Suggestion Forum Rule Amendments Open Discussion (Jan 11th)

Leinfors

Quality Assurance
Staff member
Moderator
Re-Logic
One thing I'm going to add into the overall rule supplement, and I'd like some feedback on it from you guys is this:

- As the behavioral expectations being put into effect are somewhat stricter than on the rest of the forums (due to the somewhat more pervasive atmosphere of rudeness in the section), infraction points are going to be used less often (though still used) as a response to rule-breaking posts, and more often replaced with thread bans for unconstructive hostile posting.
- Persistent unconstructive posting in the Suggestion forum may lead to temporary bans from posting in the entire Suggestion section. Further posting of this nature may lead to permanent banning from the section, rather than significant warning point infractions on the individual in question.

This is a useful tool at our disposal, because one of the trends we've seen are posters who, in all other areas of the forum, act relatively respectfully, but lose that professionalism when responding to suggestions. These are people who are assets to the community, and rather than give repeated warning points in excess to the point of reaching temp-ban levels or worse, we think that removal from the section may be a better solution.

Thoughts guys?
 

Jerion 'Wyverntamer' Kràl

Empress of Light
One thing I'm going to add into the overall rule supplement, and I'd like some feedback on it from you guys is this:

- As the behavioral expectations being put into effect are somewhat stricter than on the rest of the forums (due to the somewhat more pervasive atmosphere of rudeness in the section), infraction points are going to be used less often (though still used) as a response to rule-breaking posts, and more often replaced with thread bans for unconstructive hostile posting.
- Persistent unconstructive posting in the Suggestion forum may lead to temporary bans from posting in the entire Suggestion section. Further posting of this nature may lead to permanent banning from the section, rather than significant warning point infractions on the individual in question.

This is a useful tool at our disposal, because one of the trends we've seen are posters who, in all other areas of the forum, act relatively respectfully, but lose that professionalism when responding to suggestions. These are people who are assets to the community, and rather than give repeated warning points in excess to the point of reaching temp-ban levels or worse, we think that removal from the section may be a better solution.

Thoughts guys?
I completely agree with this, except that if someone gets banned from the suggestion forums it is replacing the warning points, I think that if someone is going so far that they are being banned from an entire subsection of this forum they should also be getting at least some warning points, though that is just my opinion.
 

Leinfors

Quality Assurance
Staff member
Moderator
Re-Logic
See what I mean about constructive criticism? Without it, it doesn't help anything. *shrugs*

I completely agree with this, except that if someone gets banned from the suggestion forums it is replacing the warning points, I think that if someone is going so far that they are being banned from an entire subsection of this forum they should also be getting at least some warning points, though that is just my opinion.

Its not a complete replacement . . . when we say "persistent" posting, that to me says 4-7 instances (not an official number, just what feels right to me) to warrant a temporary or permanent sectional ban. But keep in mind, if they were getting warning points, that would then be 4-7 distinct warning points given, and that's only if it was 1-point warnings each time. Following up that with a 2-3 point warning along with the sectional ban . . . that is a pretty intense amount of warnings, enough to get a one week ban, and then a two week ban when 10 points is hit. That, in my mind, is the issue I would rather see avoided with thread or sectional bans, rather than see people permanently gone from the forums.

The suggestions section is a very unique place in the forums, a crucible of creativity and critique, so it encourages a certain type of "critical spirit" that I think some people have a hard time with. It doesn't mean they are bad people or people who don't belong on these forums . . . it might just mean the spirit of the section has a negative synergy with them. And maybe its just the culture of the section, with lingering elitism from TO, and a few months with these in place could see things calm down, at which point the strictness here could be relaxed a bit.
 
Last edited:

Leinfors

Quality Assurance
Staff member
Moderator
Re-Logic
Nothing is retroactive. While old posts are still subject to normal rules, if someone were to report a post from January 5th a month or two from now because it said "nopenopenope", we are most likely not going to act on it. These are rule changes; how can we possibly hold people accountable for a policy shift that happened after we made the post? But old suggestions get new posts, and those new posts will count.

Everything is based on post date . . . posts made after the 20th in old suggestions count, but posts made before the 20th don't. That said, I'm making posts in the section when I see "posts that fit the criteria", letting people know about the policy change and linking them to the new rules, so that people can learn. I don't want people to get surprise infractions because we quietly made a rule change . . . I want this to be as visible as possible, and give people as MANY chances as possible to learn the new rules, ask questions, and have time to adjust their posting style. We'd much prefer people to change on their own, rather than have to give warnings until it sticks. :(

One of the things this should mean for upcoming suggesters is that we hope this leads for less hostile reaction to more controversial ideas. Then, if the suggester has a unreasonable reaction to the feedback, we can look at the thread and say "no, everyone here was completely reasonable, it is the suggester in the wrong here". Right now, we can't say to these people "you are overreacting, everyone has been respectful" because they haven't. Sure, they are still overreacting, but its almost justified. Once the responses are more in line, new suggesters can better learn proper posting procedure without having to constantly monitor their threads for excessive rudeness.

