If I say, "honestly, I think that sentient village miners is a bad idea because it inhibits player agency and would be a source of game-caused griefing and frustration." It's considered brutal honesty. I consider it "plain honesty", but the fact that it's candid and not sugarcoated is what distinguishes it from other forms. OP likely wouldn't want to hear it and would be frustrated at the post.
No, your example is "brutal" because you're being lazy about explaining your reasons, and fobbing them off with a form letter. Add a couple of examples, and you can show instead of telling: "OK, villagers mining on their own. What happens when they start digging into your basement or underground lair, or strip-mining your intended skeleton farm? And do you really want the villagers harvesting all the ore in the area before you get to it?"
I did some CraftTweaker scripts for Mystical Agriculture. They fill in a couple of small gaps in MA, and also let you make or duplicate not only vanilla plants, but the blocks, plants and wood from Quark and Biomes O'Plenty. Also spawn eggs for most vanilla mobs! The scripts are here on Github.
Add as many examples as you feel sufficient. The recipient will still feel like they're being targeted or attacked because your review isn't sunshine and rainbows and unadulterated agreement.
There's something wrong with the suggestion; therefore there's something wrong with them. It's part of human nature.
In the above, telling them that the suggestion would promote strip mining, etc. can be seen as bullying or picking on the person or patronizing simply because of the level of detail you're going into with your explanations. "You're spending an awful lot of time and energy correcting me; you must be trolling; etc."
The truth hurts; but it hurts less than thinly veiled lies that eventually come back and bite the OP.
If I were to say "nuclear bombs would not work in vanilla minecraft because the blast radius would be enough to grind whatever server you're on to a halt as it has to raytrace and damage/destroy blocks within the blast radius. It's totally overpowered because of it's ability to one-shot anyone in range of it and has a heavy and long lived poison that effects you long after you leave the affected range; it's unfeasible to build as it requires many new blocks that serve only one function (making the bomb) and would ruin the existing aesthetic of Minecraft." - That is honest, lots of examples, and cuts to the bone. There's no attempt to outright hurt the person; there's no attempt to dismiss the person or belittle them. It's just making an honest opinion off of personal justification.
Add as many examples as you feel sufficient. The recipient will still feel like they're being targeted or attacked because your review isn't sunshine and rainbows and unadulterated agreement.
There's something wrong with the suggestion; therefore there's something wrong with them. It's part of human nature.
Ah, so should I now declare that you're only disagreeing with me because you can't handle the "brutal truth" yourself, that you're happy to dish it out, but not to take it? Here's some truth for you: Tone, context, explanation and examples, all that mushy stuff, it matters. Indeed, social negotiation -- all that consideration of and response to emotional factors -- is far more basic to human nature than formal or abstract principles, or intellectual analysis.
Persuading, or educating, someone isn't just about Giving Them The Truth, it's about making your claims both understandable and acceptable to them. If you can't figure out how to do social negotiation at least sometimes, you're doomed to wander through life as a Misunderstood Genius, wondering why nobody appreciates your special understanding, woe is you, the only rational person in a world of fools yadda yadda. (I've been there myself, but I got better.)
The people on the forums vary widely: Yes, there are people who can't take any criticism whatsoever, and will lash out at anything short of a cheer. And on the other end, there are people who will respond to your terse dismissal by googling "player agency", and sitting down to think why their idea might lead to "game-caused griefing and frustration". But both those groups are small minorities; most people will start by considering how seriously they should take your comment in the first place, and they'll do that triage with social judgment, like they do everywhere else:
Does this person sound like someone like you who's actually interested in your idea? Or someone who's already filed and forgotten it? Are they explaining what's wrong, or just dismissing your idea From On High (prob'ly because you didn't have enough fancy words and maybe numbers to back it up)? Your original "example response" sounds like the latter, my "responding with examples" sounds like the former.
When someone's deciding how seriously to take your criticism, they will most certainly be looking at your tone, and at how much effort (not just technical, but social) you put into your own letter. Given a friendly response that points out issues in a way they can easily understand, many more of them will be willing to see your points. If you instead dismiss someone on "general principles", without explaining how those principles apply to the occasion, then even someone who does actually understand the principles, might well dismiss you right back with "haters gonna hate". That's not "unable to accept criticism", it's you failing at persuasion.
