About PR Approval

[Ornias]

https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=11338&hilit=dungeon&start=60

This PR has significant community pushback. In the recent development cycle, it was added.

It was not tested sufficiently enough, resulting in many hostile mobs simply leaving their locations and falling down holes, attacking the station. Recently, a mining drone blew up a section of the station by shooting a fuel tank.

There are no warning signs for several sections, such as the carp labyrinth. Spawn locations are still very close and easily accessible to the station.

There was no point to this feedback thread. There was no point to the community responding to this. Nobody said 'we're pushing these changes through'. They were just slid through without anyone noticing after the initial thread died down.

Dionaea taking damage from anti-radiation medicine was added without talking to anyone from the community.

Heart damage for food was sprung without warning.

Zo'ra Soda was added without clarifying that it provided literal speed boosts, something the community was at the very least harshly divided on.

This (https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=11882&hilit=thirst) did not mention that it significantly increased reaction to hunger, and if that had not been spotted would likely have been slipped in without notice also.

PR's have been approved against the communities wishes. Things that have a significant effect on play.

If contentious PR's are to be pushed, or PR's with round/race-modifying mechanics are to be implemented, there needs to be, if not a community consensus, at least an explanation as to why. If staff decide a PR is necessary, then that is one thing, but to silently slide things by or to give the illusion of input is unquestionably bad for the community.

Just a system where, if a contentious PR is pushed, a staff member explains that it has and why, and where anything that has the potential to be contentious is publically (and plainly) spoken about, without intent to obfuscate mechanics.

I lvoe , GitHub.

[Arrow768]

Quote

https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=11338&hilit=dungeon&start=60

This PR has significant community pushback. In the recent development cycle, it was added.

It was not tested sufficiently enough, resulting in many hostile mobs simply leaving their locations and falling down holes, attacking the station. Recently, a mining drone blew up a section of the station by shooting a fuel tank.

There are no warning signs for several sections, such as the carp labyrinth. Spawn locations are still very close and easily accessible to the station.

There was no point to this feedback thread. There was no point to the community responding to this. Nobody said 'we're pushing these changes through'. They were just slid through without anyone noticing after the initial thread died down.

• The Dungeons have been removed from the PR this feedback topic is about (after community feedback)
• The PR contained only the framework which allows loading astroid dungeons in preset locations.
• PRs that have been merged can be seen on github as well as the git_log channel on discord. (In addition to the changelog)
• The framework which was contained in that PR has been tested sufficiently. (Again, it did not contain any dungeons, just the mechanic to load them)
• "Recently, a mining drone blew up a section of the station by shooting a fuel tank." - Amazing. A truly random event that noone coded. Be happy about it ,enjoy the RP caused by it and the ability to tell a truly unique story that happened on the station.

 

Quote

Dionaea taking damage from anti-radiation medicine was added without talking to anyone from the community.

This feature has been requested by and coded for the Lore Developer
If you would have bothered to take a look at the PR, you would have seen that.

 

Quote

Heart damage for food was sprung without warning.

This has been elaborated on sufficiently.
I have no interest in repeating that discussion here.
It´s sufficient to say, that this feature has been removed.

 

Quote

Zo'ra Soda was added without clarifying that it provided literal speed boosts, something the community was at the very least harshly divided on.

Which has been nerfed two times (before you made that post; also logged in the changelog)
This is the feedback topic for it.
No community feedback regarding the speed has been provided.
We do not check all channels on all discord servers for "community feedback on certain PRs."
We have feedback topics.
If feedback is not provided in the feedback topic, you can assume that we did not see it.

 

Quote

This (https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=11882&hilit=thirst) did not mention that it significantly increased reaction to hunger, and if that had not been spotted would likely have been slipped in without notice also.

Up until a day ago the PR wasnt even marked as review required -> So nobody reviewed it.

All of those PRs that you mentioned as "problematic" have been changed in some way because of the community feedback or no community feedback has been provided.