That is my hope, anyway.
 

Loki

Consigliere
Staff member
Re-Logic
Administrator
How exactly does asking for a certain level of decorum - one expected and demonstrated across the rest of the forum - in suggestions "kill" TCF?

How does staff openly asking about and seeking community feedback on the use of alternate tools rather than the blunt instrument of "points and bans" kill the forum?

Serious question.
 

CraftedNightmare Here!

Official Terrarian
How exactly does asking for a certain level of decorum - one expected and demonstrated across the rest of the forum - in suggestions "kill" TCF?

How does staff openly asking about and seeking community feedback on the use of alternate tools rather than the blunt instrument of "points and bans" kill the forum?

Serious question.
And a powerful one
 

Hie the Badger

The Destroyer
I don't agree with 90% of the suggestions (looking at you, armor durability), I don't even like MY suggestions. But I don't see any reason to go to a suggestion thread just to say "NO, :red: YOUR SUGGESTION". You can say "I don't like this suggestion because it makes the game too hard for me. " Or "I can't agree with this suggestion because it makes my parakeet catch on fire." Those are infinitely better than some of the posts I've seen in there.

If you explode, the people who matter won't even consider your argument. So people who blast hot slag all over the OP anyway should receive the same punishment as they would on any other part of the forum.

But that's just my suggestion.
 

Notso

Official Terrarian
I'm playing devil's advocate here, but how is a "Oh my gosh this is a great idea" any more helpful to a thread than "Oh my gosh no this is an awful idea"? Neither contribute anything to the idea; the only difference is that one boosts the OP's ego and the other flattens it.

Side note - what is TCF? :dryadhappy:
 

Kazzymodus

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
I'm playing devil's advocate here, but how is a "Oh my gosh this is a great idea" any more helpful to a thread than "Oh my gosh no this is an awful idea"? Neither contribute anything to the idea; the only difference is that one boosts the OP's ego and the other flattens it.
Being unconditionally positive is just as unhelpful as being unconditionally negative in my opinion, this is why I personally consider post consisting of simply "I support" or "I approve of this suggestion" to be Lack of Content as well (not offendable, of course, you can't expect everyone to know about game design). Then again, it's not emotionally harmful. Which is sort of the crux here.

This unconditional positivity includes certain people who get lots of likes for their suggestions because they were made by said certain people as opposed to their suggestion being good (not giving any names). Those are not mutually exclusive, but it does happen.
Side note - what is TCF? :dryadhappy:
Terraria Community Forums.
 

DarthEnderX

Terrarian
The only one of these new guidelines I don't agree with is that, for some reason, brevity is seen as a negative when it comes to not liking a suggestion.

Especially when one of the later guidelines discourages getting into prolonged arguments.

Why isn't it okay to simply express that I don't like a suggestion? That not wanting a suggestion to get added to the game is somehow taking a jab at the creator. And that maybe I don't have any constructive feedback because I don't like any aspect of the suggestion and don't see how it can be salvaged?

Being unconditionally positive is just as unhelpful as being unconditionally negative in my opinion, this is why I personally consider post consisting of simply "I support" or "I approve of this suggestion" to be Lack of Content as well
I completely disagree.

I think posting things you yourself want to see in the game, or workshopping other people's ideas is only part of the reason that the suggestion forums exist. And I think that line of thinking completely negates the other, possibly more important purpose of those forums.

Which is, to support ideas you want to see added, and to express your dislike for ideas you don't want to see added. And that developers, upon reading the forums, can see this support/dislike, and consider the ideas accordingly based on the level of player support.

If you take away a poster's ability to express that without writing a complicated dissertation on the matter explaining what is, ultimately, just the way they feel, you're drastically hampering their ability to convey what they do or don't want to see added to the game.
 
Last edited:

Tsuki

Party Girl
The only one of these new guidelines I don't agree with is that, for some reason, brevity is seen as a negative when it comes to not liking a suggestion.

Especially when one of the later guidelines discourages getting into prolonged arguments.

Why isn't it okay to simply express that I don't like a suggestion? That not wanting a suggestion to get added to the game is somehow taking a jab at the creator. And that maybe I don't have any constructive feedback because I don't like any aspect of the suggestion and don't see how it can be salvaged?

I disagree.
 

Leinfors

Quality Assurance
Staff member
Moderator
Re-Logic
If you explode, the people who matter won't even consider your argument. So people who blast hot slag all over the OP anyway should receive the same punishment as they would on any other part of the forum.