To address your "nuclear bomb" example, you're nattering about balance and implementation; the real issue is that it would turn the game into a demolition derby, and trash everything that most players value (bases, scenery, farms, projects, etc.). Fine for a mod or minigame, not for vanilla. And explaining it like that, along with "too bad about that base you spent weeks on, your neighbor got the Bomb first", makes the point more briefly and, yes, more honestly, than talking about balance or excessive lag.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I did some CraftTweaker scripts for Mystical Agriculture. They fill in a couple of small gaps in MA, and also let you make or duplicate not only vanilla plants, but the blocks, plants and wood from Quark and Biomes O'Plenty. Also spawn eggs for most vanilla mobs! The scripts are here on Github.
Ah, so should I now declare that you're only disagreeing with me because you can't handle the "brutal truth" yourself, that you're happy to dish it out, but not to take it? Here's some truth for you: Tone, context, explanation and examples, all that mushy stuff, it matters. Indeed, social negotiation -- all that consideration of and response to emotional factors -- is far more basic to human nature than formal or abstract principles, or intellectual analysis.
Perhaps you missed the part about "discussion" in discussion forum. Dropping down into ad hominem doesn't actually help your point of view. You disagree with me, that's fine. You took a offensive tone with me (with your previous post) without provocation from me, that's fine.
The rest of what you say is also fine. We all must perform politics when dealing with others. THAT'S FINE.
The point is that the seed of truth is still there; buried in the pretty bows and colorful ribbons like the gnarled point on the stem of a rose.
Persuading, or educating, someone isn't just about Giving Them The Truth, it's about making your claims both understandable and acceptable to them. If you can't figure out how to do social negotiation at least sometimes, you're doomed to wander through life as a Misunderstood Genius, wondering why nobody appreciates your special understanding, woe is you, the only rational person in a world of fools yadda yadda. (I've been there myself, but I got better.)
Look, I'm not even going to entertain this point. It appears to come more from triggered anger than anything anyone can defend against. Go outside, eat some pudding, drink some tea.
The people on the forums vary widely: Yes, there are people who can't take any criticism whatsoever, and will lash out at anything short of a cheer. And on the other end, there are people who will respond to your terse dismissal by googling "player agency", and sitting down to think why their idea might lead to "game-caused griefing and frustration". But both those groups are small minorities; most people will start by considering how seriously they should take your comment in the first place, and they'll do that triage with social judgment, like they do everywhere else:
Does this person sound like someone like you who's actually interested in your idea? Or someone who's already filed and forgotten it? Are they explaining what's wrong, or just dismissing your idea From On High (prob'ly because you didn't have enough fancy words and maybe numbers to back it up)? Your original "example response" sounds like the latter, my "responding with examples" sounds like the former.
I've gotten that before. I don't type the way I do because I want to sound high and mighty. I type the way I do because I want to be concise. Exact words with exact meanings reduce the chance for misunderstanding.
When someone's deciding how seriously to take your criticism, they will most certainly be looking at your tone, and at how much effort (not just technical, but social) you put into your own letter. Given a friendly response that points out issues in a way they can easily understand, many more of them will be willing to see your points. If you instead dismiss someone on "general principles", without explaining how those principles apply to the occasion, then even someone who does actually understand the principles, might well dismiss you right back with "haters gonna hate". That's not "unable to accept criticism", it's you failing at persuasion.
"Unable to accept criticism" doesn't apply to most people on this forum I've seen. Most people are easy to work and reason with. When I talk about "unable to accept criticism", we're dealing with a small minority of people; say 5~10% of the forum. Otherwise most are enjoyable to work with.
To address your "nuclear bomb" example, you're nattering about balance and implementation; the real issue is that it would turn the game into a demolition derby, and trash everything that most players value (bases, scenery, farms, projects, etc.). Fine for a mod or minigame, not for vanilla. And explaining it like that, along with "too bad about that base you spent weeks on, your neighbor got the Bomb first", makes the point more briefly and, yes, more honestly, than talking about balance or excessive lag.
