Yeah, I meant to bring that up. Saying something needs to be rebalanced first is fine, but far too often I see people gatekeeping a suggestion. Even some of the biggest critics on this forum are guilty of that.
However, even in this example, I don't see a need to gatekeep. Yeah, sure, you might want things to be rebalanced first, but if the suggestion is good, it shouldn't matter if the other things aren't quite balanced, unless it would be better for the feature of the suggestion should be delegated to another concept currently in the game (instead of implementing the new ore, make gold do what this new ore does).
Even if the suggestion is good in a lot of respects, quite frequently we end up with situations where the suggestion is not balanced with the rest of the game. When trying to imagine the piece fitting into the whole, there's parts of the whole (such as gold's usefulness-to-rarity ratio) that would make the new piece a lot less fun, or a lot more arbitrary, or any number of other things that seem as though they diminish the whole.
A mechanic that is by itself excellent is all well-and-good, but we kind of do need to take into account all the other things in Minecraft. The suggestion exists for Minecraft as a whole, and not just for the suggestion itself.
And while we're on the topic of what should be added when, critics shouldn't choose to not support a suggestion because they'd rather Mojang added something else first/fixed some bugs. I always get annoyed when I see someone treat a low-priority suggestion as if it were a low-quality one.
I mean, I get it if the higher-priority feature is irrelevant to the suggestion, but if it is relevant? To name an example... if there's a suggestion for a new ore, that someone cannot support until all the ores currently in the game (gold is the usual complaint) are made completely useful?
Can I ask a serious question? What is 'brutal honesty'? Why does being brutal make it more honest? In what part of the thought process do you decide that to give a genuine criticism you need to sound like a bit of a jerk, to the point where you need to take precautions to make sure the reader isn't offended?
Can you not just be honest without the brutal part? Why is that harder? It's not sugarcoating - people consciously choose to add the 'brutality' to the honesty and I don't understand it.
Because people know what they're about to say will offend, are conscious of the fact that it will probably hurt the other's feelings, and proceed to say whatever it is anyways. Either because they believe that being offensive will cause a change that being inoffensive won't, or because they want to hurt the other person.
Notice that in my example, I did not "dance around the problem." I still told the person what was wrong with his suggestion and didn't make the problems seem less than they were. I just balanced it out by not going full "Your suggestion has issues, and here's what they are." Obviously, you aren't fully responsible for what a person does because of what you told them, but that does not excuse you for not trying to avoid such problems from occurring.
You can't treat people like they don't deserve any respect either. If you were to accidently injure someone as part of a harmless prank, just telling them it was just a prank won't somehow make it all better and absolve you from any blame.
To bash means to strike with a smashing or crushing blow. Regardless of whether you are flaming, focusing purely on negatives is bashing.
I don't avoid such problems. I treat the other person with respect. Like a human being capable of self-awareness who won't go off the handle for something that isn't personal. I don't try to frame it in a balancing act that may not exist, to appease anger that might happen. I have too much respect for other people to treat them like they need to be reassured. I'm not their parent. I'm not going to dangle praise in front of them either, to teach them new tricks. I'm not their owner, either.
If there are positives and negatives, I point them out. I don't need to add more positives at the end to get them in a good mood. If it's positive, great for them. If it's negative, I'm not going to be dishonest. Anything contrary to reality is dancing around the issue and trying to frame it in a manner that it is not.
Failed prank? More like... telling a patient about their terminal illness. They don't know what the results will be, and are hoping for a good result. Trying to candy-coat it is a disservice to them. Mocking them for it is also not good, obviously. If there's a potential cure, by all means mention it. But don't try to make it better than it is. That's disrespectful.
Your definition of bashing is different from mine. Given that you seem to see purely negative critique as a bad thing, and possibly not even actual critique, I'm unsure if you can be convinced of its value.
It doesn't matter whether they speak with reason or emotion; without truly knowing the person you won't know their agenda, and there's always the possibility that the critic's reasoning is flawed.
This is true whether or not I go out of my way to try and appease feelings they may or may not have. In my case, I would actually be more irritated with your way of dancing about then if you just told me things straight. But I take responsibility for my own feelings. I prevent myself from grouching at you out of irritation. Because how I react is my own fault, not yours. So I'm not going to tell you how to talk.
