Forums: Index > The Wizengamot > New House Points Game

There has been a great deal of interest recently among some of the newer users in reviving the House Points Game. I've been brainstorming some ways to improve the game over previous versions.

  1. Greater focus on group participation.
  2. Greater focus on improving/expanding/cleaning-up existing articles.
  3. Make it easier for Prefects to track their House members' point-worthy achievements.

Last time, a LOT of the points went to a very small number of users, and not everyone got points for everything they did. Emphasis in this round would be on trying to get more people working together in the vein of the old projects like Scarhead, Snakeface, and Greasy-Git. To earn points, members would need to choose an article or area to focus on, and DECLARE their goals (being as specific as possible) in a "Projects" section on their House's Common Room BEFORE they begin working. In the case of two groups choosing the same area of work, priority would go to the House that declared first. However, if no meaningful work was begun within a week, the other House's group could take over the project. When finished, the members would mark that project {{Done}} in their Common Room, and the Prefects would then review their work and award points. Some areas that could be focused on:

We could even possibly work with the Hogwarts Roleplay Wiki to set up more informal "alternate" Common Rooms at their wiki for more social interaction, chat, and even games.

September 1st seems like a good a time as any to begin the new term. This is just kind of a rough idea for now, and I'd especially like feedback from people who played in previous games.

Nick O'Demus 07:02, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

This is really a great idea. I've been playing the game in two years and never earned as much as 1 point. I like the idea of declaring, and this would make people more interested in "cleaning up" the wiki. I have no objections at all --ƃuıuɹoɥʇ(Send me an owl) 10:18, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
It sounds good to me, although I came on to this wiki during a time it wasn't being played really, so I have no idea how it worked or went before. I am curious though, in general, did trying to earn house points cause any new users to make bad, messy or unverified edits just to try and slip under the radar and gain house points?BachLynn(Send an Owl!) 14:34, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
Great idea, but I think it best to see if everyone has the predesposition to do this. Answering to BachLynn, no, I do not recall a surge in that kind of things, although the creation of useless pages flourished (I believe that the famed "Fly killed by Cormac McLaggen" dates back by then). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 14:42, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
I believe that the famed "Fly killed by Cormac McLaggen" dates back by then - Lest we forget. I like the idea, but I'm too much of a realist to hope that this will actually work. I can forsee there being lots of enthusiasm in this discussion which will quickly fizzle out when the time comes to actually do some work. Let's face it, the House Points Game was a failure both times. I really think we'd be better off concentrating on something more pragmatic. Like culling the ridiculous number of articles on unidentified characters, and trimming the number of redundent categories and needless infoboxes. Jayden Matthews 14:54, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
I see your thoughts, Jayden. But it looks like the admins have a different idea on how they will be running the house point game. I say we should try it, and if it's another failure don't do it again. But I like the idea on working on projects, not just everything. Head of Ravenclaw 15:00, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
I was the one to suggest this, and I stand by what I said. I am the God of Pokemon!!!!!! 17:25, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
That's fair enough. I guess time will tell. Jayden Matthews 12:20, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
What I'm kind of aiming for is more focus on quality over quantity this time around. Last time, almost all of the points ended up being given for creating mostly stub-length articles. It ended up overshadowing just about every other sort of measurable contribution, since it was usually the easiest for the Prefects to keep track of and quantify. And let's face it, the creation of articles of questionable worth has been an ongoing issue even without the game.
Some of these articles in the categories listed above have been tagged for months or even years, so this could be an opportunity to get some needed work done. And hopefully, requiring players to specifically declare their projects will make things easier on the Prefects. The player(s) have to declare in advance something like "Articles A, B, C, and D are tagged for unsourced statements. I will find references for those statements, or remove them if no source can be found at all," or "Articles A, B, C, and D are tagged for needing images. I will find and upload an image from a canon source." etc. When they mark their work done, the Prefect(s) can review their work, and award points based on the scope of the project, the quality of the work, and how well they feel the original goal was accomplished.
I'm not sure if it will work or not, but maybe with some tweaking it could be be doable. - Nick O'Demus 13:05, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
I like Nick's idea. (At the top of this page.) I haven't played it since I created my account during its interim so I really want it to start and don't like its current rules. With Nick's, everyone could be receiving points if they wanted them. But I think the prefects should check the edit diffs to make sure that person actually did the work. Thanks! Head.Boy.HogTalk  11:58,8/13/2011 
You would probably use the inuse template. Head of Ravenclaw |   Send me an Owl! 01:07, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
Bumping. Will probably need to push back the start date on this a bit. - Nick O'Demus 08:08, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
I'm actually thinking of postponing the game until Pottermore opens up completely in October, and maybe incorporating the Sortings from there into here somehow. Any ideas or suggestions from those who already have access? - Nick O'Demus 15:31, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
*Disclosure: Some of the links above are affiliate links, meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.