[Tailson]

Moved this thread to the Policy Suggestions forum.

[LordFowl]

There was no point to this feedback thread. There was no point to the community responding to this. Nobody said 'we're pushing these changes through'. They were just slid through without anyone noticing after the initial thread died down.

Except that none of the dungeons Burger originally proposed were implemented, and indeed Burger only contributed towards creating the general framework and currently the only extant dungeons are ones Alberyk designed with the community feedback listed in the thread? You seem to be confusing "I don't like these changes" with "The devs ignored community feedback! What bastards!". If you want to further refine the dungeon pool the ability to do so is in your hands, either via contributing your own designs with Github/Suggestions forums or criticizing existing designs. To say that the feedback was utterly pointless and completely ignored is, to be quite frank, absolute bullshit.

 

Dionaea taking damage from anti-radiation medicine was added without talking to anyone from the community.

The Loredevs specifically requested these changes. As developers we like to try and make sure the game actually follows the lore when it is possible for us to do so. If you have a problem with how loredevs conduct their lorewriting then you can speak to them. As far as I know, they are not beholden to a community vote for every change to the lore they make.

 

Heart damage for food was sprung without warning.

What old hat. To try and use this incident as an indictment against the PR-Community relationship is a little narrow in perspective, considering that this specific incident kicked off many of the reforms currently implemented today in the PR process (feedback threads, potential for server polls, etc,.). Which is not to say that this incident was the sole source of these changes - many of them had been in the works beforehand, and many still are.

 

Zo'ra Soda was added without clarifying that it provided literal speed boosts, something the community was at the very least harshly divided on.

The energy boosts provided by Zo'ra soda were clearly demarcated in the original PR. I raised a question about their balance, but discussion was soon overriden by the other prevalent problem which was their wide availability. Sometimes things slip through, which will be discussed in my final point.

 

This (https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=11882&hilit=thirst) did not mention that it significantly increased reaction to hunger, and if that had not been spotted would likely have been slipped in without notice also.

Really? You're using a PR that has not been reviewed yet, much less merged, as an indictment? Okaaay. Not to mention, how is it an indictment that a specific part of the PR was noticed? And how can you say that it would have slipped in without being noticed? You're taking a pretty big leap here.

Not to mention that it's mentioned in the fucking PR exactly what it does, including the hunger reactions,

As I mentioned in the Zo'ra Soda point, sometimes things slip through. Nothing is ever perfect on the first release. But to say that this imperfection is the result of Devs completely ignoring community feedback? This is just wrong. There's no other way to put it. Devs have listened to community feedback every single time it was offered, and in many of these cases community feedback was incorporated. It is an evolving process that requires continual input from both sides.

Nothing is ever "silently slipped in". Every change is reviewed on the Github, merged via the gitbot (which is announced in the Discord), and logged on the changelog. The reasons for merging, and indeed the entire review process, is publicly available on the Github. You do not even need to be Github literate to read it, as the PRs are announced on the Discord. The meat of this post (That developers state publicly when a "contentious" PR has been merged, and provide reasoning for it) already exist. The community at this point is just obstinately refusing to read them.

There is no "illusion" to the input the community provides. I'm sorry. This is just not a thing. Feedback threads are not a magic show, and developers are not some conjurers of cheap tricks.

As a final point, something that I have noticed and that this post certainly demonstrates, is that the community can sometimes be a little illiterate when it comes to reading pull requests. Developers have long abandoned the notion that the community will be able to read the code, or even to navigate the Github proficiently, which is fair. But when a feedback thread links directly to the Github PR in question, and all of the important components (synopsis, reviews, heated shitposting, discussion) is written in plain English (As was the case for at least 2 of the points raised above, the Zo'ra soda PR and the Thirst pr), then it's not the developer's fault that the community as a whole (or more typically a vocal minority) fails to interpret. It is a two-way road.

[Skull132]

A lot has already been said. So I am going to simply reinforce some of the points.

