Gamification that is not a dark pattern

This is an illustrative scenario, not a customer account.

The situation

Gamification works. Points, streaks, progress and status reliably increase engagement, which
is precisely why it is so often used badly. The same mechanics that make something rewarding make
it compulsive, and the distance between the two is a design decision rather than an accident.

Where the line sits

We use a simple test. Does the mechanic reward something the person wanted to do anyway, or
does it manufacture a reason to keep going that serves us rather than them?

A progress indicator on something a creator is already building is the first. A streak that
punishes a missed day is the second. A leaderboard showing where you stand is the first. One
engineered so you are always just below a threshold is the second.

Practical rules we hold ourselves to

• No mechanic whose value depends on loss aversion. If it works because
  stopping feels like losing something, it is not a reward.
• Non-financial balances stay non-financial. Points, levels and status carry
  no monetary value and are not convertible. The moment a game currency is worth money it becomes a
  financial product, with all the obligations and all the incentives to exploit that implies.
• The loop has an end. A progression with a completion point is a goal. One
  that recedes indefinitely is a treadmill.
• It must survive being explained. If describing a mechanic plainly to the
  person subject to it would make them like it less, it is the wrong mechanic.

Why it is in the product at all

Because the alternative — a bare transactional interface — is worse at the thing that actually
matters, which is helping a creator understand where they are and what would improve their
position. Done honestly, progression is a way of making a complicated system legible.