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.
I would like to test an argument. I don't know if I agree with it myself, and I won't feel bad if it's defeated. However, I would like to try it.
Realism doesn't matter. Familiarity (and thus both understanding and immersion) does. Grass in Minecraft resembles real-life grass in only a couple of ways and is otherwise completely different, but it is a familiar-enough concept that you can point to it and people will understand in a general sense what it is and what it does. Same with trees. In a sense, things in real life act as metaphors for understanding what's in the game, and that helps someone get into the game.
But the important part of this isn't the metaphors, it's the game. I didn't know what mycelium was in real life, but I knew how it worked and what it did in the game. It could have been "Resource A" and it wouldn't have mattered either way. In real life, diamonds would break if turned into a sword and swung, but diamonds are "hard," so the view in games is that it is also hard to break. The things in Minecraft do not act the way they do in real life. There is nothing in the game that has an iota of realism. The only thing that could be said to be taken from real life is comparisons that serve to inform gameplay.
Going back to the "wind" example: How is that wind forming? "Heat" that doesn't appear to exist or affect anything except under very specific circumstances? "Air" that only exists in the most abstract sense? A "sun" that has no apparent connection to temperature, weather, or humidity? Even if you put wind in, it still wouldn't be realistic. It'd just be something you can identify as having a real-life analogy.
Realism isn't a good argument. Used for a bad suggestion, it's a poor excuse. Used for a good suggestion, it's irrelevant. It has no value whatsoever. If a suggestion happens to be a real thing, or comparable to a real thing, that's immaterial to what the benefit of the suggestion would be. If said benefit is to increase familiarity or immersion, fine. But don't use "it's realistic" in your pros column. It's not true, and it wouldn't matter even if it was.
Realism doesn't matter. Familiarity (and thus both understanding and immersion) does. Grass in Minecraft resembles real-life grass in only a couple of ways and is otherwise completely different, but it is a familiar-enough concept that you can point to it and people will understand in a general sense what it is and what it does. Same with trees. In a sense, things in real life act as metaphors for understanding what's in the game, and that helps someone get into the game.
But the important part of this isn't the metaphors, it's the game. I didn't know what mycelium was in real life, but I knew how it worked and what it did in the game. It could have been "Resource A" and it wouldn't have mattered either way. In real life, diamonds would break if turned into a sword and swung, but diamonds are "hard," so the view in games is that it is also hard to break. The things in Minecraft do not act the way they do in real life. There is nothing in the game that has an iota of realism. The only thing that could be said to be taken from real life is comparisons that serve to inform gameplay.
Going back to the "wind" example: How is that wind forming? "Heat" that doesn't appear to exist or affect anything except under very specific circumstances? "Air" that only exists in the most abstract sense? A "sun" that has no apparent connection to temperature, weather, or humidity? Even if you put wind in, it still wouldn't be realistic. It'd just be something you can identify as having a real-life analogy.
Realism isn't a good argument. Used for a bad suggestion, it's a poor excuse. Used for a good suggestion, it's irrelevant. It has no value whatsoever. If a suggestion happens to be a real thing, or comparable to a real thing, that's immaterial to what the benefit of the suggestion would be. If said benefit is to increase familiarity or immersion, fine. But don't use "it's realistic" in your pros column. It's not true, and it wouldn't matter even if it was.
Your distinction between familiarity and realism seems beyond inconsequential. Your definition of familiarity is very much a part of realism, and you seem to be forcibly cutting it out to make a point. Well sure, when you remove all the good reasons why we should have some realism then realism is a pretty terrible idea. You seem to be turning this into an argument of semantics which I'm not very interested in.
Realism isn't a switch you turn on and off. It's a scale. One thing can be realistic in some respects but not in others. There's no need to conclude that the game has no realism because the game isn't built on a working solar system with tangible effects on the planet.
Hell, the sun was maybe the worst example you could have chosen because so many games which we'd call realistic don't make the sun do any of those things. There's realism and then there's trying to simulate the universe.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Gamelord. Pixelmon Server Owner. Server IP: pixelmonprisma.mc-server.net | Server Discord:https://discord.gg/HkK855b
Realism alone isn't the best argument you can give. But used alongside other points, to better support your other argument, it's very valid.