Except these are all points on the "truth" board. One truth cannot be more objective than another truth. It's like saying that vanilla is more of a flavor of ice cream than chocolate or strawberry. It doesn't make sense.
It's just that you prefer your writing style over mine which is --you guessed it-- fine. There's nothing wrong with that. There's also nothing wrong with disagreement.
Perhaps the reason I'm disagreeing with you is less because "I can't take it" and more because of differences in point of view and opinion. It basically goes to the idea of "think exactly like me or you're close-minded."
Lets go back to the beginning here: I was harsh on your original example, because it's egregious. Lets look at it again:
If I say, "honestly, I think that sentient village miners is a bad idea because it inhibits player agency and would be a source of game-caused griefing and frustration." It's considered brutal honesty. I consider it "plain honesty", but the fact that it's candid and not sugarcoated is what distinguishes it from other forms. OP likely wouldn't want to hear it and would be frustrated at the post.
You claim this as a matter of style, but I'm saying your "style" is functionally weaker: You are not being as informative, or as persuasive, as you could be.
You talk about wanting to be concise -- but the flip side of "concise" is "terse" -- and the most concise way to say something is usually with jargon or other specialized vocabulary. But there's a series of prices there: First, the more compressed your statement is, the more it asks of the reader. And then, compression all too easily slides into coding, where you're giving a reference that you expect the reader to fill in. And that's exactly what you've got up there. "Inhibiting player agency" isn't a "because" explanation unless you already know what the point of "player agency" is and why inhibiting it is bad. "Game caused griefing" is our local jargon (code), but even there, you're not actually explaining why their idea is going to make all this trouble.
And then there's your justification.... "Honesty" is simply a false flag here, because giving an example or a clear explanation is not less honest. The sense of "brutality" from a terse explanation like yours, comes from you expecting the reader to do the work of interpreting your statements. That's how a boss might talk to their subordinates, or a teacher to their students. Except you don't actually control your readers' paycheck or grade, so people will resent you talking as if you do.
And one bit from your last letter:
Except these are all points on the "truth" board. One truth cannot be more objective than another truth. It's like saying that vanilla is more of a flavor of ice cream than chocolate or strawberry. It doesn't make sense.
On the contrary! Objectivity is carved out with effort, from the subjectivity of ordinary thought, and truly "objective" truths are scarce, especially in everyday experience. One truth can certainly be more or less subjective than another. In particular, any judgment of skill or expertise will have at least some subjectivity in it, even if it's also backed by standards and norms. (And nearly all our criticisms of suggestions are going to have at least some subjectivity.)
But, more to the point, one truth can also be more relevant than another, and that's part of honesty, as distinguished from "truth". When someone proposes a "nuke", I really doubt the PvP potential or Mad Mining Speed is the first thing that goes through your mind -- rather, it's the mass-destruction issue, of landscapes, resources and especially bases. So addressing that head-on is more honest than talking about game balance. No sugar-coating required!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I did some CraftTweaker scripts for Mystical Agriculture. They fill in a couple of small gaps in MA, and also let you make or duplicate not only vanilla plants, but the blocks, plants and wood from Quark and Biomes O'Plenty. Also spawn eggs for most vanilla mobs! The scripts are here on Github.
You weren't harsh on my example. It was ad hominem. If you were harsh on my example; I wouldn't have had to tell you to sit in a corner for a few days to reflect.
You claim this as a matter of style, but I'm saying your "style" is functionally weaker: You are not being as informative, or as persuasive, as you could be.
We'll get back to this later.
You talk about wanting to be concise -- but the flip side of "concise" is "terse" -- and the most concise way to say something is usually with jargon or other specialized vocabulary. But there's a series of prices there: First, the more compressed your statement is, the more it asks of the reader. And then, compression all too easily slides into coding, where you're giving a reference that you expect the reader to fill in. And that's exactly what you've got up there. "Inhibiting player agency" isn't a "because" explanation unless you already know what the point of "player agency" is and why inhibiting it is bad. "Game caused griefing" is our local jargon (code), but even there, you're not actually explaining why their idea is going to make all this trouble.