First, note that the dungeons PR was effectively gutted to a framework PR as a result of considerations over the matter. Even the changelog says as much: "Implements a framework for random dungeons." Useful code is, well, useful. (And note that we are not obligated to even log framework and code structure changes, but Burger decided to do so anyways.) Granted, Alberyk did later on implement his own dungeons, which are now live, but I've yet to see a full feedback topic about that: Alberyk's PR is August update, your thread stops before the June update. There's a few other PRs that were gutted or heavily reworked based on our general gameplay direction and community feedback, but uh, I forget them. Well, if you want to go ages back, then hunger memes as well.

As for lore. When it comes to lore related changes, the only thing the development staff takes responsibility for is preserving the general balance of gameplay and quality of code. While I understand that this sounds like a ring-around-the-rosie type of point to make, it's worth making to maintain the cooperation between departments. How lore comes up with their changes, presents them, and reviews them is up to them. So you might want to direct this criticism at [mention]Senpai Jackboot[/mention].

The zoda is subject to post-release tweaking and review. This has already partly taken place, with Paradox possibly working on further further improvements for next release. This is literally how the game goes: the effect of certain PRs is impossible to gauge until they hit the floor. And once they do hit the floor, tweaks and changes are made.

I will leave without comment the mentions of PRs still under review. Since we are always running a backlog of PRs to review, we cannot possibly say our opinions on every PR the moment they land.

Ultimately, though, I would like to note that most cases of negative feedback on a feature are recognize at some point down the line and fixed. Whether it's before, or after, is arbitrary. As already noted, the effect of every PR cannot be predicted an even if you can say, "I knew this would end badly!" there are cases where we would still like to try. Some of those cases end with the prediction being false, folks getting used to the new mechanics, and life carrying on as normal. Other times, we simply revert it. That's how life goes.

[Scheveningen]

While I was one of the few that provided a +1 to the Zoda suggestion, there is a particular point to be addressed about the initial PR. It wasn't once stated that the zoda was supposed to "get you high" in a way that makes it equivalent to stimulants. I don't think anyone aside from the individuals who looked into the code would recognize the possible effect that it would have.

I do agree with Ornias that it was extremely problematic that it went through, and it was only caught because certain members of the community were being extremely unsubtle in their use of the new mechanic, but it was caught soon enough that some weeks down the line people are gonna forget this ever happened. But, frankly, it's too easy to assume malicious intent even though it's not fair to. It was more likely that the PR author [mention]ParadoxSpace[/mention] just didn't know how caffeine stacking works, nor did anyone know about it, for that matter. I didn't either, frankly, I wasn't aware that you could attain an average speed of 5 tiles per second while walking and around 10-12 while sprinting.

I'm probably just gonna repeat or say whatever has been said above already, but here's my viewpoint on the whole thing:

1. It's a courtesy to test your proposed features and try to find ways to abuse them before proposing them in a PR for the sake of Quality Assurance, but not everyone has time for this.

2. It's a courtesy to catalogue everything you implemented, but sometimes things slip and a changelog doesn't adequately explain every single system that's changed. Not everyone has time to fill out exact infographics to assist people in understanding what their PR does.

3. Most of the changes proposed only affect certain percentages of the entire playerbase due to their playstyles. The average casual player who doesn't use the forums, don't use the github, doesn't use the discord and just plays on the server to chill out and have fun also doesn't give a damn about all these things pertaining to balance or whatever. They're just present to play a brutal spaceman simulator with the hopes that they'll die in some very entertaining way or potentially survive a clown fiesta of a round.

Also worth noting that it's difficult to gauge what the community wants out of the game especially when the developer team and the individual contributors each have different goals in mind for what they plan to do in implementation. Especially what with the nature of the community and how opinions coming from each community member is generally considered to be in the minority for each individual. SS13 is generally kept continuously alive with hobbyist development and volunteer work. Aurora used to be super dead back when updates occurred once every three months because developer interest was so scarce when SoundScopes ran the show. Not solely because of him, but because Aurora was super unlucky and didn't have development interest at the time. Aurora stagnated for a very long time without a particular direction outside of simply existing.