It's all about the context the suggestion is made in. No suggestion is objectively bad, and no argument is objectively bad (well, maybe 'I like it, so it should be added' is)
I've seen suggestions about ideas most people here absolutely despise get a surprising amount of support because of the way it was written amd argumented. Like, wasn't there an X-ray potion suggestion a while back?
Anyways, my point is that no specific argument should be encouraged or discourages, because all of them can be used right or wrong depending on the context. It's not something that belongs in a guide like this one.
I think I am in the same boat as you on this. I don't want to say any argument should be avoided except for the ones that are impossible to have productive discussion around, like "I like it so add it" as you said. What Gamelord said plays into it as well, realism is absolutely a scale, and you can't get familiarity without at least some realism.
A line of text could be added about how to request thread deletion (although that seems more something that should be posted in a general area as it is for all users of the forum), but it would have the caveats that staff may decide against removing a post and forcing us to do so by making the post violate the rules will only result in warnings or post suspensions. But this is another edge case, most people don't request post deletions even if they are aware of them.
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!
Your distinction between familiarity and realism seems beyond inconsequential. Your definition of familiarity is very much a part of realism, and you seem to be forcibly cutting it out to make a point. Well sure, when you remove all the good reasons why we should have some realism then realism is a pretty terrible idea. You seem to be turning this into an argument of semantics which I'm not very interested in.
Realism isn't a switch you turn on and off. It's a scale. One thing can be realistic in some respects but not in others. There's no need to conclude that the game has no realism because the game isn't built on a working solar system with tangible effects on the planet.
Hell, the sun was maybe the worst example you could have chosen because so many games which we'd call realistic don't make the sun do any of those things. There's realism and then there's trying to simulate the universe.
Thanks. I was not trying to get into a semantic argument, my brain just tends to come up with stuff and sometimes it's correct. Sometimes it's not, and an outside source helps correct the error.
Perhaps what is necessary isn't a manifesto against realism, but a demonstration of when it is an applicable argument. Which is, as far as I can tell, in rare edge cases where few if any mechanics are involved, because the moment you start adding mechanics the suggestion is no longer about adding immersion and is then about changing how you play the game. Yes, something that adds or changes mechanics can involve realism, but being realistic becomes unimportant in the face of changing gameplay.
Thanks. I was not trying to get into a semantic argument, my brain just tends to come up with stuff and sometimes it's correct. Sometimes it's not, and an outside source helps correct the error.
Perhaps what is necessary isn't a manifesto against realism, but a demonstration of when it is an applicable argument. Which is, as far as I can tell, in rare edge cases where few if any mechanics are involved, because the moment you start adding mechanics the suggestion is no longer about adding immersion and is then about changing how you play the game. Yes, something that adds or changes mechanics can involve realism, but being realistic becomes unimportant in the face of changing gameplay.
What would you say to that?
Just so we're clear, the tl;dr version of what you're suggesting is "realism is okay as long as there is no effect on gameplay", right?
I disagree, but on such a minor level that I don't even think it's an important discussion. Your view seems to be that as soon as gameplay becomes involved realism becomes a non-factor, which to me just seems a very absolute perspective when the question is more nuanced.
Yes, of course you have to judge the mechanical implications of any given suggestion and decide if gameplay would be hurt by improving realism. I think the problem though is that on this forum we always seems to look at gameplay and realism as two opposing sides, the former being the one that we as critics must valiantly defend. But realism is a part of the overall gameplay experience, it isn't at all separate.
Realism with no mechanical effect, like the wind blowing, still affects the gameplay experience in a positive way (hence why it was suggested), so it only follows that a realism change which may upset the game's mechanics may also have such a positive effect. Critics' views on realism seem to range from "it's kind of nice but never sacrifice gameplay" (see above for my disapproval of this dichotomy) to "wow don't even mention that go back to FPS games kid".
These ideas seem to me to be massively lacking in nuance because they're all operating under the assumption that immersion and realism are completely unimportant to the gameplay experience, considered kind of neat at best. People forget that realism can affect your enjoyment of the game in a tangible way. If you apply this perspective to the situation, the stance of "realism is okay but never sacrifice gameplay" stops making sense.
