Just because the idea of a "creepur commander} general1`!" might sound cool, doesn't mean it is.
I see this stuff usually from the lazy "yes-man" posters or the kiddie kiddie kid kids that don't seem to understand the simplest form of thought-out game design. Both versions of posters having big hearts in their eyes. I mean, you can't really convince to someone to not support what they like, but it still helps as giving something some thought before shouting how "c00l" an idea is can help that same user make a good suggestion themselves.
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.
I don't understand why you have such an infatuation with making people not look like dolts. The point here is to stop people from making terrible suggestions, and while saying "I have the best idea ever" might seem silly, it doesn't really hurt the suggestion.
It's what posters put on themselves. I don't see the harm in mentioning what helps your suggestion and what doesn't. So they don't have to learn the hard way.
Slang, on the other hand, seems more manageable. Budder, obby, etc. may be quaint and fun to use; but it can also make the post harder to read for anyone not in the know; unless you use acronym tags.
I think the "budder" thing is more of a 'makes your post look reeeeeaally stupid" issue than a misunderstanding one. Trying to be funny with 'dank memes loool' doesn't help anyone. I've never seen "obby". I'm not gonna support a suggestion because an image from meme generator was posted.
I don't know if this one was said before, but this forum is also not a place where you make threads about insulting Mojang and acting like your game development skills are more refined than theirs. "Suggestions" does not mean "Come here to vent!!!"
I'm not arguing with any rules here, but may I ask why wishlists aren't allowed? Personally I just think it's better to put lots of ideas into one thread
It really, really isn't. For one, it paves the way for posters to get kind of lazy and ditsy and just say "I would like zebras, chocolate milks and moar cats!! Thx in advance mojang!!!! =D =D =D!!!" This leaves a list without any details for anything listed. So you just have a 'add all these things alright bye' thread just sitting there. A good chunk of the time the OP doesn't even come back.
It would also be kind of annoying to criticize so many ideas at once, it leads to extreme thread stretching - which already happens anyway, so withlists would make that worse.
As I said before, if you aren't left with one of those two extremes you don't need to vote because such a vote isn't useful to anyone. Have you ever noticed that whenever a poll has an unsure option, they always tag on "explain in post"? That's because that vote serves no purpose. If you're on the fence, the only useful way to put your opinion forward is to demonstrate it.
Polls exist soley to measure opinion. The number of people who are unsure doesn't matter because they all have different reasons. A suggestor can't look at that and get anything from it. They can't say "Oh seven people are unsure I guess I should change X specific part of the suggestion."
I don't think there's anything that gets by you. Polls with an option of just "maybe" is a bad thing to put. Just because there's a "(explain please)" next to an option doesn't mean the voter is gonna do that. Grey area options are like this:
- "The idea is good, but it shouldn't deplete hunger."
- "The idea is good, but the bird mob doesn't work."
It still provides info without being "Best idea ever!!" or "Idea = cancer..." It's not necessary but still provides something.
What is your guys' brain thoughts on my fruit juices idea?
[ ] It's good I support!
[ ] I support just some of them so yeah......
[ ] Idea is good but not the way you presented it.....
[ ] It's good and also here's my idea (explain please)
I actually remember that thread. I wanted to punch that thread in the face so hard.
Can we have a system of ban words? So if someone says "budder" or "herobrine" they just get an automatic ban ranging from 5 months to 2 lifetimes? The ban also doubles itself if the banned person doesn't mentally accept the ban reason. Also I think there should be a mention of the desperate thread titles, like this...
Thirst System (omggg not what you think!)
Creeper Hugging System (wait please read!!!!)
We might be able to bring back the "Logic vs. Realism" section without having it as long as it was the last time? "This adds realism!" is still a painfully common thing in threads, and a ton of users don't realize it doesn't actually help their ideas.
Even copy and pasting the section from the last guide would work. This is an argument point that posters use and will probably keep using forever. There's an obvious line between stuff like this...
"I suggest we have chocolate milk to give cocoa another use." and... "I suggest we have chocolate milk to give cocoa another use, which includes needing iron to craft spoons to mix them and drinking too much will cause you to throw up and give you a status effect known as 'tum-tum ache' because realistic!! =D =D =D"
Another problem is that when people sees puns in texts they stop taking the entire text seriously. And people who really need jokes inserted in order to not fall asleep while reading won't take any text, no matter how god-like is made, seriously.
You lost me man. You lost me so hard you'll never find me again. Why are we talking about puns? Dude, don't you understand why Theriasis' writing was good? It wasn't just because of jokes, or insults, or... "puns". It's just because she kept things interesting. We can argue this for another 2000 years but that's how it was. She kept it interesting and original, hands down.
Judging by your posts, you seem to be missing so many points of this whole thing.
But, well, where's the point overall? Mojang forgot they even got a forum...
I hate to keep droning on about this, but you could have just asked Theriasis to shorten her guide and remove some sections. That would have been the greatest win/win. Shorter guide, but still interesting and gripping. If a guide is a boring server MOTD snoozeville, then guide might as well not be there at all. I've seen guides written so will that they changed my way of thinking.
You wouldn't tear down a mall and replace it with a tiny coffee shop with all this massive empty space around it. That's just an objectively terrible choice. Yes, Mojang doesn't come here so we don't need to take this so seriously, but you still want to teach people not to embarrass themselves with badly thought-out threads and then lashing out because they think they're on the correct side when they make that thirst bar thread.
Yes, you want to have fun with it. But you still want people to think out what they're doing.
I also don't see the harm in mentioning what threads and excuses will superfail. There's just some scenarios where the OP sets themselves up to fail with no of escape. I really can't get over him saying that the last guide was creating a "toxic environment".
All of my this. "Have fun with it be free!" isn't entirely a good thing. That Herobrine boss thread? Failed. Thirst bars? Failed. Dying because you walked into a desert. Yeahfailed. I see that there's a certain someone who's hating on the last guide because the critics dissed one of his threads, and said thread was mentioned in the "inferior suggestions" list.
Actually, almost all of the people who hated on the last guide were people who got shut down by critics.