If there were easy solutions to these issues, the avenues would be seized hastily by the aforementioned development team. Wandering outside the already set procedures and tentative order that barely exists is just recipe for more chaos and walking in circles.

[Ornias]

holy moly, that's a lot of hostility. i wasn't being aggressive in my first post, i was being plain and to the point. the implication that i didn't read a single one of the pull requests is incorrect.

to clarify: i'm not implying there was a single malicious act conducted here. i'm saying that, entirely as a result of either poor communication, bad luck, or misunderstanding, there have been times where PR's that were highly contentious were pushed through without properly informing the community.

 

Zo'ra Soda was added without clarifying that it provided literal speed boosts, something the community was at the very least harshly divided on.

Which has been nerfed two times (before you made that post; also logged in the changelog)

This is the feedback topic for it.

No community feedback regarding the speed has been provided.

We do not check all channels on all discord servers for "community feedback on certain PRs."

We have feedback topics.

If feedback is not provided in the feedback topic, you can assume that we did not see it.

That thread does not mention anywhere that it provides speed boosts. Even within the PR, it does not mention it in the opening post.

 

Except that none of the dungeons Burger originally proposed were implemented, and indeed Burger only contributed towards creating the general framework and currently the only extant dungeons are ones Alberyk designed with the community feedback listed in the thread? You seem to be confusing "I don't like these changes" with "The devs ignored community feedback! What bastards!". If you want to further refine the dungeon pool the ability to do so is in your hands, either via contributing your own designs with Github/Suggestions forums or criticizing existing designs. To say that the feedback was utterly pointless and completely ignored is, to be quite frank, absolute bullshit.

Lmao maybe I'm confusing it because nobody actually talked to anyone about it.

That's what this is all about, a lack of communication. The changes still have many of the issues raised in the thread and more.

 

Dionaea taking damage from anti-radiation medicine was added without talking to anyone from the community.

The Loredevs specifically requested these changes. As developers we like to try and make sure the game actually follows the lore when it is possible for us to do so. If you have a problem with how loredevs conduct their lorewriting then you can speak to them. As far as I know, they are not beholden to a community vote for every change to the lore they make.

Understandable. I was aware that it was in response to some form of lore sentiment, but something (in my opinion, rather silly) affecting a species like this would have benefitted from more community interaction for alternatives. That said, perhaps it is more fair to direct that to the lore team.

 

Heart damage for food was sprung without warning.

What old hat. To try and use this incident as an indictment against the PR-Community relationship is a little narrow in perspective, considering that this specific incident kicked off many of the reforms currently implemented today in the PR process (feedback threads, potential for server polls, etc,.). Which is not to say that this incident was the sole source of these changes - many of them had been in the works beforehand, and many still are.

Great news! We don't know that! Because it hasn't been communicated, once again. Again, I'm not going out guns blazing saying 'fuck the coding team', and I don't like the implication that I am.

 

Zo'ra Soda was added without clarifying that it provided literal speed boosts, something the community was at the very least harshly divided on.

The energy boosts provided by Zo'ra soda were clearly demarcated in the original PR. I raised a question about their balance, but discussion was soon overriden by the other prevalent problem which was their wide availability. Sometimes things slip through, which will be discussed in my final point.

No, it wasn't. It was mentioned they were 'energy drinks', which gives absolutely no notion that they would be providing speed boosts on a HRP server. The failure to properly list these features was by no means malicious, but if repeated, will create similar issues.

 

This (https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=11882&hilit=thirst) did not mention that it significantly increased reaction to hunger, and if that had not been spotted would likely have been slipped in without notice also.

Really? You're using a PR that has not been reviewed yet, much less merged, as an indictment? Okaaay. Not to mention, how is it an indictment that a specific part of the PR was noticed? And how can you say that it would have slipped in without being noticed? You're taking a pretty big leap here.