I can't give you any specific examples of this because I don't know if any exist or even can exist - I'm speaking sort of abstractly to try to get the idea across that everyone needs to just read the thread instead of swearing by a list of do's and do not's. I have no idea if I will ever read a suggestion to which I respond "this is sacrificing some game mechanics I like, but the realism offered outweighs that". If anyone has, do tell me. I'm spitballing. I know critics are going to make their little handbooks with their do's and do not's no matter what I say, and I know they're going to apply those rules even when the situation is way to nuanced for a response like "BUT WE ALREADY HAD 4129 THREADS ON <INSERT VERY BROAD CONCEPT>!" Guess that's how it is.
If you think what I've just said is a bit too abstract and will probably never be relevant (like, ever), you're probably right. See the second paragraph of this post.
I suppose an apt comparison would be my stance on Herobrine thread. I've been quite firm in the belief for a while now that "Herobrine threads are bad" is a terrible stance, even though as of right now, looking at those which exist and are ever likely to exist, it's probably true. I'd rather we sit through every Herobrine thread that is ever posted from now on with actual criticisms weighing up pros and cons. It's the same here, I don't see the need to say "This has an effect on gameplay which is somewhere above zero and realism is a NON-FACTOR therefore no support!"
Sorry for the ramble. I pretty much did this improv (like everything), and that plus the length means it's probably a touch incoherent. But whatever, you get the point.
Sorry for the ramble. I pretty much did this improv (like everything), and that plus the length means it's probably a touch incoherent. But whatever, you get the point.
My point was more along the lines of priorities, as opposed to an absolute rule. Realism isn't bad, it's just more of a bonus. Like using "change" as a plus, despite every suggestion having change in it (and thus being an obvious low priority).
I'd like to find a way to say this that can apply to every concept but I'm drawing a blank.
From what I gathered about realism (A term that's really begun chafing me) is that it's implicitly bound to supporting details. Make your case fit given the details you put in.
"because realism" is always a house of cards. As I said before, realism is bad; feasible is good. Very few things are realistic in Minecraft save a few anchors to what we expect. Anchor = "farming grows crops", "trees give wood", "trees exist, so does grass". Everything past that seems to fall into the category of relativistic reality. Since MC-reality and RL-reality are hokey and confusing labels, I want to shrug away from the term altogether.
With that said, even saying "because it's feasible" is terribad because it ignores the major problem of NOT ENOUGH DETAILS. A suggestion in Minecraft is literally made of details. Not to say that having a well-detailed suggestion will make it immune to failure; but I haven't seen any undetailed or under-detailed suggestions really stick.
With that said, I'd like to see this forum do 2 things:
1) Suggesters - stop using buzz-word panaceas to try to realize your suggestion. Either detail it or don't post.
2) Critics - stop knee-jerking when you see a buzz-word. "realism", "gun", "nuke", "butter=gold", "it would be cool", etc. do not a bad suggestion make; lack of detail and forethought is what makes a suggestion bad.
The suggester has to figure out how to balance the suggestion properly; detail it correctly; and face a polarizing audience. I'd expect a critic to put in just as much effort as the suggester.
"There's the guy who hated my idea of creepers speaking l33tspeak. I'm gonna lob some serious poops at his popular thread about a new biome. That'll show him >=} !!" No, it will not show him.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Unofficial Suggestion Guide - Everything you need to know to not make goofy mistakes in a suggestion! Honestly though, you should really go there.
"There's the guy who hated my idea of creepers speaking l33tspeak. I'm gonna lob some serious poops at his popular thread about a new biome. That'll show him >=} !!" No, it will not show him.
I like to think there's a certain degree of self awareness to this such that saying "this is bad" won't actually stop the kinds of people who were thinking about it in the first place.
Kind of like saying "Hey guys LPT, don't be super rude to peeps". People know that it's not cool, the people you're aiming such a comment at will do it anyway.
