The Idea Police

[Indystruck]

1 hour ago, Widower said:

It's Rudra's forum, and we're all just living in it.

 

I don't think I've ever seen anything that made me despair for the state of the forum quite as hard as this.

[Sakura Tenshi]

As someone who has felt like there are a certain recurring number of posters who seem to poo-poo my suggestions, but also realizing it is a bit of confirmation bias, I had wanted to contribute a bit more to this thread but it sort of blew up and I wanted to focus on pitching another idea.

 

That being said, this is a public forum, literally, anytime you post ideas or suggestions for the game you assume the inherit risk of said ideas being scrutinized and do need to accept that as a possible outcome. You can try to convince them and they may not like it (I remember suggesting placate/taunt protect for practiced brawler, since all other mez protections have an additional function and was just told ‘boohoo. Willpower conceptually deserves it more’) and it’s in their right to not be swayed. Does it mean your idea is just bad? It could well be and is something to consider. Could it be that they’re wrong and just want this game to be a museum piece? Also possible. It could even be malevolent cabal of cats stealing people’s accounts. But at the end of the day, it’s part and parcel to this board of the forums and we have to learn to deal with it.

 

besides, what are naysayers really going to do besides say ‘no’? This isn’t like 4chan where they can Sage it to try to push it out of the feed, and I feel like no sane moderator would take up these people on the naysayer’s suggestion to nuke whole threads because they don’t like an idea.

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

15 minutes ago, Indystruck said:

I don't think I've ever seen anything that made me despair for the state of the forum quite as hard as this.

 

"My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world."

 

Jack Layton

[Super Atom]

If you start out assuming everyone is a bad actor or trying just to shit on you, you're likely going to fulfill that prophecy all on your own with defensive replies to a non-hostile question.

 

 

[PeregrineFalcon]

So the last week on the forum has seemed a little odd to me.

 

First we had a thread where someone was claiming that we shouldn't be allowed to just react to a post that we should be required to actually post a response and say something. Then we had a thread where someone else proposed a list of restrictions on what we should post if we do respond.

 

While both of those posts are contradictory, they both have one thing in common. Advocating for further restrictions on what/how we're allowed to post on this forum. So I guess my question is: Why do you so many of you want so desperately to control what others are allowed to say, or how they're allowed to say it?

[Riverdusk]

I know I have more than once brought up the idea of dev time or difficulty in my OWN ideas.  As in, I'd like to see "X" idea done, but only if it is reasonably easy to do.  Basically something I think would be nice, but not something I think is worth it if it is going to take a ton of dev time to do.  That okay to those saying technical difficulty should never be discussed? 😁

 

 

[dukedukes]

  

 

1 hour ago, Forager said:

I said that there are bad actors spoiling the discussions here. I said there were a few pieces of guidance that would improve the discussions.

 

Let's focus on results, if you want to amend something to the "Concerning this forum..." sticky we should come up with a strong piece of guidance that can help prevent the issues we see. The points you listed aren't quite strong enough to my eye because they get into grey areas:

1. Dev time mentions. This is a grey area issue because sometimes the community has enough expertise to identify an orange as an orange. If you want the entire game to be destructible it's just impossible due to the effort required. This can help the conversation go in a new direction that may actually be possible. There are absolutely cases where people overuse this argument, but how would you phrase guidance to discern between these two cases?

 

Here's what I came up with:

Spoiler

It’s fine to point out technical or gameplay issues, but try to avoid dismissing ideas just because they seem unlikely or come from outside your area of expertise. If you have insight into how things work under the hood, great—just share it respectfully and be mindful that not everyone has the same background or knowledge.

 

2. We are not voting. Based on the way the sticky is written devs actually value activity for suggestions, which could include vote posts, they mention not responding to a post will implicitly devalue the suggestion as it receives less activity. You should argue against the specific content of the sticky if you feel strongly about this, or an amendment for not allowing the "i dislike this" posts.

 

3. Shooting down ideas is just not a thing. I feel like positive intent covers this. If you identify a conflict and tell OP the issue it shouldn't be interpreted as "shooting down", you just present a problem with or without a potential solution and see if OP can work their idea around it. You shouldn't have to bend over backward looking for solutions for someone elses idea just to bring up a problem. It's possible to raise criticism with positive intent. This is the kind of friction a sub-forum like this is necessarily going to have.

 

Reading through the sticky I think it does a good job of setting the stage. I don't agree with the GM's interpretation of topic activity being important but it's a small gripe from me.

[Forager]

^ That's pretty fair.

 

About point 1, I think my original explanation is fine as it stands. I think it's a full stop, irrelevant topic that is at best nothing and most likely counterproductive.

 

I think the problem with 2 might be terminology based. When I say people are "voting" I meant that's their mindset. Basically they might not think they're voting, but they're thinking like their voting. It's a pretty abstract and subjective idea. I get why it doesn't resonate.

 

The problem with 3... that's just like... my opinion man. I think if you're not part of the solution, you're not part of the conversation. People can disagree with that just like they can disagree with other suggestions. People can post "I don't like it!" and give no reason. They can be ignored. They're not part of the conversation to me. I have no quarrel with posts that just say "I don't like it." I don't consider them at all. They're nothing.