Not to mention that it's mentioned in the fucking PR exactly what it does, including the hunger reactions,

But not in the thread.

That's more or less the issues, the terms around the purpose and requirements of a feedback thread are unclear. Nobody called it out.

 

Nothing is ever "silently slipped in". Every change is reviewed on the Github, merged via the gitbot (which is announced in the Discord), and logged on the changelog. The reasons for merging, and indeed the entire review process, is publicly available on the Github. You do not even need to be Github literate to read it, as the PRs are announced on the Discord. The meat of this post (That developers state publicly when a "contentious" PR has been merged, and provide reasoning for it) already exist. The community at this point is just obstinately refusing to read them.

 

I think this is a large part of the issue. No, people don't see what goes through on Github. The changelog is for when features are already implemented. You're misinterpreting what I mean by 'silently slipped in'. I mean it's put in without prior notice to the community. No, there's no compulsion to do so. But it would benefit everyone, if only so that everyone can understand why and know that their opinions were heard and considered.

 

Now with that out the way, thanks to Skull and Scheveningen for their insight. I'm glad to say the Zo'ra soda issue is regarded as an outlier in this respect. Once again, however, post-update changes may well fix an issue, but the problem is that these changes weren't highlighted publically.

But once again, I read every single one of those PR's and threads before I posted on it. The issue is that they weren't clear in highlighting certain things, be it the changes or the response to feedback. When a change goes through despite massive pushback, and we see significant issues arise on station (from a believability, gameplay, or roleplay standpoint) because of reasons predicted beforehand, then there's very little else to say but it will by nature give the impression of feedback being ignored.

As already noted, the effect of every PR cannot be predicted an even if you can say, "I knew this would end badly!" there are cases where we would still like to try.

This is a very good point. In future, though, even a single post at the end of a discussion highlighting that it's being tested, and highlighting that feedback was listened to, would help avoid this frustration in future.

i LOVE GitHub, ,,

[LordFowl]

Great news! We don't know that! Because it hasn't been communicated, once again. Again, I'm not going out guns blazing saying 'fuck the coding team', and I don't like the implication that I am.

The sudden implementation of consistent feedback threads (including an announcement regarding their purpose of heightening community/developer), the implementation of server-based polls regarding particularly contentious PRs, and the implementation of a contributor reviews (also announced on the discord) didn't tip you off? As far as I know you are correct in that no connection between these developments and the initial PR was made, but no connection needed to be made;

1) As I said, the PR and resulting controversy were not the sole impetus for these developments. They just served as further encouragement for their implementation.

2) Even if it was, linking the PR to the developments would not be necessary. The feedback threads and etcetera are designed to prevent and alleviate future misunderstandings, not to try and justify past ones. I mention it now only as a matter of history because I assume most of the kneejerk opinions on the incident have died down.

 

No, it wasn't. It was mentioned they were 'energy drinks', which gives absolutely no notion that they would be providing speed boosts on a HRP server. The failure to properly list these features was by no means malicious, but if repeated, will create similar issues.

By clearly demarcated I mean that it was clearly indicated in the code and subsequently pointed out in a review comment. The issue was forgotten by reviewers (which is an error) when the more pressing issue of availability of the item was raised. But that does not mean that the review was not clearly demarcated. All reviews are written in plain english. They require 0 code literacy to read, and anyone of the community who wishes to be interested in the developments of the server should read them, as they often provide insight on the PR from the perspective of the person who did not write the PR nor write the feedback thread.

 

But not in the thread.

That's more or less the issues, the terms around the purpose and requirements of a feedback thread are unclear. Nobody called it out.

When a feedback thread links to a PR, and even says in the feedback thread; "read the PR for more information", and then in the PR discusses the impact on hunger (as was the case for the specific incident highlighted here), I see no difference between posting the PR's synopsis in the forum and posting the PR's synopsis in the GitHub. By providing a direct link to the two you have effectively done so, and unless people are willfully ignoring the GitHub synopsis' (Which is frankly hard to excuse, considering they are in plain English) then I don't know what to say for them except that they reap what they sow. Especially when the opening post of a feedback thread is just a link to the PR's (in-depth) synopsis.