Acting like this is similar to saying "I can talk to anyone however I feel like it, and they just have to deal with it."
So long as I don't mean to offend, then yes. If they get upset and start yelling at me, I'll let them know I meant no offense, but that's about it. Their emotions are theirs to control. I'm not going to treat them like animals that may bite me and can be coerced with treats.
Giving constructive criticism by highlighting both the positives and the negatives does not aim to make them feel good. It aims to let the suggester know what is wrong with his suggestion while minimizing the risk of reasonable offense. For example, if you were to go onto one of my suggestions and tell me everything bad about it and nothing else, I'd probably get upset. I would think that I'd be mature enough not to start flaming at you, but in my anger I would hold your criticism less valuable than someone who both pointed out what they liked and disliked and might even ignore it entirely. Obviously, you don't know what will offend anyone in particular, but there are some general things you can try to avoid, such as bashing a suggestion.
I generally do highlight positives and negatives. Unfortunately I come across a lot of suggestions that lack one way or another, or have very little in the way of stand-out qualities or discussion value. If there are more negatives than positives, that will stand out. If I don't think there are positives and you do, it will seem to you like I'm only telling you what's bad about it. And no matter how reasonable a person I can be, getting a low grade doesn't make anyone happy.
It is within your rights to hold my criticism as lesser for any reason, even if they are irrational reasons.
Bashing a suggestion I believe would be "flaming," which is against the rules. I don't need to follow a format to avoid doing it.
So, a few weeks ago someone brought up formatting for suggestions. However, I've been thinking, what about formatting for critiques?
Like suggestions, no two critics will have the same method to give criticism, but in my experience and education, this has been the most effective at getting the suggester to think, reply, and make positive changes:
Start with positive feedback. ("Well, redstone tools would definitely make redstone more valuable and give people who don't care about mechanisms more use for them...")
Then, tell the user what is wrong with their suggestion. If possible, try to balance your critique by not focusing much more on the bad than the good. However, if the suggestion is really bad, this might not be possible, and you may have to go more in-depth with what is wrong. ("However, redstone is a dust, which doesn't make a lot of sense for equipment, and, like all other ores, it already has a primary use: electrical engineering. Unfortunately I'm going to have to say Minimal Support.")
Finally, end on a positive note. ("Still, it's clear you put a lot of effort into this, and it's a relatively good idea for a first suggestion, so points for effort.")
Also, try to stay calm and uplifting through your entire critique. Mocking the OP, being sassy, smug, or condescending, or getting angry is a sure way to get the suggester to stop taking you seriously.
I am not going out of my way to make someone feel good about problems, and I'm not going to soften my words. If they are going to think with their emotions instead of with their reason, that's on them, not on me. It is their responsibility to put aside any irritation or upset over my manner of speaking, and do what is in their own best interest.
It is not my responsibility to make sure they feel good about themselves. What I can do is understand that there is a person on the other side of the screen and not intend any offense. If they self-destruct because I wasn't positive about their jet engine suggestion, that's on them.
Another problem some not-deep-thinkers do here is they go "well suggest what makes my idea better then!!! >:(" as if we're meant to fix other people's ideas for them. Some ideas can't be fixed, and it's not our job to do that. It's our job to criticize and maybe suggest improvements if possible, but not to turn poop into gold.
However, I stand by my statement that all suggestions can be added to the game if improved enough. Some will require a lot of improvement, and the idea might have to change and cut a lot of its content, but the core idea can be eventually made good enough for implementation.
How much effort is a critic supposed to put into helping someone? I can understand if they came to us for help in a PM, but once you post a suggestion it's out there.
I personally fall more on McRiveter's side of the spectrum. We're here to make relatively small but necessary adjustments. We're not here to revamp huge chunks of suggestions. And some suggestions' core ideas can never be made good enough for implementation.
I do think there needs to be a bit more emphasis on what the actual role of the critic is.
We're critics, not judges. Our job is to point out flaws in a suggestion and to help the OP improve his suggestion.
Very often, I see people acting like "This suggestion will never be good, and I'll tell him why."
Critics need to make judgments to do their job. Judgments made on pure opinion, of course, are not very helpful. But if we can't judge a suggestion, then we can't help anyone improve.