 

I think people confused me personally thinking something is pointless with "it shouldn't be allowed." I'm not a mod. You're allowed to do things that I don't like. I'm allowed to dislike them. You're even allowed to dislike me disliking them. Theres a chance that things that are allowed are not good. 

[Ultimo]

As one who has frequently been the object of attacks for daring to speak my mind, I will agree that there needs to be some better moderation on some of the stuff that goes on here.

 

Having said that, disagreement is part of discussion.  If you disagree with an idea, explaining WHY you disagree can lead to a discussion that fixes whatever it was you disagreed with.  So, I don't agree that disagreement has no place (you see what I did there :P).

 

Personal attacks have no place in any discussions.  All I ever ask of anyone is that they be reasonable, thoughtful and civil.  Sadly, it seems it's sometimes a lot to ask.

[Player-1]

Hey everyone,

 

Speaking for myself as a dev, I do read through the forums somewhat regularly to check on feedback and ideas. There have been several things made by the HC team in the last few years, and even some power related items in development now, that have come from suggestions made in the forums.

 

We set our own schedules, and when inspired can sometimes jump on an idea right away or put it on our to do list and revisit it down the road. It all depends on what we are working on at the time as well as the logistics around an item. Some things can be a quick addition, others may take years depending on code or engine discoveries. It all depends!

 

As @GM_GooglyMoogly says be excellent to one another and debate the idea, not each other. If an idea is solid and presented well, it might just find itself picked up by the team one day.

 

 

[Forager]

36 minutes ago, Player-1 said:

Hey everyone,

 

Speaking for myself as a dev,

 

What do you think about posters arguing that an idea would be too difficult to implement? How valuable is that sort of discussion to you?

[Championess]

11 minutes ago, Forager said:

 

What do you think about posters arguing that an idea would be too difficult to implement? How valuable is that sort of discussion to you?

 

It comes off that the devs may be unbothered any which way about the arguings of suggestions back and forth.  I take it that since they stalk these forums they'll first look at the idea and ascertain on their own whether its worth their time or not and if its interesting they may read further into the discussion to account for what others bring to light.

 

You've been answered in many ways.  If its an idea they like they might humor the suggestion further regardless of what meanies have to say.

[Player-1]

18 minutes ago, Forager said:

 

What do you think about posters arguing that an idea would be too difficult to implement? How valuable is that sort of discussion to you?

 

People are free to discuss how hard something would be to implement. At the end of the day though they aren't the ones who need to tackle the implementation. 

[Forager]

4 hours ago, battlewraith said:

It's the fact that you have armchair developers beating  suggestions like they owe them money and posturing like it really matters, probably turning people off to the forums in the process.

 

Yeah... that. That's who I'm talking about. Did all these folks just assume I meant them?

[Ghost]

Sounds like #1 has been put to bed

 

 

Edited 22 hours ago by Ghost

[battlewraith]

58 minutes ago, Ghost said:

Sounds like #1 has been put to bed

 

 

 

 Ok so you made it look like one of those old person cell phones from the drug store with oversized text. Then you went back and circled those bits in red. LOL!

[Ghost]

4 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

 

 Ok so you made it look like one of those old person cell phones from the drug store with oversized text. Then you went back and circled those bits in red. LOL!

Yes

😉

[TygerDarkstorm]

10 hours ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

 

I found one!

COMPARE: 

TO: 

 

Didn't Black Hole becoming a trawl effect come from the suggestions as well?

[lemming]

3 hours ago, battlewraith said:

 Ok so you made it look like one of those old person cell phones from the drug store with oversized text. Then you went back and circled those bits in red. LOL!

It got the point across, didn't it?

[battlewraith]

21 minutes ago, lemming said:

It got the point across, didn't it?

It spoke volumes.

[golstat2003]

5 hours ago, Player-1 said:

 

People are free to discuss how hard something would be to implement. At the end of the day though they aren't the ones who need to tackle the implementation. 

 

Thanks for saying this. It's been said multiple times in the thread, but seeing an actual dev say this is good.

[skoryy]

5 hours ago, Player-1 said:

 

People are free to discuss how hard something would be to implement. At the end of the day though they aren't the ones who need to tackle the implementation. 

 

As a professional sysadmin myself, let me give y'all a hearty "PREACH."

[Luminara]

[Forager]

Lol... what do y'all think happened? He said you were free to discuss it. You were always free to discuss it. You will always be free to discuss it.

 

Point #1 was that it is stupid. That point still stands tall. I don't think anyone ever even addressed it. You all just argued with the censorship ghost.

 

Y'all gonna latch onto that first sentence like the second one isn't there lol.

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Forager

[Ghost]

8 minutes ago, Forager said:

Lol... what do y'all think happened? He said you were free to discuss it. You were always free to discuss it. You will always be free to discuss it.

 

Point #1 was that it is stupid. That point still stands tall. I don't think anyone ever even addressed it. You all just argued with the censorship ghost.

 

Y'all gonna latch onto that first sentence like the second one isn't there lol.

 

What happened is the Dev did not say what you wanted them to say.  Therefore you do not have a quote to point to and say “see I was right!”

 

There is no arguing point 1.

You think it’s stupid.  Guess what?  Nobody cares.

This forum is not a place where people come to argue about things YOU find stupid.  
I double checked the rules of this forum and nowhere does it say that you are the arbiter of what is stupid.

So while you don’t like it, people will continue to say it.  Get over it.