Much of my methodology in most posts is to explain myself thoroughly. I don't include such things in what I hope to be a quick post here because I want to avoid a discussion of the example itself and hope that a simplified example will be enough to explain the point without going into the individual points one a thread dedicated to a much wider net (guidelines).
Instead, your focus is on how my methodology is weaker because it's not passive aggressive like your stance. So, a few notes: I understand that my writing style isn't as direct as yours; but also doesn't have the biting and stinging sarcasm of "too bad about that base you spent weeks on, your neighbor got the Bomb first".
And then there's your justification.... "Honesty" is simply a false flag here, because giving an example or a clear explanation is not less honest. The sense of "brutality" from a terse explanation like yours, comes from you expecting the reader to do the work of interpreting your statements. That's how a boss might talk to their subordinates, or a teacher to their students. Except you don't actually control your readers' paycheck or grade, so people will resent you talking as if you do.
This is going into personal standards and principles. I'm not actually that terribly smart of a person. I consider myself reasonably average; I also consider myself reasonably patient and ... reasonable. I expect others to be on my level; to have the same level of intellect as me. Loosening my vocabulary to reach those that might not understand makes me feel like I'm not only insulting myself but them. It literally makes me feel like I have to belittle children for them to understand which is quite uncomfortable for me (it actually makes me feel like I'm being patronizing by not using my normal vocabulary). Not only that, but it goes against my nature and is very difficult for me to maintain for any period of time; extended or otherwise.
And one bit from your last letter:
On the contrary! Objectivity is carved out with effort, from the subjectivity of ordinary thought, and truly "objective" truths are scarce, especially in everyday experience. One truth can certainly be more or less subjective than another. In particular, any judgment of skill or expertise will have at least some subjectivity in it, even if it's also backed by standards and norms. (And nearly all our criticisms of suggestions are going to have at least some subjectivity.)
You're going to have to give some examples on this bit; if at least to form a rebuttal against the three flavors of ice cream I provided.
But, more to the point, one truth can also be more relevant than another, and that's part of honesty, as distinguished from "truth". When someone proposes a "nuke", I really doubt the PvP potential or Mad Mining Speed is the first thing that goes through your mind -- rather, it's the mass-destruction issue, of landscapes, resources and especially bases. So addressing that head-on is more honest than talking about game balance. No sugar-coating required!
Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. So... you're completely correct... and horribly wrong... ALL at the same time! Yes, wholesale destruction is the first thing to go through your mind; but game balance and fun factor is first and foremost in mine. We're going at the same problem from different angles, which is... fine.
Alright I think we're getting way too far off topic here. While I love the philosophical discussion on what makes feedback good or useful, none of the discussion taking place is actually heading towards adjusting or improving the guidelines at this point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want some advice on how to thrive in the Suggestions section? Check this handy list of guidelines and tips for posting your ideas and responding to the ideas of others!
3a) try to avoid intended minecraft version numbers as it doesn't describe the suggestion. ("idea for 1.14", "what I want to see in 1.15", etc.)
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.
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?
Gatekeeping is annoying. I personally think the act is pretentious.
Suggester: They should add more flower blocks to Minecraft! *details*
Critic: Mojang should work on new monsters instead, no support!
Unless you work for Mojang; what you think Minecraft should add next is no more pertinent than the OP you just shot down for no real good reason. The direction you think Mojang needs to take is irrelevant to the suggestion.
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?
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).
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.
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.
Well, if the suggestion is imbalanced, you focus on fixing the suggestion over the rest of the game. Often I see people try to nerf an existing mechanic to make their own mechanic better (such as by making water no longer hydrate blocks to make a watering can viable), but usually that only works if the suggestion is there to fix something else and the nerf is to prevent a loss of balance in another area (for example, suggestions that suggested new weapons before 1.9 would often nerf the whole weapons system by adding some kind of cooldown).
Mojang will never look at minecraftforum.net. It's a waste of time to write your ideas, but it's not my choice. Mojang has much better things to do than look at suggestions. I am pointless, so you may not need to listen to me.
Mojang will never look at minecraftforum.net. It's a waste of time to write your ideas, but it's not my choice. Mojang has much better things to do than look at suggestions. I am pointless, so you may not need to listen to me.
(No drama!)
