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.

[quote=Breakin Stuff]

That is a lot of huffing and puffing man.

Do you not think it is absurd to have community feedback for an issue locked down to a short matter of time before closing down feedback? That won't work in any facet of civilization so why would it be a good idea for a gaming community?

What about post feedback for changes? wouldn't it be logical to keep it all in one thread?

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.

I like that. I'm saving it for later.

http://kocosports.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/vince-opinions-meme-BIG.jpg

Cpm be like ^

Two CPM feedback threads on shields were opened and closed in a span of only ~3 days. Here we are again.

These narrow, seemingly arbitrary windows serve to restrict Community feedback, and they are sending the wrong signals to the playerbase. If it is a goal of CPM to promote Community feedback, why confine the Community's opportunity to offer feedback to such narrow timeframes?

Of greater concern, why would CPM threaten to cut off feedback in an official feedback thread on account of what one representative may or may not arbitrarily deem to be derailment? Under what set of circumstances could that be reasonable, much less practicable? Have we not accounted for the possibility of troll or intentional derailment?

If nothing else, we should consider how precedent might affect us down the road. What might future CPM Feedback threads look like if CPM3 or CPM4 were not as ... judicious in their dealings as their predecessors? Might 3-day, official feedback windows be further restricted to 2 days? Or even 1?

---

To CPM:
I strongly urge the CPM to check themselves and put these shenanigans to rest. CPM2 was not elected to introduce the tools of fascism to the forums, and CPM2 is not in any position to wield such tools effectively. Attempts to do so will succeed only in damaging DUST and detracting from those things which makes these Forums uniquely great: the earnest participation, interest and involvement of the Community. Keeping us involved keeps us invested; suppressing our involvement will assuredly drive us away. You may not need our involvement and investment, but I would humbly remind you that DUST very likely does.

To CCP:
I'm posting these concerns -- at high risk of moderation, I'm sure -- in hopes of protecting something I've come to appreciate as truly special. These DUST Forums and the Community here gathered have their flaws, but they stand head-and-shoulders above everything else out there. Nothing else compares. I believe you have something truly unique and successful happening here, and I'm proud to be a part of it. I'd humbly encourage you to protect those things which keep these Forums and Community Feedback alive and well.

To the Community:
Don't let yourselves be bullied. Recognize suppression for what it is. Call it out and shut it down. Don't let CPM attempt to restrict, circumvent or arbitrarily silence your right as a player to offer feedback; if you let them get away with it now, they'll always get away with it. Remember that CPM are here to represent the Community, not to replace it, and certainly not to rule over it.

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.

Less creative, not as funny, I give it a 2/10.

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 sign of trouble?

This thread makes for entertaining reading with afternoon tea and biscuits.

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.

I have not been super impressed by some of how feedback has been handled so far. Hopefully this is just a matter of a fresh team working on refining their process.

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

Soraya your swarms are getting nerfed get over it already

How are Swarms useless??????

Honestly are we playing 2 completely different games???

Basically, yes. You play a game where you don't die most matches, make a ton of money, and get a lot of kills, while being immune to all but one weapon in the game, effectively (the forge gun). Oh, and you can fly across the map in a matter of seconds.

Meanwhile, swarm users play a game where it takes forever to get anywhere, all 16 members of the opposing team can kill them, and they can't even fire back. Because they can't shoot infantry, and the range isn't large enough for them to shoot the one thing they're meant to: dropships.

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.

So the record's clear, that was never an argument of mine:
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2958962#post2958962

I pointed out to Aeon that he had a history of being wrong in response to his repeated and unabashed dismissal of the concerns and opinions of other players in that thread. His "you're all wrong, I know best" assertions were antagonistic, inappropriate and altogether unbefitting a CPM Feedback thread.

My argument was absolutely not "you're probably wrong because you've been wrong before" as you say. My argument was "you've been wrong before -- alot -- and this is something you should think about before discounting everyone else's opinions and asserting your own as optimal."

I wasn't challenging his opinion. I was challenging his repeated dismissal of opposing opinions. There's a big difference between the two, Breakin. In my opinion, at least.

Alright.

EDIT: At any point, was there any consideration that the first iteration of the Shield Stats (which is what this is largely about, let's not kid ourselves) was posted on 09-14... the second iteration was made on 09-18... and the hotfix was announced on 09-24..?

Bearing in mind of course that that is quite literally ten (10) days to get Step One, the foundation, of Shield balancing down - which we can absolutely iterate on later. Alternatively, we could have had the feedback go on for several weeks/months and not seen the changes until the next build, whenever they may be, all the while shields are not getting any better. Did we consider this before jumping immediately to "Bad precedent set by CPM2 feedback threads" or did we immediately assume the worst and attempt to go for the juggular?

As a reminder, there's a process here: a) We have to come up with a proposal. b) We have to go over it and make sure it's ready for public consumption and not going to start a riot. c) We have to initiate that proposal to the public and receive feedback on it. d) We have to make adjustments based on that feedback. e) We have to ship it off to CCP.

All of that in <10 days, mind you. I mean, I'm totally down for letting shields suffer a bit longer. Been what, a year or so since we've thrown a bone to them? What's another few weeks/months?