[1 dismissal] New Suggestion Policies

[Kaed]

There are an uncomfortable number of suggestions that pop up that are, for lack of a better term, sort of garbage, reflexive angry posts in response to something that happened in a round or that were a result of something someone did that made a person real angry.  Sometimes, these opening posts are barely two sentences long, and contain charged, extremely subjective language that makes it clear the writer is mad about something specific.

So I suggest some new policies for posting suggestions that would improve the policies.  Some of these may be untenable to actually enforce, I don't know. They're largely suggestions.

-Require that suggestions to nerf/remove a feature or game mechanic only be posted a minimum of one day after an event occurred during a round that made everyone mad.  People rarely come up with good ideas when they are foaming at the mouth over being killed.

-Require that any suggestion to remove/nerf a feature also include a scenario that occurred that caused you to believe something needs to be nerfed/removed. Just posting statistical data about the item isn't really enough to determine anything.

-Ideally, some commentary of what it would ideally be replaced with. Simply saying 'delet this pls its OP' should not generally be a sufficient opening post.

-Suggestions should strive to be written from an objective standpoint.  Stuff like "I thought this thing would be a good idea, but clearly it is not because XXX" is subjective.  It is not presenting facts, it is presenting charged opinions.  Nor should indirect insults be levelled in the direction of anyone who wants to use said feature or items.  Stuff like 'anyone who uses this item has a small penis and is overcompensating' should not be acceptable.

[Zundy]

Totally agree. It's a common trend to see folks post suggestions to alter the game based on rounds that didn't go very well for them that one time.

[BurgerBB]

Point to me where these sort of thing occurs? I mean I would be fine for better suggestion forums standards but I don't see the issues you're describing.

[Zelmana]

Why should we punish individuals for being concise? If there is a simple change with a very specific reasoning, it can be stated in one to two sentences. The "wait a day" thing would be hard to prove, but I think that would be fine.

[Kaed]

2 minutes ago, Zelmana said:

Why should we punish individuals for being concise? If there is a simple change with a very specific reasoning, it can be stated in one to two sentences. The "wait a day" thing would be hard to prove, but I think that would be fine.

You should think of it as less of a punishment for 'being concise' and more an encouragement to think through and reason, present well thought out points to your argument.  Just because the poster may think their reasoning may be incredibly self evident doesn't mean it is for everyone else.

[Zelmana]

Then it should be an encouragement, not a matter of policy.

[Arrow768]

44 minutes ago, Kaed said:

Require that suggestions to nerf/remove a feature or game mechanic only be posted a minimum of one day after an event occurred during a round that made everyone mad.  People rarely come up with good ideas when they are foaming at the mouth over being killed.

Voting for dismissal as this is impossible to enforce as "event that made everyone mad" is too subjective

[Kaed]

1 minute ago, Arrow768 said:

Voting for dismissal as this is impossible to enforce as "event that made everyone mad" is too subjective

That is literally one of four parts of this suggestion arrow, and I specifically noted not all of them are necessarily tenable.

Did you read the entire post?

Edited March 26, 2019 by Kaed

[BurgerBB]

I also take issue with this because I personally have a diagnosed memory disorder that makes me forget things very easily unless reminded of constantly. It is part of the reason why as dev I would ask people to report bugs on github and usually get mad at bug reporting over OOC; because I'm also mad at myself.

When a problem occurs, I report it instantly because I will forget. It wouldn't be very nice for me nor really anyone else if they're not allowed to complain about a feature using the APPROPRIATE channels to complain about this.

 

I should not be punished because I made a proper thread in the proper channels in a proper timeframe.

[Arrow768]

1 hour ago, Kaed said:

That is literally one of four parts of this suggestion arrow, and I specifically noted not all of them are necessarily tenable.

Did you read the entire post?

Yes, I read the entire post.
But as per our one suggestion per topic rule I treated this as a all-or-nothing thing.

Some other things that are problematic:
 

2 hours ago, Kaed said:

Require that any suggestion to remove/nerf a feature also include a scenario that occurred that caused you to believe something needs to be nerfed/removed. Just posting statistical data about the item isn't really enough to determine anything.

As mentioned by Zelm, I do not see the need for that as there is no issue with being short and to the point.
In addition we already have that in place: "The reasoning behind a suggestion should be elaborated upon in the initial post to a reasonable extent."

2 hours ago, Kaed said:

Ideally, some commentary of what it would ideally be replaced with.

That cant be a hard requirement as there are some situations where it is not applicable to make a suggestion what to replace it with.
If more information is needed to understand the scope of a suggestion, that information can always be requested in the course of the suggestion.

2 hours ago, Kaed said:

Suggestions should strive to be written from an objective standpoint. 

Indeed, but I also do not see an issue if someone sais they do not like something or like something, as long as they provide additional reasoning regarding it, which again ties into the following rule: "The reasoning behind a suggestion should be elaborated upon in the initial post to a reasonable extent."

With new additions it is often not possible to argue from a purely objective standpoint as there is insufficient data without actually trying something out (that is where testmerges and playtesting come in)

2 hours ago, Kaed said:

Nor should indirect insults be levelled in the direction of anyone who wants to use said feature or items.  Stuff like 'anyone who uses this item has a small penis and is overcompensating' should not be acceptable.

This is already unacceptable and should be reported if seen.

[Alberyk]

I agree with arrow's points here.

 

Voting for dismissal as well.