This forum is very useful for getting feedback on your suggestions before you post them on Reddit, where Mojang does look. Mojang does indeed look at suggestions, and they in fact do it quite a bit.
Because there isn't really much more to add or discuss in this sticky, I'm going to lock the thread for now. It may be reopened if necessary.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want some advice on how to thrive in the Suggestions section? Check this handy list of guidelines and tips for posting your ideas and responding to the ideas of others!
No, your example is "brutal" because you're being lazy about explaining your reasons, and fobbing them off with a form letter. Add a couple of examples, and you can show instead of telling: "OK, villagers mining on their own. What happens when they start digging into your basement or underground lair, or strip-mining your intended skeleton farm? And do you really want the villagers harvesting all the ore in the area before you get to it?"
I should hope so!
Add as many examples as you feel sufficient. The recipient will still feel like they're being targeted or attacked because your review isn't sunshine and rainbows and unadulterated agreement.
There's something wrong with the suggestion; therefore there's something wrong with them. It's part of human nature.
In the above, telling them that the suggestion would promote strip mining, etc. can be seen as bullying or picking on the person or patronizing simply because of the level of detail you're going into with your explanations. "You're spending an awful lot of time and energy correcting me; you must be trolling; etc."
The truth hurts; but it hurts less than thinly veiled lies that eventually come back and bite the OP.
If I were to say "nuclear bombs would not work in vanilla minecraft because the blast radius would be enough to grind whatever server you're on to a halt as it has to raytrace and damage/destroy blocks within the blast radius. It's totally overpowered because of it's ability to one-shot anyone in range of it and has a heavy and long lived poison that effects you long after you leave the affected range; it's unfeasible to build as it requires many new blocks that serve only one function (making the bomb) and would ruin the existing aesthetic of Minecraft." - That is honest, lots of examples, and cuts to the bone. There's no attempt to outright hurt the person; there's no attempt to dismiss the person or belittle them. It's just making an honest opinion off of personal justification.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
Ah, so should I now declare that you're only disagreeing with me because you can't handle the "brutal truth" yourself, that you're happy to dish it out, but not to take it? Here's some truth for you: Tone, context, explanation and examples, all that mushy stuff, it matters. Indeed, social negotiation -- all that consideration of and response to emotional factors -- is far more basic to human nature than formal or abstract principles, or intellectual analysis.
Persuading, or educating, someone isn't just about Giving Them The Truth, it's about making your claims both understandable and acceptable to them. If you can't figure out how to do social negotiation at least sometimes, you're doomed to wander through life as a Misunderstood Genius, wondering why nobody appreciates your special understanding, woe is you, the only rational person in a world of fools yadda yadda. (I've been there myself, but I got better.)
The people on the forums vary widely: Yes, there are people who can't take any criticism whatsoever, and will lash out at anything short of a cheer. And on the other end, there are people who will respond to your terse dismissal by googling "player agency", and sitting down to think why their idea might lead to "game-caused griefing and frustration". But both those groups are small minorities; most people will start by considering how seriously they should take your comment in the first place, and they'll do that triage with social judgment, like they do everywhere else:
Does this person sound like someone like you who's actually interested in your idea? Or someone who's already filed and forgotten it? Are they explaining what's wrong, or just dismissing your idea From On High (prob'ly because you didn't have enough fancy words and maybe numbers to back it up)? Your original "example response" sounds like the latter, my "responding with examples" sounds like the former.
When someone's deciding how seriously to take your criticism, they will most certainly be looking at your tone, and at how much effort (not just technical, but social) you put into your own letter. Given a friendly response that points out issues in a way they can easily understand, many more of them will be willing to see your points. If you instead dismiss someone on "general principles", without explaining how those principles apply to the occasion, then even someone who does actually understand the principles, might well dismiss you right back with "haters gonna hate". That's not "unable to accept criticism", it's you failing at persuasion.
To address your "nuclear bomb" example, you're nattering about balance and implementation; the real issue is that it would turn the game into a demolition derby, and trash everything that most players value (bases, scenery, farms, projects, etc.). Fine for a mod or minigame, not for vanilla. And explaining it like that, along with "too bad about that base you spent weeks on, your neighbor got the Bomb first", makes the point more briefly and, yes, more honestly, than talking about balance or excessive lag.
