Minecraft Forums

Well, to be fair. This is meant to be a set of guidelines; not a Pulitzer prize award-winning short story. While I have faith in badprenup for going through and making this a more interesting read; it's brevity doesn't really speak a required case for it. It's short enough to where most will have the attention span to read all of it.

I mean, there are goldfish in the world; but they usually don't frequent this forum.

Quote from LightningSh0ck»

These two are actually contestable. For the first one, if it's something like a command, it's legit. We have hardcore mode optional, do you want it mandatory? For the second one, maybe that person is trying to shape his suggestion based on feedback(assuming the way you quoted is hyperbolized).

Well, for the first, "it's optional" is usually more of an excuse not to listen to feedback than anything else. Basically, "it's optional, so you can't say anything bad about it because you can just shut it off." Yes, it's true that one can shut it off, but that doesn't make the idea better.

Basically it's against Guideline 6.

The second is more about idea farming, which already is against the (unlisted) rules. Being willing to shape a suggestion based on feedback is not the same as basically acting as a proxy writer for others' ideas. The quote isn't hyperbole as much as it is summarizing and generalizing what these threads are.

I'm going to have to disagree a bit. It's all about framing and objective.

The objective of the guide is (from my inference) to give a guideline to follow. This means things have to be generalized tidbits. Since things are lightning round; there's not room for personality.

It's framed as a serious guide as well. While putting in some colloquialisms may add a hint of humor and liven things up; it can also make a serious guide feel lampooned and can also hurt the credibility of the guide as a result. This guide is written by a moderator, an official voice of the forum as a whole; it would be bad PR to crack a "harmless" joke that a good number of people just don't get and take offense to.

With FTC, I could really shoot fast and loose with the script; put jokes in where you didn't know jokes were and word humor for those that paid attention. This because I'm not in any official capacity; never was, and likely never will be. But because of this; if someone took offense; they took offense to something a basic poster said; not one of the faces of the forum as a whole.

They're official; they gotta keep it official.

EDIT: Often, to improve the readability; "fun facts" can be interspersed into the prose. This is a generally drama-free way to keep people hooked into media. They can be stated in an official voice; but they still have a problem of messing with the objective of the guide. Essentially, they'd be out of place here; and they'd feel slapped or stapled in.

I guess my thing is: The guide is fine as it is.

Entertainment/personality/humor is nice, but if posters can't read a five-minute guide that is just as dry as the rules themselves then the fault is really on their end and no amount of personality will make them read it.

Quote from Acknid»

Then there's nothing that no kind of guide will fix. Some people just think they know everything and then fail hard. The personality keeps people interested. A formal high school textbook will not.

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".

My problem is that I agree with you in many ways... and yet I do not find agreeing with you productive. I'm trying to get a use out of this thing, arguing for it, since it's unlikely that the moderators will revert. I'm getting a bit tired of doing so.

Do these Guidelines actually fulfill the purpose they were created for? Have they actually cured the "toxic environment?" I understand how they're supposed to operate. Do they actually do that? Or did they simply enable people to more easily ignore the social consequences of their actions? Were the complaints the only thing this stopped? I do not have access to the resources required to know this, but these Guidelines still don't satisfy what I would consider their point. The explanations are lacking, the guidelines are too narrow in many places, and while it touches around making a good suggestion it lacks insights and corrections that would hammer it home.

At least... as far as I'm aware. Not like I can read the minds of newbies. But honestly, remembering my own newbie days, I'd have probably not even posted here if I had encountered these Guidelines (being the person I am, I would have read them through regardless). I would take it as a reflection of the forum itself and decide it's just not worth it, that this place is uncreative and impersonal, that no one actually cares about effort or failure. Anything goes and everything is naively optimistic, so this forum has no purpose. It was precisely because I read Theriasis' thread that I became interested in suggestions in the first place, after all.

Honestly I don't know how to fix the issue outside of extreme-editing everything, but given everything that's been said, what gets added, changed, or removed is extremely limited to an objective that I've been mostly ignoring as I attempt to create one that is realistic, because the few places it gets explained in this thread it's so vague or idealistic I can't help but facepalm.

