Rewrite assignment to offer extra credit

[TheMiki666]

I propose this change in the task statement to offer an additional voluntary exercise, which would be to extend the game by adding the Lizard and Spock elements.

The reasons for making this proposal are three:

1. To make my little contribution to TOP.
2. To show that there is a contradiction between what is said in the lesson statement:

"When making interactive projects, like this one, you might be tempted to add more features, improve interactivity, user experience, design and styling of your website, and so on. We recommend not doing this and reserving this effort for your portfolio projects."

...with other assignments along TOP; for example, in the Ruby course there are some extra credits, or voluntary exercises.
3. To complete the exercise "Using Git in the Real World", from the Ruby course.

If you don't accept the pull request, at least I would like you to tell me if I have done this exercise properly (that is to say, if I have followed the git flow correctly).

If you want, you can visit my Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard Spock project in TOP:

https://github.com/TheMiki666/rock_paper_scissors

Thanks for your time.

Because

This PR

Issue

Closes #XXXXX

Additional Information

Pull Request Requirements

• I have thoroughly read and understand The Odin Project curriculum contributing guide
• The title of this PR follows the location of change: brief description of change format, e.g. Intro to HTML and CSS lesson: Fix link text
• The Because section summarizes the reason for this PR
• The This PR section has a bullet point list describing the changes in this PR
• If this PR addresses an open issue, it is linked in the Issue section
• If any lesson files are included in this PR, they have been previewed with the Markdown preview tool to ensure it is formatted correctly
• If any lesson files are included in this PR, they follow the Layout Style Guide

[Mclilzee]

I don't feel this is a good addition to RPS. We have had some discussions in the past to remove extra credits entirely, I didn't keep track of where that got us. The problem is that we try to give the student a more challenging exercise, which contradict our philosophy of "Do the specs and move to other lessons". This will get them stuck in a more challenging situation, even for those who love challenges, there will be more challenging projects down the line.

Take RPS for example, most people who reach this project are already struggling to finish the basics of it. With extra credit, we would rob people of the satisfaction that they have finished the project after hard work. If they skip the credit in their mind it will be lingering that they weren't good enough, and if they did it, then they would have wasted time instead of learning new topics and do other projects that require other moving parts than this.

When I was working on the HashMap lesson, I did put an extra credit in the project to create a HashSet. But it was not more challenging than creating a HashMap, it was in fact less challenging. So people had an opportunity to build their HashMap again, easier after they have actually understood it if they wish to strengthen their fundamental understanding of it. Even tho, it may have not been a good idea to linger on doing what they have done again instead of moving on in their journey.

Another thing I find problematic with this PR is the wording of what it does mean to do extra credit, we over glorifying doing that if we go with these wording, so even if extra credits needs to be implemented, then I would rather just it be extra credit with no wording around explaining how good it would be to do it.

[bycdiaz]

I agree that we want to get away from "extra credit". I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of "extra credit" area at the end of the course where folks can find things to practice further with. But agree that this early on we want to keep the focus very narrow for new learners.

[JoshDevHub]

I agree with the others. Extra credit is something best avoided at this stage of curriculum (and arguably elsewhere as well).

I'll be closing down this PR, but I look forward to your future ideas and contributions to the curriculum. You workflow for submitting this PR to our curriculum seems mostly good! I do have a couple of recommendations for the future:

1. Name your branches something more specific to the feature you're working on. For the purposes of contributing to our curriculum, this is mostly to help you when you're working locally. You may someday come to a point where you have multiple PRs open or are working on multiple ideas and having things named develop is going to make it difficult to keep up with where your work is.
2. Make sure your work passes the markdown linter we have set up. This PR has one failing item.