Regardless of the best way to phrase it, I don't think it's something that belongs in this thread, even if it were just to give an example. We don't really need examples for every possible argument, to see when it's used right or used wrong. That's something that can be discussed in a suggestion thread itself, if you feel the author has made a poor argument.
I'm well aware of that. I'm suggesting more of a general concept like "sort through your reasons, figure out their value, try to decide if they would be worth the idea you have outlined." We have "why" in the Guidelines but I don't think we have something like this.
Perhaps try to anticipate "why not?" Try to imagine yourself in the shoes of the critics before posting the suggestion? I think that would cause people to do what I've described, and perhaps a bit more as well. Although I'm not certain if this is too... demanding to ask of people. Like "you have to make your suggestions like this." But then, guidelines are rather more like recommendations than commands.
I don't even see where a revenge post could be even vaguely problematic. Don't feed the trolls. You don't need to treat these people like they have a valid criticism you must address. If they have no actual points to make and are just yelling "lol ur suggestion is dumb", move on.
Not that I'm even the slightest bit familiar with the concept in the first place. Never once have I seen this happen.
Yeah I'm sure this was brought up many times, but there really needs to be a mention on people messing with polls, or giving really stupid answers.
Messing with polls (such as reversing yes/no or approve/disapprove answers) is generally considered trolling and shouldn't really need to be covered by this guide. I really don't think that someone giving dumb poll selections is a large enough problem for it to be covered by a pinned guide.
I don't even see where a revenge post could be even vaguely problematic. Don't feed the trolls. You don't need to treat these people like they have a valid criticism you must address. If they have no actual points to make and are just yelling "lol ur suggestion is dumb", move on.
Not that I'm even the slightest bit familiar with the concept in the first place. Never once have I seen this happen.
I've seen people perceive it as happening to them, but that was usually just people who would rapid fire off a dozen poorly thought out ideas and then be surprised at negative reception from one or two people that gave feedback on all of them. But it is an edge case I would think.
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!
Messing with polls (such as reversing yes/no or approve/disapprove answers) is generally considered trolling and shouldn't really need to be covered by this guide. I really don't think that someone giving dumb poll selections is a large enough problem for it to be covered by a pinned guide.
Some of the people who have dumb poll answers are inexperienced posters or people who just don't think this stuff out. It's not always trollish such the answers being "idea is best!!", "idea is kinda best!" and "idea is ok but still almost maybe besst!!" and nothing else. I don't see why it isn't worth mentioning as polls are an extremely common thing in threads. It can also give the OP a muddy opinion on their own threads because they didn't think out the poll answers.
I see it happen almost every time one of the better critics make a suggestion themselves. It actually happened a few times in this thread.
What exactly tips you off to the fact they're revenge posting as opposed to just not liking the idea?
Some of the people who have dumb poll answers are inexperienced posters or people who just don't think this stuff out. It's not always trollish such the answers being "idea is best!!", "idea is kinda best!" and "idea is ok but still almost maybe besst!!" and nothing else. I don't see why it isn't worth mentioning as polls are an extremely common thing in threads. It can also give the OP a muddy opinion on their own threads because they didn't think out the poll answers.
Give us an example of a bad poll someone could genuinely make my mistake.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Gamelord. Pixelmon Server Owner. Server IP: pixelmonprisma.mc-server.net | Server Discord:https://discord.gg/HkK855b
What exactly tips you off to the fact they're revenge posting as opposed to just not liking the idea?
The way they post? If they explain why they don't like the idea it's one thing. If they just go "idea = sux ;]" after getting negative reception from the guy who made the thread than it comes off as failed payback or just a guy who's bad at posting. Or both.
Give us an example of a bad poll someone could genuinely make my mistake.
I'll give you two:
My idea's really really good right?
[ ] Yes, best idea on the forum probably!
[ ] Worst thing ever! Augh!
Cool, nothing in between.
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)
Neat. There's no "no." option. Yes, I've seen both of these kinds of polls actually exist.
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!!!!)
Agreed with Mastermined. Cringeworthy though some things may be, disproportional retribution for it is not the path to go.
As amusing as the idea of a forums-wide autocorrect that changes "budder" to "gold" in all posts is (something I just thought of, not saying any of you came up with it), that's all it is: an amusing idea. We shouldn't take any ideas along the lines of "post herobrine->instant ban" seriously.