Some suggestions cannot be improved no matter how much effort is put into them. This happens when the fundamental concept simply does not fit into what would be best for Minecraft as a whole, or when no matter how you try to balance it it won't be balanced.
There is a difference between an opinion and an argument.
An opinion is like a preference. You like things. You dislike things. It's completely subjective. It doesn't really affect whether a suggestion is good or bad. There's a reason why opinions are not considered facts. Perhaps you'd prefer that someone think their suggestion is good as opposed to "I know it's terrible but please support it anyways," but that doesn't really contribute to the merits of the idea.
An argument is an assertion that reality is a certain way. It is an attempt at persuasion. It tends to point out things that are not just in people's brains, things that everyone can see, based as far into objective reality as possible. They also are the reasons people believe certain opinions, and why opinions can change.
If there is no distinction between these, disagreement cannot occur. People can say, "that's my/your opinion" to dismiss anyone who disagrees, and any arguments you bring up won't have any weight because everything would be subjective. We may as well allow people to just say "support/no support," because there's no point in trying to argue about realism or game balance or anything else. All that is just your opinion.
So yeah, your opinion of your own suggestion is the weakest "argument" you can make. But other people's opinions of your suggestion are just as weak. That's why you don't bring up opinions while arguing with other people.
You make it sound so easy to judge things as good or bad when the whole point is that this is subjective.
I'm genuinely surprised you're using the term "objectively bad suggestions" and are standing by it. I think I need somebody to sit down and explain it to me.
I like having this conversation, because it's rather interesting and has lots of depth (at least three months' worth of material), but this is not the appropriate place for it. Nor would this proposed thread be.
You can't choose what kind of culture the thread fosters. "Eh you can read it if you want but if you don't nobody will mind" is pretty nice in theory. But it will never happen. You'll get exactly what you got with 2.0 and FTC, which was "Oh my God did you even read that thread here I'll quote it now go read it", as if it's a holy book. It's great and all that it wouldn't be the point, but whether or not it's the point is completely irrelevant to what will actually happen in the real world.
Of course I can decide what culture the thread fosters. That's what the mods do for this thread. Setting absolute limits backed by absolute power is sort of how this operates. The mods have decided you can't point to a thread and say "follow this holy book." If the thread is made, it will say that. I expect that the mods will enforce it. Just like they'd probably shut down anyone who says "you must follow this" for this very thread.
I don't like it. The point should be to have guides which teach people how to think and then apply all that thinking power to make suggestions. The point should not be to tell people what specifically they probably shouldn't be writing in their threads. And that is the inevitable outcome of such a thread whether you intend it or not.
I can teach a child logic but that will not make them capable of knowing physics. There are quite a few concepts that do not immediately occur even when you teach someone how to think. Such is the difference between knowledge and wisdom. People shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel every time they wish to attempt one of these suggestions, and if they know a suggestion's arguments they may be able to discover something that hadn't previously occurred to anyone.
If/when such a thread exists, expect a lot of complaining from my end over specific details nobody else really cares about. Just like the good old days.
It'd probably be welcome so long as it was on topic and not flaming.
If I were to do it, I'd add the proponent and critical views of whatever thread. I'd want the merits and demerits of each topic to be well known and adjusted for according to feedback. Whether a suggestion is loved or hated doesn't change its absolute state as a polarizing and controversial idea.
Again, some people want thirst. I hate the idea; but I'm not going to say that my idea has any bearing outside of personal opinion; as rational and objective as I attempt to make it. Some people want eighth-blocks, an idea I'd kill for. It's not for everyone, and that opinion need be stated as well.
If I begin frequenting these forums with any amount of regularity, I might consider maintaining such a page. But a thread like that needs to have 1) a blessing from moderators that it won't be closed/moved for being off-topic or off-section as it is part of suggestions. 2) A single trusted non-mod maintainer who can remain impartial. There's a few people I'd personally choose for a case of impartiality (no offense if I don't state you): anonthemouse (does he still visit here?!) and chameleonred5 (should either agree).
It's a slogging of an undertaking; and it requires someone that can respond on a daily basis; something I'm confident I won't be able to do.
It sounds fun to maintain, though time-consuming. I'll see if I can draw something up.