I find no fault in Burger's presentation of his PR (without going into detail about the merits of the PR which except for rhetorical purposes are irrelevant). His synopsis was clearly laid out and went over the major mechanical features in-depth (including the specific feature you find issue with). If nobody pointed out their problem with this feature the onus is on them, as Burger made no attempt to conceal or misdirect or even miscommunicate his intentions.

 

I think this is a large part of the issue. No, people don't see what goes through on Github. The changelog is for when features are already implemented. You're misinterpreting what I mean by 'silently slipped in'. I mean it's put in without prior notice to the community. No, there's no compulsion to do so. But it would benefit everyone, if only so that everyone can understand why and know that their opinions were heard and considered.

The meme is cute, and my saying this will probably be interpreted as another "outrageously unjustifiable attack on the community", but the community is a little out of touch. (And at this point the use of the word "community" is very tenuous, as Schev points out the community is far more diverse than is typically presented in these arguments.)

If the community wants to be deeply involved in the developments and current events regarding their server, that is fine. I encourage it. It is citizen politics on a naturally greatly reduced scale. But just like in citizen politics, the community needs to show a little commitment. As I said, the road is two-way, and the developers have made a great effort in reducing the obscure, arcane, and eldritch principles of the code down into the common denominator of base English. It is too much of me to expect even the most dedicated of the average community member to have to learn code to be able to participate in discussion of its impact. It is not too much of me to expect them to learn English.

You yourself have stated that you've read every single one of the relevant PRs. This is not a distinction - it should be expected, and we cultivate this expectation by demanding that every feedback thread links directly and visibly to the relevant PR, and vice versa. If people are not seeing what goes through on the Github (which is linked in every feedback thread), then they are willfully ignoring the Github, and showing a rather severe lack of dedication to the notion of them shaping server developments. I am sorry if this opinion makes it seem like I am some sort of sneering asshole who looks down upon the community, because that is not my intent. I don't think I am asking to much. The links are provided, and the synopsis page of the GitHub is not complex. Copy-pasting every review and every update to the forum is unnecessary when the links are clearly provided. Even your request for some ultimate statement on each PR explaining why it was approved and merged is often satisfied on many PRs when the final approving review is given (Although this is not mandatory).

Trite, copy-paste posts planted at the end of every discussion thread saying in so many words "Dear, community. This feature is being tested. Your feedback is being listened to!", as you suggest, achieves nothing, even if it makes people feel a little better. If you personally require this assurance, then allow me to provide it here and now only once, without filling the projects subforums with it;

Features get tested. Your feedback gets listened to.

Sometimes feature testing is poor or spotty. These issues are quickly rectified and patched to master.

Sometimes feedback gets tangled up, and sometimes we have to just say no. The first is inevitable but a learning experience. The second is just a reasonable outcome in every discussion.

Let me clarify that I have no hostility towards you. The only hostility I have is towards the notion that "developers ignore feedback!" or "the developers don't change their minds" or any imaginable permutation of those ideas. I am hostile towards these notions because they're just wrong. Developers have showed consistent and evolving commitment in their efforts to both include the community in development (via greater recognition of contributors as collaborators and involving them in the review process) and present development in such a way as to allow the community to discuss it (via feedback threads that link directly to the relevant PR and on-server polls regarding particularly contentious PRs.) These developments are still on-going. The developers are dedicated to their bit.

I really don't know how to break the issue down Barney-style any better than we've done so far. What could be simpler and more direct than an actual direct link to the PR in the highly visible and categorized feedback threads that are accessible to everyone on the forum without any attempt at camouflage? What could be more comprehensive than every PR synopsis and every review being written in English, with code-jargon restricted only to comments reviewing jargon filled code itself?

