Suggestions Forum change

[Steve]

Everyone makes mistakes, it's fair to correct them when they happen.

And/or, there could be some allowance for debate before those "mistakes" are made. Appropriate or not appropriate, to a community-powered environment such as BGTSCC? Or am I wrong in either of those assessments?

[Steve]

During a chat with other staff members I learned that the devs are not even required to tell QC about a mechanical addition or change, even if it has balance effects. I realise and often say that QC is an advisory role and not a decision making one, but this is beside the point I'm getting at here: If no where along the line anyone are required to air their suggestions to a potential "no", then there is a serious flaw in the system.

I think DG has hit the nail on the head, in the above quote.

As a Player, I would be fine with a system where a Player can make a Suggestion in the right Thread, and have some reasonable expectation that the suggestion will be responded to, at least acknowledged, by a member of QC...and only QC. If it needs to come to that, in order that the Admin(s) feel it reduces the not-very-concretely-identified "toxicity" that exists on the Forums.

I would support QC having the Role of being the debate team, for and against any submitted idea, with the general support that the Player base gets to make a suggestion, without a semi-open debate now held by Players, with some being censored and others not (which simply puts the onus on the Moderators to act with neutrality and wisdom...).

But it appears, that currently, the Admin group—at least some—and possibly the DMs...at least some...feel the Player base—or just some—are not valuable, in their interest in promoting information, opinion and theory. I realize this isn't a democracy, but if you want a community of interested and caring members, you have to support their needs, as much as the needs of the higher ups.

And if any Player feels slighted that their non-Staff opinion will no longer be "heard" by posting in a Suggestion thread, then ask or recruit that Player to become part of QC...unless, of course, QC feels that a fair but limited Team is best, so that discussion and debate can be held in a timely and useful manner.

[Akroma666]

I agree with Steve,

I think if you want to be part of the the server and submit an idea, anyone should be allowed to do it. Shoot even I would gladly submit each indivial idea to QC for review on a case by case basis or moderate a forum to allow those ideas get submitted for QC debate. I think there's a problem though with the current QC then which is its an application group. If debates are being discussed by the group and the players want a say, there should be a community pool or open topic to major changes or QC should be transparent and open for those interested in joining. Maybe put a reasonable in-game or forum time requirement minimum so not every level 2 newbie joins up but still it should be open to all to share their opinions and discussion. Or at least view the discussion.

Course, I've felt since day one QC suggestions/discussion should be transparent for all the community.

[Maecius]

I've updated the suggestions rules to better reflect our desired intent, and to hopefully address some of the concerns of the community. I've left the original version active in the "bug reports" forum for those who would like to do a comparison.

If there remain issues with the rewritten rules, let us know:

The following rules are in addition to the existing forum rules, but only impact the "Suggestions and Discussion" subforum. Their intent is to keep this area of the forums useful to the developers:

Do not post personal attacks, sarcastic or denigrating shut downs, or straw man or slippery slope-style arguments in reaction to any of the suggestions here. If your post is felt to be in any way hostile or inflammatory, it will be removed. Everyone is welcome to share their ideas here, and should not be made to feel that they are not.

Limit reactions to suggestions to a single post, unless you're only asking for additional details. State your opinion clearly and politely, and leave it at that. Don't let yourself get involved in a prolonged argument with other players. These back-and-forth forum fights make it difficult for the developers to understand who wants to see a suggestion implemented--and who does not want to see a suggestion implemented. Do not clutter the threads trying to debate one another. Remember: You're trying to convince the developers that the suggestion is desirable or undesirable, not each other.

Do not post community-wide polls in an effort to strong-arm the developers with a "popular opinion" or bandwagon argument. QC, the DMs, the developers themselves, or the admins will post polls when they seek community feedback on an idea that they are actively considering implementing.

It is our hope that these add-ons to the existing rules will make these forums more productive for and more useful to the server. Thank you.

With regards to rule #3, we might just turn off user polls for non-staff groups. But that will depend on whether we decide whether these rules should be a lasting feature of those forums or not.

[Tantive]

With regards to rule #3, we might just turn off user polls for non-staff groups. But that will depend on whether we decide whether these rules should be a lasting feature of those forums or not.

Polls sometimes are used in guild forums. It would be welcome to be more discriminatory in scope of removal

[Maecius]

^ It would just be for the forums in question ("Suggestions and Discussion") if we go that route. Polls would still be active on the other forums they are currently active on.

[Akroma666]

Posting a poll violates rule 3 and we can just lock the thread unless its done by a QC member.

[Aspect of Sorrow]

Posting a poll violates rule 3 and we can just lock the thread unless its done by a QC member.

It would be more reliable to manage it from the built in forum usergroup permission mask for that subforum.

[Deathgrowl]

Posting polls on the public forum isn't really effective or reliable anyways. There's too much possibility of using several accounts to skew the results, for instance.

These are an improvement to the previous version, though. #1 is a little bit scarily worded, but other than that, all good.