Perhaps you missed the part about "discussion" in discussion forum. Dropping down into ad hominem doesn't actually help your point of view. You disagree with me, that's fine. You took a offensive tone with me (with your previous post) without provocation from me, that's fine.
The rest of what you say is also fine. We all must perform politics when dealing with others. THAT'S FINE.
The point is that the seed of truth is still there; buried in the pretty bows and colorful ribbons like the gnarled point on the stem of a rose.
Look, I'm not even going to entertain this point. It appears to come more from triggered anger than anything anyone can defend against. Go outside, eat some pudding, drink some tea.
I've gotten that before. I don't type the way I do because I want to sound high and mighty. I type the way I do because I want to be concise. Exact words with exact meanings reduce the chance for misunderstanding.
"Unable to accept criticism" doesn't apply to most people on this forum I've seen. Most people are easy to work and reason with. When I talk about "unable to accept criticism", we're dealing with a small minority of people; say 5~10% of the forum. Otherwise most are enjoyable to work with.
Except these are all points on the "truth" board. One truth cannot be more objective than another truth. It's like saying that vanilla is more of a flavor of ice cream than chocolate or strawberry. It doesn't make sense.
It's just that you prefer your writing style over mine which is --you guessed it-- fine. There's nothing wrong with that. There's also nothing wrong with disagreement.
Perhaps the reason I'm disagreeing with you is less because "I can't take it" and more because of differences in point of view and opinion. It basically goes to the idea of "think exactly like me or you're close-minded."
*edit: grammar fail.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
Lets go back to the beginning here: I was harsh on your original example, because it's egregious. Lets look at it again:
You claim this as a matter of style, but I'm saying your "style" is functionally weaker: You are not being as informative, or as persuasive, as you could be.
You talk about wanting to be concise -- but the flip side of "concise" is "terse" -- and the most concise way to say something is usually with jargon or other specialized vocabulary. But there's a series of prices there: First, the more compressed your statement is, the more it asks of the reader. And then, compression all too easily slides into coding, where you're giving a reference that you expect the reader to fill in. And that's exactly what you've got up there. "Inhibiting player agency" isn't a "because" explanation unless you already know what the point of "player agency" is and why inhibiting it is bad. "Game caused griefing" is our local jargon (code), but even there, you're not actually explaining why their idea is going to make all this trouble.
And then there's your justification.... "Honesty" is simply a false flag here, because giving an example or a clear explanation is not less honest. The sense of "brutality" from a terse explanation like yours, comes from you expecting the reader to do the work of interpreting your statements. That's how a boss might talk to their subordinates, or a teacher to their students. Except you don't actually control your readers' paycheck or grade, so people will resent you talking as if you do.
And one bit from your last letter:
On the contrary! Objectivity is carved out with effort, from the subjectivity of ordinary thought, and truly "objective" truths are scarce, especially in everyday experience. One truth can certainly be more or less subjective than another. In particular, any judgment of skill or expertise will have at least some subjectivity in it, even if it's also backed by standards and norms. (And nearly all our criticisms of suggestions are going to have at least some subjectivity.)
But, more to the point, one truth can also be more relevant than another, and that's part of honesty, as distinguished from "truth". When someone proposes a "nuke", I really doubt the PvP potential or Mad Mining Speed is the first thing that goes through your mind -- rather, it's the mass-destruction issue, of landscapes, resources and especially bases. So addressing that head-on is more honest than talking about game balance. No sugar-coating required!
You weren't harsh on my example. It was ad hominem. If you were harsh on my example; I wouldn't have had to tell you to sit in a corner for a few days to reflect.
We'll get back to this later.
Much of my methodology in most posts is to explain myself thoroughly. I don't include such things in what I hope to be a quick post here because I want to avoid a discussion of the example itself and hope that a simplified example will be enough to explain the point without going into the individual points one a thread dedicated to a much wider net (guidelines).
Instead, your focus is on how my methodology is weaker because it's not passive aggressive like your stance. So, a few notes: I understand that my writing style isn't as direct as yours; but also doesn't have the biting and stinging sarcasm of "too bad about that base you spent weeks on, your neighbor got the Bomb first".