[BurgerBB]

This (https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=11882&hilit=thirst) did not mention that it significantly increased reaction to hunger, and if that had not been spotted would likely have been slipped in without notice also.

 

Incredibly false. Reread the github PR.

"Penalties for not eating or drinking are now more severe. If you refuse to drink or eat all shift, you will be 4 times slower and take 4 times more pain damage. The amount scales based on your hunger or thirst levels. If you are considered hungry or thirsty, it starts scaling at 1 all the way to 4, until you're starving or seriously dehydrated. If you overeat and overdrink as well, you get a 25% reduced movement and pain tolerance with each mechanic."

So pretty much everything you posted here was wrong but I'm going to comment on your idea anyways, which is how community should have a say in what gets added to the server. However, the community already has a say in the matter. If enough people actually argue and provide points as to why something shouldn't be added, the developers will likely not add the PR if there is a valid reason. it does matter and should not matter if a million people say that a PR is worse than sliced hitler, all that matters is the arguments put forth and the actual implementation of a PR.

If the popular vote dictated what gets added or removed to the server, then there would barley be any contributions. People are more willing to complain about a feature than complement, virtually every PR that I've made has had massive -1s from the same few people. The PR gets added regardless and no one complains about it post-implementation because the complaints are almost always over-exaggerated.

[Ornias]

(A very long, well thought out post)

This is a very long, well thought out post. I'll clarify a few things then leave it at that.

 

I find no fault in Burger's presentation of his PR (without going into detail about the merits of the PR which except for rhetorical purposes are irrelevant). His synopsis was clearly laid out and went over the major mechanical features in-depth (including the specific feature you find issue with). If nobody pointed out their problem with this feature the onus is on them, as Burger made no attempt to conceal or misdirect or even miscommunicate his intentions.

Again, I have no doubt it was unintentional. Burger does not make any attempt to hide what he intends to implement, and I give him credit for it. But the average player looks at a forum post, and assumes that the Github is for coders, and the feedback thread is for the laysmans terms.

The issue arises in that the perspective of someone on the coding team, or who interacts with development often, is different from that of someone who has no such interaction. Things are not as clearly communicated between the two sides; despite a lot of the material being there, it is not always so easy to ascertain. Further, I still stand by the idea that contentious PRs should be a public matter. Of course, staff have the final say, but courtesy would dictate that that 'copy-paste post' does exist. It doesn't provide anything other than being polite and keeping people informed of what is going on, and that's all it needs to provide.

i........... LOVE github,

[Skull132]

Just to point out a few things.

First, this here:

Once again, however, post-update changes may well fix an issue, but the problem is that these changes weren't highlighted publicly.

 

This is patently false. All fixes that affect gameplay or are visible, including this one, are required to include with them a changelog. This changelog is clearly visible every time you log into the game, and even highlighted at two different places to grab your attention (greeting window and the button itself). Herein comes the crux of the matter: much like developers are required to log their changes, the playerbase is required to consult the changelog for new gameplay tweaks. The changelog is the central system that the developers use to notify the playerbase of any change that is visible to the player, and done via updating the code. From there, the player is free to trawl around github or the suggestions/projects forums looking for specifics, or to consult a dev.

As for the courtesy of the "copy paste post". No, this is not a courtesy, it is courtesy for you to follow the links attached to certain feedback and project posts in an effort to immerse yourself in the two discussions that have taken place. It is courtesy for us to put those links up and to ensure that every gameplay altering item ends up clearly logged in the changelog. As Fowl very astutely pointed out in his original post, this is a two way road. As far as comparisons go, even among SS13 communities, we have one of the more publicly integrated development processes. Taking it any further would not benefit much, and would demand more effort than it could potentially be worth.

[Arrow768]

Moving this to the dismissed suggestions for the following reasons:

• OP has not responded within 5 months.
• All PRs mentioned as "problematic" by the OP have either been tweaked as a result of community feedback or no community feedback has been provided.
• We already had a suggestions forum, a projects forum as well as serverside polls for contentious features before this topic has been created.