I might have tried to write a Guide myself in response to the problems I have, but I'm unsure if that would actually do anything even if it were allowed or tolerated.

One of the main problems I saw with the old suggestion guide was that critics were using it a lot more than people actually making suggestions were, as if it was some kind of official yardstick to measure the quality of suggestions, when in reality it was a somewhat subjective tool for helping people make suggestions, not judge them. That was the purpose of the critic's guide, which ironically enough several of the critics telling others to read the suggestion guide ignored themselves.

As for whether this guide is interesting or not, well, I had no problem reading it. If you don't even read the critic's section, it takes at most two minutes to read, and likely less than one. If you don't have the attention span to read that without a joke in there, then you won't have the attention span to make a good suggestion or to listen to those criticizing your suggestion. The most important thing to focus on here is not how interesting the guide is to read. The guide was not written to entertain people. The main focus should be looking for ways to improve particular points the guide might have missed, or helping to clarify obscure points.

Quote from Badprenup»

I have to say that it probably would be better to post your version of the guide in this thread (or in a PM to a staff first), and then we can see if it can fix the gaps people see in this guide or if it can be a secondary guide that may or may not be stickied, but could be used as a resource for crafting good suggestions and remain active through discussion. But I won't make any promises of anything because what gets stickied is not my decision, nor is it my decision if a non-suggestion can remain in the section, though we have made exceptions previously.

I'll take you up on that. Not now though because I had leg surgery yesterday and am a bit out of it.

As for if this guideline has fixed the toxicity of the section? Combined with the updated definition for trollcall warnings (which was more of a clarification than actual rule change), I would have to say the answer to that is a resounding "Yes". Without going in to any names, or detail that would violate user's right to keep that information private, the number of posts from regular users I have seen on a large scale that violate the rules has almost stalled entirely. We used get something like 1 every 1-3 days, now we seem to get 1 every 7-9 days according to what I was reviewing. That is a 75% reduction, which is huge. I don't know if it is the guide itself, the old guide being removed, or just that since it was put in place people are aware that we are taking a harder stance on it in general. Either way, something is working, I don't really care what it is to be honest.

We haven't really had any major problems with bad threads either since the guidelines were written either, but I'm chalking that up more to the fact that we never really had any major problems to begin with rather than this guideline making a difference. As usual, outside the occasional troll (who unless they are super obvious right away we need to wait for them to slip up and overplay their hand) or normal user who is a little trigger happy with insults, we're business as usual.

I am uncertain about the results. I don't know what you count as violating the rules and what is simply... argumentative (I know what it should be but honestly I'm not sure that what is and what you see match up). I don't know how you count that. I don't know what you're seeing but I haven't seen any major difference outside a lack of links to the Guide and an increased number of other critics who don't do a very good job at criticizing either positively or negatively. The bad thread count is the same, though there hasn't been a recent extremely bad thread. I've also noticed that necroing/old thread revival is up a bit.

Something may be 'working' but something else had to break in the process. Perhaps I'll try to figure out what happened later.

Quote from sunperp»

As I have explained previously, part of the problem with the old guide was that some people were treating it as an unofficial forum rules page and causing problems in lots of the suggestion threads. Shortening the old guide would not have solved that problem. Rewriting it in a simpler way and keeping it very light was a way to reduce that issue. The core problem we were trying to solve wasn't a reduction in dumb suggestions, but rather a reduction in the inflammatory, toxic, pile-on responses from the Suggestion forum regulars to poorly-written suggestion threads. From what I am seeing, the results of this change have been mostly positive so far.

They aren't unofficial forum rules. They're standards that happened to develop. Repeat the same thing again and again and eventually a system of rationality is created. Just because logic isn't a law doesn't mean that you can ignore it when you're trying to create an argument. And a suggestion, at its base, is an argument. This isn't the 'vague possible ideas' forum, after all.

Don't we have a points system to take care of abuse? Was it really necessary to get rid of the Suggestions Guide? Did it seem to have too much authority? One would imagine it would, seeing as rational evidence does tend to lend credibility to an argument. It is not an authority created by the forums, but simply by experience and reason.