There are some complicated reasons why we didn't just do that . . . technically speaking, and I mean this in all serious, most of these rules were "already in place". The issue was that the Suggestions forum had a heck of a lot of "almost bad enough for a warning, but not quite" posts, to the extent that there would be threads with 10-20 different posts that "could" be warned but probably shouldn't. It was hard to justify dishing out a dozen warning points (its also a ton of work, and hours of dealing with upset people later who didn't think their post was "that bad") for posts in a single thread when there were literally hundreds of similar posts that got off free in the rest of the section. How do you explain to people that? "Well, I know that the average standard of the section allows this sort of post, but we decided to take a stand in this thread, and you were one of the people who suffered for it." You ended up giving warnings for the 1 or 2 absolute worse, and a verbal warning for the whole thread to get on track, which sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't.

The overall tone of the section, found in dozens if not hundreds of threads, wasn't okay, but there is no way to seriously go and handle such a mass of posts. The ONLY way to address it in the grand scheme of things is to have a highly visible campaign to re-organize of the rules, so that as many people as possible KNOW the changes . . . and then to act on it moving forward (a retroactive policy would not only be impossible, but unfair). I've said before that our goal isn't to get people in trouble . . . I don't want people being surprised by these rules and then getting a warning. This is why we didn't just give out the warnings before, the section as a whole had made it "okay". I'm posting daily in the section with links to the new changes though, so I'm hoping that will give all the visibility it needs.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but how is a "Oh my gosh this is a great idea" any more helpful to a thread than "Oh my gosh no this is an awful idea"? Neither contribute anything to the idea; the only difference is that one boosts the OP's ego and the other flattens it.
Side note - what is TCF? :dryadhappy:

Oddly enough, post count total is one of the things that brings "attention", usually recognition to a thread. People sharing their positive support for a good idea is an easy indicator of popularity . . . which, admittedly, they can just do with the like button, but this is true over the whole forums. We rarely are going to act on someone who is just so happy they have to say "I love this". Its a positive, if not particularly constructive, addition. It means the person is expressing "I don't think there need to be changes, I support this for adding to the game", which speaks at least some volume. What else is there to say, after all, if you already approve?

Saying "I don't like this" . . . well, that doesn't help much. WHY don't you like it. Is the suggestion something that can be fixed? Is it just "one change away" from making it okay, or is it something you would never like? A negative stance on a topic, by its very nature, implies there is something more to share (something isn't right with this), and by not sharing, you really aren't accomplishing anything.

TCF stands for Terraria Community Forums, this website. :happy:


Good post DarthEnder. I'll be honest, a big reason why these rules are going into place as is (with us pushing for negative posters to give reasons) is because posters aren't posting responsibly right now. In a perfect world, expressing "I personally dislike this concept" and saying nothing more would be fine, but a lot of the negative posts are more than just "quick rejections" but are hostile and insulting.

When we discourage people getting into extended fights, what we mean is that we don't want to see people get into 15 page long hostile arguments over things like Vampire Knives health stealing where insults are flung and such. Having a "lot to say" is almost always a good thing.

If the community can come together and post respectfully for a while, and show us that some of these limitations aren't necessary, we can relax them. That said, I still question the value of a post that dislikes a suggestion without saying why; even if you just say "I don't like this concept because I wouldn't want this to be part of my game experience", that at least says something. "No support" doesn't say that.
 
Last edited:

Loki

Consigliere
Staff member
Re-Logic
Administrator
How hard is it to expand upon why one does or doesn't like a thing? It doesn't require a treatise...often just a few more words.

Rhetorical question, but you get my drift. ;)
 

Kazzymodus

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
I completely disagree.

I think posting things you yourself want to see in the game, or workshopping other people's ideas is only part of the reason that the suggestion forums exist. And I think that line of thinking completely negates the other, possibly more important purpose of those forums.

Which is, to support ideas you want to see added, and to express your dislike for ideas you don't want to see added. And that developers, upon reading the forums, can see this support/dislike, and consider the ideas accordingly based on the level of player support.

If you take away a poster's ability to express that without writing a complicated dissertation on the matter explaining what is, ultimately, just the way they feel, you're drastically hampering their ability to convey what they do or don't want to see added to the game.

The main problem is that it's very easy to get the impression your idea is good, based on the grounds that a lot of people like it. Now most people on these forums don't look at suggestion from a game design point of view, which is to be expected because presumably most people here don't dabble in game design. But it's very easy to break a mechanic without noticing it (once again, I'll not name examples to keep it friendly) and people that just say support won't help to address that issue, while people that explain why they like something are more likely to spot what's wrong.
 
Top Bottom