Take the Beeminder founders' money

I’ve currently got two active MIT graphs, but I’m only supposed to have one at a time, that’s part of the point of them, so I’ve had support switching me back and forth between the two. There have been a few days where both of those MIT goals have come up red and while I was working on finishing up general mercy stuff, fogwall kept being the one getting delayed.

1 Like

Ah, I understand. Thanks for the answer!

Announcement! We’ve been talking for a long time about how to improve the dogfood bounty rules to encourage more people to watch our goals, to spread the love around, etc etc. Of course if it’s too effective as a marketing tool for Beeminder then it blunts the sting for ourselves… I guess that’s solvable by just letting the amounts at risk get ridiculous though!

Anyway, we’ve gone in circles about what the best system should be and failed to change anything at all so let me just pick a couple small improvements and we can discuss publicly what else is worth changing. So, here they are (I’m also updating the fine print at the top of this thread):

  1. You can’t claim 2 dogfood bounties in a row.
  2. New high water marks (highest dollar amount a goal has derailed at) must be claimed by someone who hasn’t claimed a bounty in at least a year.
1 Like

My golden goose!

2 Likes

Was the sptzero derail on 10/15 not claimed yet? https://www.beeminder.com/b/sptzero#data

[[confirmed! $90 paid to @icole]]

4 Likes

Support Zero derailed again today

[[confirmed! $90 paid to @nevan]]

1 Like

Pocket?
(I don’t know why I always want to apologize when I post here. You’d think after six+ years of beeminding I would have shaken that and gotten used to assuming it feels the same for you as for me. Let me try again. Gimme that money!)

[Edit: Well that would just be rubbing it in like a jerk! Where’s the happy medium?!
paying/repledging $90 on d/pocket: legitimacy check
Found it.]

1 Like

Firstly, here’s a link for those of you, like me, who scrolled all the way to the top of this topic to see the list of Beeminder bounty goals

I scrolled there mostly because I couldn’t believe that d/pocket was such a goal, which it isn’t, but of course it does fall under @dreev’s invitation to cash in on his personal goals too.

1 Like

I wasn’t sure which ones counted and which didn’t. Withdrawn! (Thanks for the new link to the dogfood goals. I used to have them set up somewhere a couple of years ago, but I’d since lost track of them.)

1 Like

I see my parenthetical at the top of this thread is pretty ambiguous so I better clarify (or set me straight if I may’ve said anything contradictory elsewhere!): I’m amenable to having all my personal goals as part of the dogfood bounty but haven’t done that so far.

It isn’t on the list above but Fogwall is still a dogfood bounty AFAIK (with derails but not claimable by myself, alas).

Hey, long time no see! Did b/sptzero derail?

[[confirmed! $90 owed to @ianminds!]]

1 Like

It did technically derail, but since it was due to extenuating circumstances, aka beeminder downtime (twitter.com/beemstat), and was completed in a timely fashion after fires were out, it may not count as legit… @dreev?

Sure, that seems entirely reasonable… Just checking! I’ve been out of the loop for quite a while, so, apart from a tweet I saw in passing, I wasn’t really aware of the downtime.

1 Like

Wow, looks like we’d been sticking to our meta roads brilliantly for many months now! Our philosophy on dogfood derails is to be super hardcore and by-the-book. So no exemption for us for extenuating circumstances. Although there may be ambiguity here because Beeminder was literally down when this goal was due, which makes it a standard exemption for anyone.

Still, our conclusion is to cough up this $90 to Ian. Thanks for minding us!

2 Likes

So, I pointed out to @dreev that he might sound like a jerk here, telling me to cough up the $90 for this derail since it was circumstances outside my control – and to be clear, we don’t want it to sound like we think that you ought to cough up when it’s literally impossible for you to avoid derailing – even moreso when it’s Beeminder’s fault that it’s impossible to avoid derailing, like today.

We talked about it though and came to the conclusion that paying @ianminds in this case is definitely warranted because:

  1. we like rewarding you all for minding us, derailing is not failing, etc; it’s money well spent.
  2. for these meta-minded goals, we’re using the bright line of “beeminder shows a discontinuity in the YBR” – it’s like a bet and those are the terms we agreed to and so it’s, like, honorable and stuff to interpret it to the letter

Anyhow, maybe we should conclude with soliciting some feedback about this, and then clarifying the fine print here for next time :slight_smile:

6 Likes

One thing I’ve never had any doubt of is that you folks are harder on yourselves than you are on anybody else. :slight_smile:

4 Likes

Danny’s Beemail goal appears to have derailed.

[[not legit! eked by per fine print item #4]]

1 Like

Darn, oh well. Should I have been able to tell, did I make a mistake?

Awesome work spotting that one, @roeder25! Turns out we eked by this time (see the post on top, item #4) but you were absolutely right to call it as soon as the deadline ticked over and the datapoint wasn’t there! In this case I sent the beemail in plenty of time and then forgot to update the graph quite in time. That would not be an excuse for getting out of coughing up the dogfood bounty except for that bit of fine print where I did manage to eke it in in time.

PS: I added a little addendum to your post to help me with the accounting on these. Ah, and to re-emphasize, definitely no mistake from you. It was my mistake and it’s kind of dumb that that’s possible but those are the rules we’ve got for now! Thanks for minding us!

1 Like