> In situations where agile/story-points make sense, I suppose developers that accomplish more story-points are "better". Not really. Story points are cost est

> In situations where agile/story-points make sense, I suppose developers that accomplish more story-points are "better". Not really. Story points are cost estimates--a subjective judgement of how much effort a story will take. They're a prediction tool, not a productivity measure. It's very easy to increase the # of story points you deliver just by increasing your estimate and possibly even sandbagging. Not good. If story points were value estimates, created by a business folks rather than developers, they'd be better measures. But even then they'd be subject to gaming. It's easy to increase velocity in the short term by incurring technical debt. Say, not writing enough (or good enough) tests. Or not helping out co-workers. Or not spending time understanding business context. Or...