Herobrine suggestions are totally cool to make, the mods will confirm this for me, so I don't see why saying 'Herobrine' should get you banned. And as for 'budder', you might as well ban any YouTuber related word then. As much as some people dislike theses trends, me included, there's obviously people who do. Why should they get banned for using a word?
I don't think he was being serious about that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Yeah, that guy in the avatar is me. I'm *that* strange. It happens. Sometimes people act like that. Just go with it. I can offer help with suggestions even before you post them - NOT make your suggestions - but help you with them.
I would like to test an argument. I don't know if I agree with it myself, and I won't feel bad if it's defeated. However, I would like to try it.
Realism doesn't matter. Familiarity (and thus both understanding and immersion) does. Grass in Minecraft resembles real-life grass in only a couple of ways and is otherwise completely different, but it is a familiar-enough concept that you can point to it and people will understand in a general sense what it is and what it does. Same with trees. In a sense, things in real life act as metaphors for understanding what's in the game, and that helps someone get into the game.
But the important part of this isn't the metaphors, it's the game. I didn't know what mycelium was in real life, but I knew how it worked and what it did in the game. It could have been "Resource A" and it wouldn't have mattered either way. In real life, diamonds would break if turned into a sword and swung, but diamonds are "hard," so the view in games is that it is also hard to break. The things in Minecraft do not act the way they do in real life. There is nothing in the game that has an iota of realism. The only thing that could be said to be taken from real life is comparisons that serve to inform gameplay.
Going back to the "wind" example: How is that wind forming? "Heat" that doesn't appear to exist or affect anything except under very specific circumstances? "Air" that only exists in the most abstract sense? A "sun" that has no apparent connection to temperature, weather, or humidity? Even if you put wind in, it still wouldn't be realistic. It'd just be something you can identify as having a real-life analogy.
Realism isn't a good argument. Used for a bad suggestion, it's a poor excuse. Used for a good suggestion, it's irrelevant. It has no value whatsoever. If a suggestion happens to be a real thing, or comparable to a real thing, that's immaterial to what the benefit of the suggestion would be. If said benefit is to increase familiarity or immersion, fine. But don't use "it's realistic" in your pros column. It's not true, and it wouldn't matter even if it was.
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.
Your distinction between familiarity and realism seems beyond inconsequential. Your definition of familiarity is very much a part of realism, and you seem to be forcibly cutting it out to make a point. Well sure, when you remove all the good reasons why we should have some realism then realism is a pretty terrible idea. You seem to be turning this into an argument of semantics which I'm not very interested in.
Realism isn't a switch you turn on and off. It's a scale. One thing can be realistic in some respects but not in others. There's no need to conclude that the game has no realism because the game isn't built on a working solar system with tangible effects on the planet.
Hell, the sun was maybe the worst example you could have chosen because so many games which we'd call realistic don't make the sun do any of those things. There's realism and then there's trying to simulate the universe.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffI think I am in the same boat as you on this. I don't want to say any argument should be avoided except for the ones that are impossible to have productive discussion around, like "I like it so add it" as you said. What Gamelord said plays into it as well, realism is absolutely a scale, and you can't get familiarity without at least some realism.
A line of text could be added about how to request thread deletion (although that seems more something that should be posted in a general area as it is for all users of the forum), but it would have the caveats that staff may decide against removing a post and forcing us to do so by making the post violate the rules will only result in warnings or post suspensions. But this is another edge case, most people don't request post deletions even if they are aware of them.
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
Thanks. I was not trying to get into a semantic argument, my brain just tends to come up with stuff and sometimes it's correct. Sometimes it's not, and an outside source helps correct the error.
Perhaps what is necessary isn't a manifesto against realism, but a demonstration of when it is an applicable argument. Which is, as far as I can tell, in rare edge cases where few if any mechanics are involved, because the moment you start adding mechanics the suggestion is no longer about adding immersion and is then about changing how you play the game. Yes, something that adds or changes mechanics can involve realism, but being realistic becomes unimportant in the face of changing gameplay.