This is going into personal standards and principles. I'm not actually that terribly smart of a person. I consider myself reasonably average; I also consider myself reasonably patient and ... reasonable. I expect others to be on my level; to have the same level of intellect as me. Loosening my vocabulary to reach those that might not understand makes me feel like I'm not only insulting myself but them. It literally makes me feel like I have to belittle children for them to understand which is quite uncomfortable for me (it actually makes me feel like I'm being patronizing by not using my normal vocabulary). Not only that, but it goes against my nature and is very difficult for me to maintain for any period of time; extended or otherwise.
You're going to have to give some examples on this bit; if at least to form a rebuttal against the three flavors of ice cream I provided.
Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. So... you're completely correct... and horribly wrong... ALL at the same time! Yes, wholesale destruction is the first thing to go through your mind; but game balance and fun factor is first and foremost in mine. We're going at the same problem from different angles, which is... fine.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
Alright I think we're getting way too far off topic here. While I love the philosophical discussion on what makes feedback good or useful, none of the discussion taking place is actually heading towards adjusting or improving the guidelines at this point.
Want some advice on how to thrive in the Suggestions section? Check this handy list of guidelines and tips for posting your ideas and responding to the ideas of others!
http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-discussion/suggestions/2775557-guidelines-for-the-suggestions-forum
Could you add something to point 3?
3a) try to avoid intended minecraft version numbers as it doesn't describe the suggestion. ("idea for 1.14", "what I want to see in 1.15", etc.)
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
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.
Want to see my suggestions? Here they are!
I am also known as GameWyrm or GameWyrm97. You can also find me at snapshotmc.com
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?
If you are planning to make a suggestion, please read this.
If you want to know more, you can read this.
For those who complain about post-Beta generation, you might want to see this.
Gatekeeping is annoying. I personally think the act is pretentious.
Suggester: They should add more flower blocks to Minecraft! *details*
Critic: Mojang should work on new monsters instead, no support!
Unless you work for Mojang; what you think Minecraft should add next is no more pertinent than the OP you just shot down for no real good reason. The direction you think Mojang needs to take is irrelevant to the suggestion.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
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).
Want to see my suggestions? Here they are!
I am also known as GameWyrm or GameWyrm97. You can also find me at snapshotmc.com
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.
If you are planning to make a suggestion, please read this.
If you want to know more, you can read this.
For those who complain about post-Beta generation, you might want to see this.
Well, if the suggestion is imbalanced, you focus on fixing the suggestion over the rest of the game. Often I see people try to nerf an existing mechanic to make their own mechanic better (such as by making water no longer hydrate blocks to make a watering can viable), but usually that only works if the suggestion is there to fix something else and the nerf is to prevent a loss of balance in another area (for example, suggestions that suggested new weapons before 1.9 would often nerf the whole weapons system by adding some kind of cooldown).
Want to see my suggestions? Here they are!
I am also known as GameWyrm or GameWyrm97. You can also find me at snapshotmc.com
Is this the place to post suggestions for this website? Or is there another place for that?
I have nothing here, go look somewhere else.
I previously asked Sunperp about that, and he said such suggestions should go into the Forum Discussion Forum.
Want to see my suggestions? Here they are!
I am also known as GameWyrm or GameWyrm97. You can also find me at snapshotmc.com
Mojang will never look at minecraftforum.net. It's a waste of time to write your ideas, but it's not my choice. Mojang has much better things to do than look at suggestions. I am pointless, so you may not need to listen to me.
(No drama!)
I am a very pointless person.
My life is pointless.
This forum is very useful for getting feedback on your suggestions before you post them on Reddit, where Mojang does look. Mojang does indeed look at suggestions, and they in fact do it quite a bit.
Want to see my suggestions? Here they are!
I am also known as GameWyrm or GameWyrm97. You can also find me at snapshotmc.com
Because there isn't really much more to add or discuss in this sticky, I'm going to lock the thread for now. It may be reopened if necessary.
Want some advice on how to thrive in the Suggestions section? Check this handy list of guidelines and tips for posting your ideas and responding to the ideas of others!
http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-discussion/suggestions/2775557-guidelines-for-the-suggestions-forum