I'm not a fan of the idea because it subjectively assumes ideas X, Y, and Z are bad and then subjectively says they will be better with A, B, and C changed. That is not the point of this thread and it will never be intended for that. I don't think any part of this thread should be directed towards specific ideas or suggestions, then we get back into some of the original problems we had with the old thread, and it stops being focused on the macro scale and switches to the micro scale.
I am more than willing to discuss it but I want to make my stance on it known now.
Some things are bad. That's not a terrible thing to say. There's nothing wrong with it. It is simply a statement that describes reality. Though as a starting point, something for beginners as this thread is trying to be for? I'd say that micro-scale arguments don't fit into it, even if we'd love beginners to know them. It's more something for those who would like to be here a while or would like to earnestly put effort into one of those suggestions.
However, given the views of the moderators and recent history, if anyone's going to do something like this, they'd better do it right. That means avoiding the concept of "objectively bad suggestions," regardless of one's views. That's an easy sacrifice for the sake of utility, though, so it shouldn't be that big of an issue.
Perhaps a separate "controversial suggestions" thread, with certain suggestions labeled with typical arguments for and against (whether you consider those arguments bad or not), with an attempt to be fair and not one-sided about them. The point would not be to say that you shouldn't do X suggestion... It's just there to show that a certain suggestion has history that one may be able to learn from. It'd also not say that it'd be better with A, B, and C, just that there are certain facets that are generally argued that you may want to work around, however you may want to do that. Or not if you don't consider them an issue, but then you should probably expect people to mention them. You wouldn't need to read the thread, and suggestions that are made in full ignorance of it are perfectly acceptable, but if you learn from it you may be able to make something better.
You could use it as a reference to try and put together suggestion that would be seen as great for all, and address all of the issues that people generally have with it.
"Why didn't you read this thread you ignorant buffoon" would not be the point. But if you were to say "hey, there's some things you may want to consider for your suggestion that are in this thread," that would be fine. Inspiration and direction with issues in mind, not anything objective to force on people.
Can there be a guideline about not requesting already implemented features be reversed? You probably know which specific feature I;m talking about, but those suggestions are pretty pointless regardless of what specific feature they want to roll back. Mojang's never gonna change something back after they updated it, because if they were so happy with the way things were originally they would have never spent the time and effort adding in a new thing in the first place. And if you want to make a thread to discuss/complain about a new feature or recently implemented feature, Discussion or Recent Updates & Snapshots seem like much better sections to do that in that Suggestions.
Perhaps, but that seems to fall under the category of "suggestions to specifically avoid," which is an idea everyone seems to have grown allergic to.
I'm fairly certain that the mods are capable of sorting this stuff out if it becomes an issue.
*stills sees goofy joke threads and sockpuppet accounts*
Okay, I guess the quality control comes later? There's still nothing in the guide that helps build the quality of a suggestion. I mean it does mention details and the 5 W's, but it's still very generic and crunched down. For example, a suggestion should have non-cringe grammar, and not have spelling that doesn't look like you punched your keyboard in the face and pressed "Post Reply".
It's in the Rules. But only so far as a post can be understood. If you can understand what is being communicated, there's no issue, from what I can tell.
They mentioned having a reddit post too, but there was some sort of celebratory (almost necroposting) comment the author had- in shock his/her idea had been seemingly added to the game. It was super identical like coincidence on steroids to the addition mojang made. The post was from 2014 too. I made a long comment on it celebrating the chance it was looked at with said author- just 2 weeks ago. Now in my posts- it is gone and isn't in the suggestions thread anywhere.
However- I think mojang may want people to not know they are observing these ideas, because by them anonymously viewing, there is no controversial bias or hysteria in the thread. Shoot i was one of Maria's (@MiaLem_n parrot creating dev at mojang) first hundred followers and I'd be willing to tweet her and see if she would admit to viewing the suggestion, but if there is an agenda to remain anonymous, surely i wont receive an answer.
There is no reason to believe there would be controversial bias or hysteria here. Especially since the mods are more than likely to shut it down.
It's only a little surprising that Maria saw that person's 2014 Reddit thread, unless it was popular, in which case it'd be inevitable.
You'd also not receive an answer if she didn't see you, didn't care, didn't want to answer you, or had limited time. That is not evidence of any sort of "agenda."