What would you say to that?
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.
Just so we're clear, the tl;dr version of what you're suggesting is "realism is okay as long as there is no effect on gameplay", right?
I disagree, but on such a minor level that I don't even think it's an important discussion. Your view seems to be that as soon as gameplay becomes involved realism becomes a non-factor, which to me just seems a very absolute perspective when the question is more nuanced.
Yes, of course you have to judge the mechanical implications of any given suggestion and decide if gameplay would be hurt by improving realism. I think the problem though is that on this forum we always seems to look at gameplay and realism as two opposing sides, the former being the one that we as critics must valiantly defend. But realism is a part of the overall gameplay experience, it isn't at all separate.
Realism with no mechanical effect, like the wind blowing, still affects the gameplay experience in a positive way (hence why it was suggested), so it only follows that a realism change which may upset the game's mechanics may also have such a positive effect. Critics' views on realism seem to range from "it's kind of nice but never sacrifice gameplay" (see above for my disapproval of this dichotomy) to "wow don't even mention that go back to FPS games kid".
These ideas seem to me to be massively lacking in nuance because they're all operating under the assumption that immersion and realism are completely unimportant to the gameplay experience, considered kind of neat at best. People forget that realism can affect your enjoyment of the game in a tangible way. If you apply this perspective to the situation, the stance of "realism is okay but never sacrifice gameplay" stops making sense.
I can't give you any specific examples of this because I don't know if any exist or even can exist - I'm speaking sort of abstractly to try to get the idea across that everyone needs to just read the thread instead of swearing by a list of do's and do not's. I have no idea if I will ever read a suggestion to which I respond "this is sacrificing some game mechanics I like, but the realism offered outweighs that". If anyone has, do tell me. I'm spitballing. I know critics are going to make their little handbooks with their do's and do not's no matter what I say, and I know they're going to apply those rules even when the situation is way to nuanced for a response like "BUT WE ALREADY HAD 4129 THREADS ON <INSERT VERY BROAD CONCEPT>!" Guess that's how it is.
If you think what I've just said is a bit too abstract and will probably never be relevant (like, ever), you're probably right. See the second paragraph of this post.
I suppose an apt comparison would be my stance on Herobrine thread. I've been quite firm in the belief for a while now that "Herobrine threads are bad" is a terrible stance, even though as of right now, looking at those which exist and are ever likely to exist, it's probably true. I'd rather we sit through every Herobrine thread that is ever posted from now on with actual criticisms weighing up pros and cons. It's the same here, I don't see the need to say "This has an effect on gameplay which is somewhere above zero and realism is a NON-FACTOR therefore no support!"
Sorry for the ramble. I pretty much did this improv (like everything), and that plus the length means it's probably a touch incoherent. But whatever, you get the point.
My point was more along the lines of priorities, as opposed to an absolute rule. Realism isn't bad, it's just more of a bonus. Like using "change" as a plus, despite every suggestion having change in it (and thus being an obvious low priority).
I'd like to find a way to say this that can apply to every concept but I'm drawing a blank.
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.
From what I gathered about realism (A term that's really begun chafing me) is that it's implicitly bound to supporting details. Make your case fit given the details you put in.
"because realism" is always a house of cards. As I said before, realism is bad; feasible is good. Very few things are realistic in Minecraft save a few anchors to what we expect. Anchor = "farming grows crops", "trees give wood", "trees exist, so does grass". Everything past that seems to fall into the category of relativistic reality. Since MC-reality and RL-reality are hokey and confusing labels, I want to shrug away from the term altogether.
With that said, even saying "because it's feasible" is terribad because it ignores the major problem of NOT ENOUGH DETAILS. A suggestion in Minecraft is literally made of details. Not to say that having a well-detailed suggestion will make it immune to failure; but I haven't seen any undetailed or under-detailed suggestions really stick.
With that said, I'd like to see this forum do 2 things:
1) Suggesters - stop using buzz-word panaceas to try to realize your suggestion. Either detail it or don't post.
2) Critics - stop knee-jerking when you see a buzz-word. "realism", "gun", "nuke", "butter=gold", "it would be cool", etc. do not a bad suggestion make; lack of detail and forethought is what makes a suggestion bad.
