Minecraft Forums

I made this earlier for FTC. I hope this still has bearing here:

Quote from sunperp»

That rule isn't specific to the Suggestions forum, it is an overall forum rule. We don't allow threads to be necroposted to. An inactive thread can only be revived using new or interesting content -- something that is relevant to the thread topic and would continue the discussion in a substantial way. A post which merely shows support for an old suggestion is not contributing any discussion value to the suggestion thread, and is therefore not allowed.

Quote from yoshi9048»

I made this earlier for FTC. I hope this still has bearing here:

Okay, I now know what the rules stipulate. But just for the record, in the case I referred to in my previous post, the original poster of the suggestion is very much active atm. But no, I didn't add information to the OP aside from giving my support. However, I did find the thread via a link provided in another thread, and through that I saw that the suggestion was worth supporting. Had the original poster not been active, I wouldn't have bothered.

That said, from my own personal view, if a user is still active, I don't know why there should be an issue with supporting their suggestion regardless of the time lapse. After all, they put a lot of work into the suggestion and, for me, give credit where credit is warranted. Again though, that's just my own personal view on the matter, but there isn't anything I can do about that if the rules state otherwise. So, yeah... rules are what they are.

In any case, thanks for your replies on the matter.

Quote from Badprenup»

It is also part of our rules about spam in general. Typically we don't allow people to just say "support" or "no support" without contributing to the thread with discussion. Some slip through the cracks of course because we aren't omniscient, but that builds onto the rule about not necroing unless you have something meaningful to discuss.

I have to agree with that part tho, giving support without at least one reason for doing so is counterproductive and inconsequential.

Quote from Badprenup»

Properly searching can be added for sure, including looking into the threads to ensure it closely resembles the idea they want to post.

Not too sure about the escapist backpedaling though, it seems like another edge case.

It's under the same lines as "learning how to fail with grace." If I were to add it to a Suggestions Guide, it'd be under "It's okay to fail," and help people learn to handle it.

I think it's definitely important that this is not approached as "adding something for the sake of realism is bad", because that's just categorically false. Adding something for the sake of realism is bad if it hurts gameplay in some way, but improving realism and thus immersion in a game can be a very good thing if the change isn't harming the gameplay experience.

"Lol realism is stupid" is a horrid criticism and we should be careful not to encourage that. Everything is to be judged case-by-case.

Quote from Badprenup»

Well lets open a discussion about the whole realism thing. What it is is just a reason that someone likes an idea or doesn't like an idea. Some people want MC to be more realistic and the majority (I would guess based on how I have seen these discussions play out) does not. It isn't exactly a wrong viewpoint, it just isn't a popular one.

I do see what you mean that things should be logical vs realistic. It is more important for things to make logical sense, but pushing to the extreme of realism can do more harm than good. If we can make it short and sweet I have no problem including it.

We have floating blocks, the ability to jump a meter while carrying two million tons, multiple kinds of magic, biomes defined purely by metaphysical designs, the ability to jump into different dimensions, and creatures for which there is no equivalent for on earth. Realism doesn't really play into it.

And usually when someone wants realism, they're talking about throwing in extra, unnecessary physics into simple, functional design. It's never about making things simpler, more functional, or more fun. And even if it somehow was about that, realism would be irrelevant, because the selling point of the suggestion wouldn't be the realism. It'd be the simpler, more functional, or more fun bit.

Logically, realism isn't a good argument no matter how you use it. It doesn't support your suggestion, and people try to use it as a crutch because they don't know how to make their suggestion better, or didn't have a "why" for their suggestion. Popularity of this viewpoint is irrelevant, because it does not fit with the logic or aims demonstrated by the game. That is, if you're looking at a suggestion like this, you're going about it the wrong way.

Quote from Mastermined»

Agreed. "floating blocks should fall to the ground just like sand does, because realism" is a terrible suggestion
"We need more ambient sounds, like wind blowing, because realism" is an idea most people can probably get behind. Realism in and of itself isn't a bad thing, so I'm not sure if it's even worth mentioning in this guide.

This is a good example. I couldn't think of one off the top of my head but realism does seem very bizarrely stigmatised as flat out wrong.

I guess if realism doesn't matter there's no point even having grass or trees or stone in the game, as they're all made to mimic things in the real world. Might as well just replace them with resources A, B and C, all with their own flat colours.