|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
16
   |
Posted - 2015.09.30 07:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:
To Aeon Amadi:
You just so happen to be the guy holding the gun. These concerns aren't about you; they're about precedent. I hope you're able to understand.
Well, I would, but your very next post sort of betrays that lol. Like, it isn't even about the CPM, the shield threads, or anything necessarily wrong with them. It was my "history of being wrong", the fact that I posted the threads, and the fact that I had them closed down when it stopped being about shields and started being about my history of being wrong  The concerns aren't about me it's the precedent that I know when the usefulness of a feedback thread has run it's course. Geeeeenerally when it stops talking about shields and starts talking about the history of the poster. I mean, couldn't possibly have been more derailed than if you put a buffalo on the tracks and started a picnic, lol. But no hard feelings.
Like I said, talk to Breakin. If I had super moderator powers, I would've removed his derailment rather than respond to it. But alas.
Points in the OP pre-derailment remain. The threats and the time limits stand only to harm the feedback process between Community and CPM. I hope you reconsider their use. |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
16
|
Posted - 2015.09.30 14:28:00 -
[2] - Quote
Putting a 3-day time limit on feedback limits discourse and excludes from the feedback process would-be participants who don't check the forums on a daily basis. Presuming a thread has "run its course" and locking it at first sign of derailment does the same. We elected CPM to represent us; not to preside over kangaroo courts.
Think about it. Judges don't cut trial short and rule from the hip every time someone in a courtroom passes gas. People are going to be disruptive, and those people should be ignored rather than given the power to terminate a process. |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
16
|
Posted - 2015.09.30 14:34:00 -
[3] - Quote
So they should deal with the troublemakers just like everyone else has to. Do we really want CPM shutting down feedback threads at the very first whiff of trouble?
Hate to bring it back up, but take this instance, for example. An arguably bad idea is proposed by CPM and is immediately challenged with serious concerns. Assume for the sake of argument that instead of posting a serious concern, someone farted. An then another. Aeon scrambles to close the feedback window. We're stuck with an arguably bad idea and no opportunity to challenge it.
"Oh well. Feedback window's closed. You all should've behaved yourselves."
This is a house of cards, gentlemen. |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
16
|
Posted - 2015.09.30 14:58:00 -
[4] - Quote
Asad Thahab-Jabal wrote:If people can't stay on task then the CPM should warn them. If they continue to derail then CPM should report the offending names.
Couldn't agree more. If they want to moderate, they should be encouraged to do it right. Closing official feedback windows on account of one or two farts from one or two bad apples is a disservice to the rest of us. The practice is as untenable as it is suspect. The potential for abuse by all sides is staggering. |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
16
|
Posted - 2015.09.30 15:59:00 -
[5] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:
Points in the OP pre-derailment remain. The threats and the time limits stand only to harm the feedback process between Community and CPM. I hope you reconsider their use.
Nah. The limited duration for feedback was a circumstance of a deadline that needed to be met that we were very, very keen on making. When the threads got derailed, we tried to bring them back on track. It was successful for a little while but they got derailed again so we called it and cut the cord. It's at this point I'm going to direct your attention to this post specifically, because it applies to this situation far more than you realize: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6057444#post6057444
Everyone can understand the need to meet a deadline. I'm not suggesting that CPM should not meet deadlines. I'm suggesting that CPM should not arbitrarily restrict and/or cut-off community feedback.
In response to your second point, CCP Ytterbium is a senior game designer employed by CCP. He and his team very likely possess the special knowledge, training and expertise needed to get it right even if they opted "to cover our ears and just go straight for the initial designs we first thought of". The same cannot and should not said for members of CPM (past, present or future).
Game Designers are professionals hired to design games. CPM are end users elected to represent other end users. These are very different positions with widely divergent degrees of requisite expertise and accountability. Is it unreasonable to expect that one might not behave like the other? Would it be unreasonable to be alarmed if they did? |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
16
|
Posted - 2015.09.30 18:51:00 -
[6] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:
Points in the OP pre-derailment remain. The threats and the time limits stand only to harm the feedback process between Community and CPM. I hope you reconsider their use.
Nah. The limited duration for feedback was a circumstance of a deadline that needed to be met that we were very, very keen on making. When the threads got derailed, we tried to bring them back on track. It was successful for a little while but they got derailed again so we called it and cut the cord. It's at this point I'm going to direct your attention to this post specifically, because it applies to this situation far more than you realize: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6057444#post6057444 Everyone can understand the need to meet a deadline. I'm not suggesting that CPM should not meet deadlines. I'm suggesting that CPM should not arbitrarily restrict and/or cut-off community feedback. In response to your second point, CCP Ytterbium is a senior game designer employed by CCP. He and his team very likely possess the special knowledge, training and expertise needed to get it right even if they opted "to cover our ears and just go straight for the initial designs we first thought of". The same cannot and should not said for members of CPM (past, present or future). Game Designers are professionals hired to design games. CPM are end users elected to represent other end users. These are very different positions with widely divergent degrees of requisite expertise and accountability. Is it unreasonable to expect that one might not behave like the other? Would it be unreasonable to be alarmed if they did? What you're suggesting implies that CCP didn't even read our proposal when we sent it; that the experts in question left the design solely to us without even glancing over it.
Not at all. What I'm suggesting is that there may be more than one solution to a given problem, and that a solution deemed "optimal" by CPM (be it individually or collectively) may not necessarily be the best solution. If you're looking for the best possible solution sets to pass on to the experts -- who are in superior position to determine what is optimal -- why restrict potentially helpful Community feedback with needlessly narrow timeframes, my-way-or-the-highway threads and punitive cut-offs?
Consider the following:
Approach A) Here's a problem we're trying to resolve, and here are a few potential solutions we've cooked up. What do you guys think? Do you see any potential problems? Are there any alternative solutions or workarounds out there that we should be considering? Discuss.
Approach B) Here's a problem we're trying to resolve, and here's the specific solution that I think is best. You have 3 days to respond with your feedback. Please limit your feedback to discussing the ups and downs of my solution and only my solution. Do not attempt derail this thread by posting or discussing alternative solutions. Should you do so, this thread will be locked and everyone's opportunity to offer feedback will be cut short. You've been warned.
Big difference, right?
One of these approaches assumes nothing and does a good job at involving the Community in the problem-solving process. The other approach assumes that it knows best and seeks to suppress Community feedback through unwarranted restrictions and limitations. As it relates to the post above, Senior Game Designers (with jobs on the line) are in a far a better position than CPM to (1) openly bypass, restrict or disregard Community feedback or (2) declare that one solution to a given problem is optimal and that all others are not worthy of discussion. |
|
|
| |
|