The suggester has to figure out how to balance the suggestion properly; detail it correctly; and face a polarizing audience. I'd expect a critic to put in just as much effort as the suggester.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
Revenge Posting
"There's the guy who hated my idea of creepers speaking l33tspeak. I'm gonna lob some serious poops at his popular thread about a new biome. That'll show him >=} !!" No, it will not show him.
The Unofficial Suggestion Guide - Everything you need to know to not make goofy mistakes in a suggestion! Honestly though, you should really go there.
I like to think there's a certain degree of self awareness to this such that saying "this is bad" won't actually stop the kinds of people who were thinking about it in the first place.
Kind of like saying "Hey guys LPT, don't be super rude to peeps". People know that it's not cool, the people you're aiming such a comment at will do it anyway.
*scans thread*
Yeah I'm sure this was brought up many times, but there really needs to be a mention on people messing with polls, or giving really stupid answers.
I'm well aware of that. I'm suggesting more of a general concept like "sort through your reasons, figure out their value, try to decide if they would be worth the idea you have outlined." We have "why" in the Guidelines but I don't think we have something like this.
Perhaps try to anticipate "why not?" Try to imagine yourself in the shoes of the critics before posting the suggestion? I think that would cause people to do what I've described, and perhaps a bit more as well. Although I'm not certain if this is too... demanding to ask of people. Like "you have to make your suggestions like this." But then, guidelines are rather more like recommendations than commands.
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.
I don't even see where a revenge post could be even vaguely problematic. Don't feed the trolls. You don't need to treat these people like they have a valid criticism you must address. If they have no actual points to make and are just yelling "lol ur suggestion is dumb", move on.
Not that I'm even the slightest bit familiar with the concept in the first place. Never once have I seen this happen.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorMessing with polls (such as reversing yes/no or approve/disapprove answers) is generally considered trolling and shouldn't really need to be covered by this guide. I really don't think that someone giving dumb poll selections is a large enough problem for it to be covered by a pinned guide.
- sunperp
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffI've seen people perceive it as happening to them, but that was usually just people who would rapid fire off a dozen poorly thought out ideas and then be surprised at negative reception from one or two people that gave feedback on all of them. But it is an edge case I would think.
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
I see it happen almost every time one of the better critics make a suggestion themselves. It actually happened a few times in this thread.
Some of the people who have dumb poll answers are inexperienced posters or people who just don't think this stuff out. It's not always trollish such the answers being "idea is best!!", "idea is kinda best!" and "idea is ok but still almost maybe besst!!" and nothing else. I don't see why it isn't worth mentioning as polls are an extremely common thing in threads. It can also give the OP a muddy opinion on their own threads because they didn't think out the poll answers.
What exactly tips you off to the fact they're revenge posting as opposed to just not liking the idea?
Give us an example of a bad poll someone could genuinely make my mistake.
The way they post? If they explain why they don't like the idea it's one thing. If they just go "idea = sux ;]" after getting negative reception from the guy who made the thread than it comes off as failed payback or just a guy who's bad at posting. Or both.
I'll give you two:
My idea's really really good right?
[ ] Yes, best idea on the forum probably!
[ ] Worst thing ever! Augh!
Cool, nothing in between.
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)
Neat. There's no "no." option. Yes, I've seen both of these kinds of polls actually exist.
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!!!!)
Agreed with Mastermined. Cringeworthy though some things may be, disproportional retribution for it is not the path to go.
As amusing as the idea of a forums-wide autocorrect that changes "budder" to "gold" in all posts is (something I just thought of, not saying any of you came up with it), that's all it is: an amusing idea. We shouldn't take any ideas along the lines of "post herobrine->instant ban" seriously.
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.
I don't think he was being serious about that.
Yeah, that guy in the avatar is me. I'm *that* strange. It happens. Sometimes people act like that. Just go with it. I can offer help with suggestions even before you post them - NOT make your suggestions - but help you with them.
Unofficial Suggestions Guide (2.0) - by Theriasis
Unofficial Critics Guide - by yoshi9048