If people are getting overemotional, insulting, or blatantly disrespectful... well, we have a points system. Those things are unlawful and unreasonable, and so are in violation of the spirit of both the Rules and the Guide. If removing pile-ons is a necessity, a new rule or guideline could simply be: read the comments on at least the first and last page, and if someone says what you were going to (whether positive or negative), try saying something else or don't say anything at all.

Quote from jdc997»

One of the main problems I saw with the old suggestion guide was that critics were using it a lot more than people actually making suggestions were, as if it was some kind of official yardstick to measure the quality of suggestions, when in reality it was a somewhat subjective tool for helping people make suggestions, not judge them. That was the purpose of the critic's guide, which ironically enough several of the critics telling others to read the suggestion guide ignored themselves.

As for whether this guide is interesting or not, well, I had no problem reading it. If you don't even read the critic's section, it takes at most two minutes to read, and likely less than one. If you don't have the attention span to read that without a joke in there, then you won't have the attention span to make a good suggestion or to listen to those criticizing your suggestion. The most important thing to focus on here is not how interesting the guide is to read. The guide was not written to entertain people. The main focus should be looking for ways to improve particular points the guide might have missed, or helping to clarify obscure points.

Given that a good suggestion will be judged well, and that bad suggestions will be judged poorly, both making a suggestion and giving criticism go hand in hand. FTC is the same in many respects.

If you thought a critic was ignoring the Guide, you could calmly and politely tell them that, and list which part they were ignoring. In a PM or in the Guide itself, of course. in the course of the previous Guide's run, there were times in which things changed in response to apparent irrationality. Of course, not every moment of accused wrongness was correct.

How interesting the Guidelines are and what points are in the Guidelines are not mutually exclusive. Yes, the points themselves are more important, but that does not mean that being interesting is unimportant or unable to be included.

Quote from LightningSh0ck»

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.

I did say something along these lines on the last page. You should check Acknid's response.

Quote from LightningSh0ck»

It's supposed to be an objective guideline, not a subjective prize-winning original novel. Stop judging based of how much of an artwork they are, because that's not how a guide is made!

Take it on the practical scale:moderators themselves claimed this change had a positive impact.

And the biggest problem was: while suggestion makers were not taking this seriously, critics were actually taking this WAY TOO seriously, being like actual rules, which is the worst combo and the cause of the "toxic environment".

In conclusion Theriasis' writing was not good for making a guideline. Rewriting was the solution.

There might be harm when:
1. Someone actually comes with a good variant of a bad suggestion, but that list would still discourage
2. Minecraft is starting to change it's generation, similar to LEGO, therefore maybe it might hit a generation that actually want a thirst bar or toilets or guns or whatever!

It was an objective Guide. Objective authority is derived from logic and rationality. Critics were not taking it too seriously. They were taking it and what they were criticizing seriously and being emotional about issues that have not changed. Because, you know, humans tend to be emotional about things that repeatedly bother them.

That doesn't excuse the people who broke the rules, but it doesn't justify a tabula rasa approach to this.

It was a list of "generally disliked" suggestions. I created a spears suggestion that was well-received, specifically because I read the Guide and made sure not to do what caused everyone else's to fail. Some suggestions will always fail, but even so it's not a list of "avoid these completely" suggestions.

What people want and what's good for the game are entirely different things. That doesn't change with the generations. Even if thirst bars as an idea were 100% wanted, and everyone here liked it, I would still say we shouldn't add it. It's nice to get excited and all, but our personal feelings are the worst thing to use as a measure of quality.

The biggest problem I see here is that people are just getting too focused on "personality." Yes, I get that this guide is a bit dry and uninteresting. Perhaps that should be fixed. But, regardless, it should be a low-priority issue. There's an issue here if more people are complaining about that than any other particular flaw in the guide. It's subjective what's interesting or not, and besides, you don't come here for entertainment, you come here to learn how to make a good suggestion. Of course, it's a bit lacking in that area as well, and that's what I believe people should be discussing, not complaining that a guide that takes them literally less than five minutes to read is bland. Objective facts are more important than subjectively funny jokes.

Can we get a thread in Forum Discussion & Info or something? Though none of the complaining here can take back the past, it's still a relevant discussion.