Choose the future community reward experience
For review — no decision recorded
Prepared 5 October 2026.
Decision requested
Which useful actions should be recognized, what value should rewards provide, and which mechanics would help people contribute without rewarding gambling?
Gamification is confirmed future direction, with implementation deferred. This review develops its product meaning; it does not choose a start date or an engine.
Current agreement
Casino assessment, contributor reputation, Community Points, competition score and commerce remain separate. Gambling volume is not a reward source, and a reward balance does not automatically make a contributor more trustworthy.
An external managed service is one proposed implementation. Its selection and conditions remain open. If selected, it would own authoritative reward and claim state while online.casino owns the source account and contribution decisions.
Proposal for discussion
Begin with actions whose usefulness the product can actually establish, such as an accepted correction or a verified contribution. Select rewards only after defining those actions and their moderation outcomes. Explain why an action is pending, accepted or reversed.
The historical design offers points, contribution tiers, achievements, small check-in streaks, separate prestige and weekly leaderboards, challenges and a reward inbox. Treat these as candidates to compare, not a bundle that must all ship together. Their historical names, amounts and thresholds are hypotheses.
Illustrative result
An accepted correction could advance an achievement and a contribution tier under selected rules. Receiving the same action again would not award twice. If the correction is reversed, the person would see the reason and any related reward adjustment in history.
A weekly challenge might recognize accepted data checks. If moderation ends next week, the attribution rule must decide which period receives the action. That decision affects fairness and claim deadlines.
Choices and tradeoffs
- Choose available contribution types and qualifying decisions before reward amounts. Casino registration can be a verification signal without a signup reward.
- Define points' actual utility, permitted perks and any budget. The historical non-cash concept does not promise money or a future token.
- Select the smallest useful set of mechanics. Decide whether a low-value daily streak helps, or whether weekly contribution challenges fit moderation better.
- Define tier benefits without bypassing moderation, leaderboard privacy and minimum participation, caps and handling of duplicate or reversed actions.
- Decide automatic versus manual claims, expiry and period attribution. A delayed service reply must not appear as a completed claim.
- Select the engine through a separate implementation decision. For an external option, agree data handling, continuity, export and exit alongside the service commitment; private commercial terms do not belong in this public brief.
- Define which age, market and self-exclusion rules prevent participation or a reward claim. The historical proposal makes these restrictions take precedence over reward eligibility; the applicable rules and thresholds remain open.
More mechanics create more interactions between caps, progress, reversals and claims. Selecting a smaller useful set makes those effects easier to explain. Core browsing and community operations must remain usable when rewards are unavailable.
Response requested
Name the useful actions, the value offered to participants and the mechanics to carry forward or defer. Walk through a normal award, delayed moderation and a reversal. State the age, market and self-exclusion eligibility rules to resolve, alongside unresolved perk, privacy or responsible-gambling choices. Community rewards explains the candidate experience in more detail.
Recorded outcome
No decision recorded. This brief does not authorize implementation or change delivery timing. Share the specific page and version through the existing discussion channel. Respond with accept, requested changes or defer, identifying the question concerned. How to review explains how an actual agreement is recorded and reflected in the product documents.