Prefonteen Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 A fine reply and a good question. Thank you, sir. To answer, I would argue that I am discussing how to improve the game as a whole. My main contention is that the game will be improved and actual changes will be easier and less distracting for him to implement if he has buy in from the community. Having transparency in discussion and allowing outside inputs to a more selective group may not always result in buy in, but it cannot hurt in this regard. If the wider community can see what the topics under debate are (there were two suggestions itt about how to do that - both valid) then it seems likely that other ideas will be forwarded to improve the game 'as a whole' as you say. So this is not a suggestion about how to improve the game mechanically. It is a suggestion about how to improve the process for improving the game. Maybe I am missing something. It is clear to me that more transparency will result in more suggestions, admittedly they will run the gambit of good, bad and neutral (as do those in the closed group I assume), however, I am missing any real downside. Will there be 'bad' posts in the game suggestion forum? It is a strongly moderated sub forum so the mods should be able to manage that. So, what is the downside of transparency particularly in the light of improving the game? I do believe there is an argument to be made for transparency, and your points do hold ground. Community support is of importance and continuous improvement of business processes will ultimately increase innovation. The main counterpoint that seems to be brought up on the contrary, is the risk of politics seeping in via proxy lobbying, as well as political repercussions being brought to development group members over their opinion. Logical deduction will likely bring you to the conclusion that there is an inherent risk of this happening, associated with opening up the boards. I can therefore understand the apprehension for doing so. Personally speaking, I have no qualm with either side of the argument, and I will be content with whichever path is chosen. My main objective in interjecting into the discussion, was to provide a counterweight to the increasingly hostile undertone which was being taken to the game developers group as a whole (despite most of us being impartial when involved). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 I can read. I do not need to be in any given group to know how it works. Being dumb and then pretending you were trying to tell a joke is not really a definition problem on my side son. I'm not taking the bait anymore. 7/10 good troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 I toss my $0.02 in on both forums, though it is odd that there is an inner and outer party in terms of suggestions. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) This argument operates on the basis that everyone can always provide relevant, constructive comments every single time, which of course we all know people on Orbis would always freak out first, start bashing second, thinking maybe never. Ugh. Your reply lacks a certain amount of weight on virtually every point. This one in particular is poor. "Everyone can always provide..." No. It absolutly does not operate on that basis. It operates on the basis that there are valuable ideas that can assist the decsion maker in making his final decision. Those ideas may come from the BGEs or they may not. The community as a whole will have good input. It will also have mediocre or bad input...just like the BGE group. You wouldn't believe how much terrible ideas Sheepy had Remember those updates that caused everyone to riot like Jim Carrey on bath salts? I know you can name one or two, and hell in CDD there's like dozens of them, made mostly by Sheepy alone. What is the purpose of CDD? Oh dear. This is depressing. If sheepy has soo many bad ideas then why are you against filtering them through a larger group. Because we may learn that he is human? My goodness. We would not want that. But really, if there are that many bad ideas floated, I doubt it honestly, then we must have more transparency to stop them. I have no idea why I replied to that.... /////////////////////////// I do believe there is an argument to be made for transparency, and your points do hold ground. Community support is of importance and continuous improvement of business processes will ultimately increase innovation. The main counterpoint that seems to be brought up on the contrary, is the risk of politics seeping in via proxy lobbying, as well as political repercussions being brought to development group members over their opinion. Logical deduction will likely bring you to the conclusion that there is an inherent risk of this happening, associated with opening up the boards. I can therefore understand the apprehension for doing so. A fair counterpoint. Allow me to retort. First, I do not believe that the well intentioned players in the BGE group generally intend to bring personal bias into any debate. I believe that they are well intentioned. However, I cannot know this nor can you prove this. The question, or concern, will always remain that Sheepy is receiving biased advice. That being said, there is a relatively easy way to disprove that perception and that concept has relatively low downside and significant upside. With almost any mechanical change there will be winners and losers. This is a fact of life and plays out on a micro level in game. Given that there will be winners and losers, there is always a danger of both real and the perception of bias. My suggestion does not change the makeup of the BGE group nor does it restrict them in any way from posting constructive comments. It simply allows for the likely dispelling of concerns about their bias. It has a significant side benefit in encouraging comment in the appropriate and moderated forum for constructive ideas from the larger plebeian player base. Yet again, I fail to see significant negatives that in any way overwhelm the potential positives of such a construct. However, I welcome your considerate reply as to what I am missing. Edited July 17, 2015 by LordRahl2 2 -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 I'm not taking the bait anymore. 7/10 good troll. really,this thread is a monument to trolls. I salute the effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 really,this thread is a monument to trolls. I salute the effort. I guess it is easier for you to say "they're trolling". 1 Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwynn Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 I guess it is easier for you to say "they're trolling". Well considering that Sheepy has stated, and the past has proven, that suggestions made in the game suggestions forum do have the ability to "make it to the light" so to speak. Many changes and tweaks were done that way. Sheep even locked one of these threads stating that he takes suggestions from the game suggestion forums too. However, clearly LordRahl does not agree. So, either A) he's trolling or he's got some other agenda. Neither are doing him or his arguments any good in my eyes. 1 He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aslan Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 This thread has served it's usefulness. The issue has been addressed by Sheepy and the topic has devolved to squabbling. 4 Forum RulesGame RulesToSWikiRedditIRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts