I tend to telegraph if I have to be brutally honest. "Look, I gotta be honest here, ___." It doesn't really make the blow that much easier; but it does at least prepare the reader to brace for impact and it does mean they're more likely to survive it as they see it coming.
Can I ask a serious question? What is 'brutal honesty'? Why does being brutal make it more honest? In what part of the thought process do you decide that to give a genuine criticism you need to sound like a bit of a jerk, to the point where you need to take precautions to make sure the reader isn't offended?
Can you not just be honest without the brutal part? Why is that harder? It's not sugarcoating - people consciously choose to add the 'brutality' to the honesty and I don't understand it.
Lamborghinis: New "Modern" texture pack/official add-on for the non-PC editions; replaces minecarts.
AK47s: Could go texture pack or add-on route to replace bows, or could be wielded by enemies in a brand-new dimension.
NSFW: Okay, you got me. Make that "everything that isn't largely offensive can be improved to the point of implementation."
Remember, I didn't say 10/10 or say it would have to go into the PC version, I just said it could become good enough to be feasibly implemented. I don't consider parrots or llamas to be 10/10 features, but they're still in the game. Really, very few suggestions are 10/10.
This section is only for PC edition. And those are still pretty silly ideas. The point is that sometimes we fundamentally don't like an idea and that's okay.
Maybe something on critics giving some thought on what the idea truly is about before supporting something? Just because the idea of a "creepur commander} general1`!" might sound cool, doesn't mean it is. Supporting a bad suggestion can muddy the chance of the OP not understanding what he suggested, and doesn't make improvements because he's now confident of his bad idea.
Anybody who supports that suggestion won't be reading this thread. Pointless.
Also, maybe something on font size, and not using yellow text on a white background forum? Changing the text around is one thing, making it eye-assassination is suggestion suicide.
That's global. Ask nicely.
On the topic of offering improvements: it's optional but it's optimal. Do it if you can. If you genuinely don't like it no matter what changes, leave it. jdc's "any suggestion can be good enough" argument is strange to me. I'd like to see the theory put into action with a 10/10 suggestion to add Lamborghinis. Or AK47s. Or better yet, something incredibly NSFW. You get the point.
Well, that's what I'm trying to say. We need to have less of an attitude that we're picking what suggestions we want in the game and more that we're picking which pieces of a suggestion that we like and what should be improved.
They're not mutually exclusive. Right?
I prefer to not like a suggestion because I don't support it, not the other way around.
That doesn't really make sense. Let's be clear liking a suggestions and liking a feature are not the same thing. You can like a suggestion while having no desire to ever use the feature in-game (like the dagger thing). But at the end of the day you still draw your judgement from whether or not you like the suggestion.
If anything it seems like you're playing with semantics to make an unclear point.
What I'm trying to say is, we aren't voting. As Mojang doesn't visit or take ideas from this forum, any belief that you are is really just an illusion of grandeur.
We need to be careful how we're defining voting in the first place. In the most basic sense, we are voting. My suggestions have polls, where people literally vote. What we aren't doing is running some kind of process to get things into the game. There is no democracy.
While I might say "I Support" a suggestion, I essentially just use it as a grading system, with that being the equivalent of an A. I have "supported" multiple suggestions that I wouldn't actually want that much in the game, but I still thought it would be a fun idea to add to the game.
I don't understand. Are you just saying you don't feel too strongly about them but support because they're cool? Or are you supporting ideas you don't like?
Judging a suggestion does indeed come off as smug and condescending, but I think it more of depends on the suggester than the critic. Critics tend to treat all suggesters with the same level of maturity, even though there are clearly different levels of that on this forum. Sometimes a critic will need to go down to the level of the OP to reach him, even if that means you'll have to be nice.
I'm actually going to be a bit more hard-line than you here and say people should just, y'know, not treat other people badly in general? Much as I respect your stance that telling 7 year olds specifically that they're braindead is a bad thing, I think we can apply that same principle to any criticism.
In the end, I think we all, suggesters and critics, would benefit if we were all to treat each other nicer and with more respect.
It still falls within presentation. It's not the worst thing in the world, but you look like a dolt when you go "here is the best idea ever" when suggesting a corny rocket creeper.
I don't understand why you have such an infatuation with making people not look like dolts. The point here is to stop people from making terrible suggestions, and while saying "I have the best idea ever" might seem silly, it doesn't really hurt the suggestion.
Also, I'm the kind of person who would probably say that ironically in my own thread.
EDIT: Never mind, I checked, and I actually did do that at least once. Opened the conclusion with "So surely you're super impressed by now."
Not sure I want anyone who thinks they're clever having read this guide barging into my thread to tell me my joke broke rule number 271.
Some things are bad. That's not a terrible thing to say. There's nothing wrong with it. It is simply a statement that describes reality.
You make it sound so easy to judge things as good or bad when the whole point is that this is subjective.
That means avoiding the concept of "objectively bad suggestions," regardless of one's views. That's an easy sacrifice for the sake of utility, though, so it shouldn't be that big of an issue.
I'm genuinely surprised you're using the term "objectively bad suggestions" and are standing by it. I think I need somebody to sit down and explain it to me.
Perhaps a separate "controversial suggestions" thread, with certain suggestions labeled with typical arguments for and against (whether you consider those arguments bad or not), with an attempt to be fair and not one-sided about them. The point would not be to say that you shouldn't do X suggestion... It's just there to show that a certain suggestion has history that one may be able to learn from. It'd also not say that it'd be better with A, B, and C, just that there are certain facets that are generally argued that you may want to work around, however you may want to do that. Or not if you don't consider them an issue, but then you should probably expect people to mention them. You wouldn't need to read the thread, and suggestions that are made in full ignorance of it are perfectly acceptable, but if you learn from it you may be able to make something better.
You can't choose what kind of culture the thread fosters. "Eh you can read it if you want but if you don't nobody will mind" is pretty nice in theory. But it will never happen. You'll get exactly what you got with 2.0 and FTC, which was "Oh my God did you even read that thread here I'll quote it now go read it", as if it's a holy book.
"Why didn't you read this thread you ignorant buffoon" would not be the point. But if you were to say "hey, there's some things you may want to consider for your suggestion that are in this thread," that would be fine. Inspiration and direction with issues in mind, not anything objective to force on people.
It's great and all that it wouldn't be the point, but whether or not it's the point is completely irrelevant to what will actually happen in the real world.
I don't like it. The point should be to have guides which teach people how to think and then apply all that thinking power to make suggestions. The point should not be to tell people what specifically they probably shouldn't be writing in their threads. And that is the inevitable outcome of such a thread whether you intend it or not.
If/when such a thread exists, expect a lot of complaining from my end over specific details nobody else really cares about. Just like the good old days.
I really doubt that we are going to allow a list of "bad suggestions" to be added. People have the right to post whatever suggestions they want, so long as they follow the forum rules. As I have stated before, if people do not like those suggestions and can't provide constructive criticism, they are free to not post or respond in those threads.
Yeah, I absolutely agree with you and that's the point I was trying to make. What I was saying there was that I expect anyone who does seriously believe such a list to make their case, and I would encourage them to do so.
This is especially important considering that the whole thing we're discussing in the first place is that we should encourage people to make threads for their ideas even if they are generally disliked. It would be a bit hypocritical to then dissuade people from doing the same thing in posts regarding this guide, wouldn't it? Obviously regurgitating the same old points is just spam at this point, but if somebody has something new to add they should probably add it.
I say this as someone who is currently on the side of the general consensus. In the old guide I was arguing for this on the other side of the fence - they had a list like this and most everyone was seriously opposed to my belief that it was actually a bad thing.
Perhaps, but that seems to fall under the category of "suggestions to specifically avoid," which is an idea everyone seems to have grown allergic to.
Saying that we've grown allergic to it just seems to be a euphemistic way of saying that we randomly decided it was a bad idea for no reason. This isn't true. There was a lot of discussion on this topic which you've just dismissed, and if you think we should have a list of bad suggestions, you should make that case.
As for the actual topic at hand, no. This section is a free marketplace of ideas, and whether they're likely to be implemented or not is a non-factor, especially considering the fact that the goal here isn't to give suggestions to Mojang in the first place. Regardless, it's very shortsighted to think that Mojang would never reverse an idea. It happens frequently in the industry and there's nothing stopping Mojang from doing it if they came up with a particularly terrible idea. People should be encouraged to criticise things they don't like in the game, even if the thing itself is popular.
The most obvious example of this, and probably the suggestion being targeted here, is the reversal of 1.9 combat. I think we should all be encouraging people who don't like 1.9 combat to make their case as well as they can. There's no use in trying to silence people just because you happen to like whatever they're trying to reverse. The whole point is to beat bad ideas with better ideas, why does this suddenly stop being the case under these particular circumstances?
Any thread which just regurgitates the same tired "I don't like it please remove" that we've seen 100 times is subject to removal regardless of whether or not it is mentioned in the guide or not. Fresh arguments should be encouraged because that promotes healthy discussion. Sometimes I wonder if you're all trying to kill off the section with all of these new restrictions.
I went back and reread the whole spiel. It turns out the point was
"sorry for bad English, it's not my native language" (specifically) shouldn't be used in the context of the post.
This can be piggybacked onto other red herring statements that take discussion away from the topic and more on the statement which can do more harm to the post than simply omitting them.
Because of the above; the tangential point and editorial is "instead of creating an excuse on why your English is bad; instead seek to improve the readability of the suggestion." As a no duh, work with others replying to the suggestion to improve based on their feedback. That's why I call it a crutch; and not an explanation.
The problem here is I was waxing anecdotally and wistfully; and not applying any constructive input. It took me rereading the original statement to get my head out of the clouds.
Your argument seems counterproductive to your point here. If I was a new poster who spoke English as a second language and I saw your contempt towards those who butcher the language, as you put it, I'd be 110% sure to make it very clear that English is my second language so people don't try to throttle me for my bad English.
The point here is that this is a double-edged sword. It's not enough for posters to somehow take it upon themselves to improve when you're railing on them for 'not caring enough'. Anybody who cares enough about a poster's English skills to mention it in a thread needs to be cooperative and assume the best, rather than concluding they're malicious (because apparently we can all tell, though I'm still dubious of this).
I was considering recommending to avoid slang and colloquialisms (for suggesters and critics). But colloquialisms just go back into a pool of "how do you expect to enforce/know that?" since each person is born and grows up with colloquialisms; it's difficult to know whether it's regional vernacular; or whether it's an appropriate generic. (pop/fizz/coke for carbonated soft drinks; chips/crisps for bagged snacks; chips/fries for deep-fried potatoes. etc) (to be honest, I'm amused by how extensive and broad the term "chip" is.)
This doesn't seem at all related to the original concern. Foreigners in my experience don't use English slang because they're unfamiliar with it, and have usually worked out already that their own slang isn't applicable to the language.
Slang, on the other hand, seems more manageable. Budder, obby, etc. may be quaint and fun to use; but it can also make the post harder to read for anyone not in the know; unless you use acronym tags.
There is absolutely nobody on this forum who uses the words 'budder' and 'obby' while justifying it by saying English is their second language. If they do that, it's because there's a deeper issue with grammar and fundamental vocabulary. That's what we were talking about, wasn't it?
I do want to directly contradict one thing I've been seeing in this thread: I feel that subforum-specific rule posts should not hesitate to repeat and reinforce site-wide rules. This is a situation where redundancy and repetition are no sins! If someone's reading the subforum rules, well then, you've got their eyes for the moment. Telling them to go read something else to get the rest of the rules is a stretch -- if some of the site-wide rules are relevant to what you're trying to tell them, then yes, repeat the relevant rules while you have their attention. (ETA: And clarify how a given rule applies to the particular subforum!)
I do actually like this point a lot and it's not something I considered. This doesn't mean we need to reiterate every rule, because then things become very drawn out and it gets harder to retain the reader's attention.
It ties into an idea I was trying to get across back when we were all fighting over the old guide (mostly in that thread rather than this one). For lack of a better way of putting it: we need to stop expecting our posters to be rational. Yes it sucks, and yes in principle it'd be great if we could just expect the best of everyone, but it's not practical. I was saying we needed to be pragmatic - even if the guide's writing style was largely considered to be 'personality', what it would do in practice was drive younger and more sensitive posters away, as they couldn't take the harsh criticism. You need to be pragmatic and do what gets results. It doesn't matter if all of the forum's problems are ultimately the posters' faults - we can still take steps to prevent those issues whether it seems fair on us or not.
I'm not talking about that age old debate now though, I just wanted to explain that principle so I can hopefully apply it here. It's the same idea - we can't just assume people are reading all the rules thoroughly, often they will just read the suggestions-specific stuff, and that's if you're lucky. As such, it might be a good idea to reiterate any especially applicable points from the main rules, not because we no longer expect people to read the site-wide rules, but because there will always be those who don't read all the rules and the solution is practical (even if in principle we should expect people to read everything).
A brief aside on the language issue: My experience here and elsewhere is that folks who are posting in English as a second language, often produce far more thoughtful posts (despite occasional miswordings) than the younger and/or less-educated native English speakers. (And disclaimer or no, their command of English is commonly better than many adult native speakers. :rolleyes:) So "English isn't my native language" really doesn't excuse a post that's poorly thought out or obnoxious regardless of grammar or vocabulary.
We weren't really talking about that I don't think. Nobody is debating if it excuses a poorly thought out, obnoxious or otherwise terrible suggestion - it obviously doesn't. We're talking soley about grammar and vocabulary (though that's probably debatable, there is a bit of miscommunication and I don't think the discussion is going anywhere anymore).
I don't think anyone really does; unless it's to the point of unreadable. Something like a comma splice here or there isn't going to kill anyone. The big picture is the point of unreadable. I'm not really sure what the point of "readable/unreadable" is as that is purely subjective.
That's the whole point I made last post. You don't know where to draw a line anywhere, which is why your point is moot. Your entire stance is "well we can sort of tell when it does happen" with no reasoning to support that. We can't title a section "What would yoshi9048 do?" - we need some kind of measure, which doesn't exist, therefore there is no discussion to be head.
That is correct; and the issue I have isn't with people that proofread and screw up. It's with people that don't and say they do. We can all tell the difference.
No we can't. I'm going to pin this down as you having read my post and responded part-by-part, and assume you hadn't read the end of it at this point. That's forgivable, but I'll reiterate the point - if you have no measure other than "I can tell" it doesn't belong in the guide. You haven't mentioned how we can tell, and as I say, we're not going to make a section which says "Don't fake not being natively English because yoshi9048 can tell."
Until you can explain your measure there is no point to be made here.
I'm talking about people that use a crutch to get out of proper forum protocol. I've played plenty of games with plenty of players who speak German, French, Italian, Spanish, Mandarin, Romanian, etc. and they will make small forgivable mistakes on more difficult syntax.
That's fine and cool. The key is that they're understandable and I'm spending more time enjoying their company and less time trying to figure out what the hell they said.
I've seen a lot worse than that from people genuinely learning English and you probably have too. Especially when they're typing.
And of course, the problem again arises that you do not explain how we can distinguish between the genuine people who speak English as a second language and the fakers. You just assume we all can and figure that's probably good enough.
Oh, you do me too much honor. I don't frequent these forums enough to be the police of anything; let alone good taste. But yes, perceptions are everything. If I pose a math problem: 5+5, and someone answers 12, I'd perceive that as incorrect.
Since we're splitting hairs:
5+5=10 is perceived as correct by everyone.
"X is a native English speaker using a crutch" is perceived as correct by you but not necessarily by the majority.
There is an obvious distinction here. If your perception of who is faking being a non-native English speaker was as widely accepted as 5+5, we wouldn't be having this conversation, so it's kind of a silly point.
That one thing you perceive to be true is actually true. That doesn't mean everything you perceive to be true is actually true. It doesn't even vaguely suggest that anything else you perceive to be true is true.
But there was a point somewhere; and I think it got lost in the mix. Oh, that's what happened, I conflated 2 points.
Point 1) People that are non-native speakers aren't necessarily bad at the language; but it's personally more forgivable if they are.
Point 2) Bad Grammar is bad; regardless of whatever bandaid excuse you put on it.
What do these things have to do with the guide though? What relevant point are you making regarding this guide? That was the question.
Your perception of my personal experience has no bearing on the discussion.
Your personal experience has no bearing on the discussion, let alone just my perception. I appreciate that you've met a lot of non-native English speakers who do X, but that doesn't really say anything about them all.
I screw up all the time; it's still absolutely expected.
You're making no point and missing mine.
Mine being that non-native English speakers should be expected to make mistakes (that means more often than you).
Ah yeah; I should go about doing that; that's also where difficulty arises. How do you draw a line in a generalized enough way that it'll fit in scope of this topic?
You can't, that's why bringing it up in the first place was pointless.
"type good" and "grammar good" aren't going to do anyone any favors; so it has to be something that can be easy to digest; and fits the theme of this guide.
That will take some time. I hope it won't take much and I don't want enforced conformity toward a single writing style. The 5 W's are a good starting point that's already been included. I'd probably hit that angle and run with it to see how well it'll work.
I think this discussion can safely end with you deciding how your points fit into this guide, considering my whole argument is that your point don't fit into this guide.
I'd say we've reached an appropriate stalemate until you've decided what you'd like to include. Generally I wouldn't even bring something like this up until I'd decided on that, otherwise the whole discussion is a bit pointless, right?
Yes, it's pretty hard. But there's a lot of respect I have for the language and a lot of earnest thought going into making my message the message and not the butchery of their language. I go out of my way to use ONLY what I know and bounce what I have to say off of someone with a better grasp of the language than myself to make sure that what I mean is what is said.
The Suggestions section is not about respecting the glorious English language, the Suggestions section is about suggestions, and if someone screws up their grammar I don't especially care.
What I'm saying here, if you don't mind me dispelling the strawman,
Woah there, I'll have you know I absolutely mind you dispelling my absolutely intentional strawman!
is that people that are genuinely interested in communicating in a non-primary language tend to take care of whatever language they're communicating in. They take extra effort to make sure the discussion is the core point of their statement; not slapping a "ESL, enjoy my bad grammar because I'm too good to proofread."
Since when did proofreading become the be all and end all of fixing broken English?
Right, never. Just because the English is poor doesn't mean they didn't proofread. For real.
The people I've seen butcher English the most are native speakers. The ones that should and DO know better; but they're lazy and pop out a lame cop out reason why their laziness should be absolved. So they say "sry lulz, english is my 2nd lang rofl".
We're not talking about native English speakers. We're talking about people who probably aren't native English speakers who you accuse of using a 'crutch'. We're talking about people who ignorantly butcher the language, i.e. unknowingly, right?
Hell, just scroll up to where you say "people that are genuinely interested in communicating in a non-primary language tend to take care of whatever language they're communicating in".
If someone genuinely tries and their English isn't impeccable... And? No one ever said it should be.
You said it should be, because you're the suggestions police and you get to decide if someone tried to English hard enough. Which means that how hard they actually tried isn't a factor, just your perception. At this point it is completely lost on me what point you are trying to make that is relevant to this guide. Do you want a section titled "Type good"?
People that DO have English as a primary language have 10+ years of compulsory education to perfect it;
Yes, I daresay I have completed 10+ years of compulsory education.
and that is ignoring secondary education. People that are ESL don't "ignorantly butcher" anything. They earnestly hone it and carve it; and make mistakes that can be corrected for. The people that DO "ignorantly butcher the language" are simply those that don't care.
If you actually think this is how people who speak English non-natively act I don't think you've ever met one. They screw up all the time, which is absolutely expected. When they make forum posts, they aren't perfect and you can't pin them down as simply not trying because the post isn't 'earnestly honed and carved'.
So I'm not sure what you're trying to get across. Where do you draw the line between "making mistakes that can be corrected for" and "ignorantly butchering the language"? So far, you don't. This is important, nuance and stuff.
That's the point here. You don't draw a line. You complain about all of these people butchering our language, and then when somebody calls you out to say "hey maybe there English is just bad and they're practicing", you retort that you can tell the difference exactly. Of course, you don't explain how you do this, because you don't explain anything here.
You tell us there are the people trying and then there are the butchers. That's about it. You gave this massively exaggerated example earlier of how someone might claim that English is their second language, because that makes the entire situation seem much less blurry than it really is. Give us a real quote or something. I'm not even sure how this is on-topic anymore, the whole claim that this exists as a problem just seems exaggerated and manufactured in the first place.