohashing now I could claim the more impressive three year ribbon next year.
- After the threshold has passed and the graticule has been revisited after a long time, that is definitely cool and it feels like there should be an achievement for this. The problem are the incentives during the time the threshold has not passed yet. Therefore, I oppose the creation of this achievement. --Fippe (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)