Let me elaborate, I stated "We should strive to limit our word limit in the CDP". Which of the following does that match closer to
1) We need to introduce a hard cap word limit. 2) We should limit our "own" word count in the CDP.
I know the 300 word limit was an example but seemed like an exaggeration to me. Regardless, lets go straight to the point.
The emphasis of my comment was to encourage people to limit their "own" word count on CDP, whilst the twin forum could tackle the critiquing part. The twin forum was your answer. Your initial reply did not cover any part of that and that to me was very disturbing. The twin forum also does not result in people butchering their idea, so again, i would have to say that you missed the point.
By tree like forum, do you mean a stack exchange like forum whereby each parent thread contains replies, the replies contain comments but the comments can't contain comments (i.e. like youtube comment section), then we are in affirmative (i have mentioned Stack exchange in my previous posts). Had your initial reply went straight to the point of why you disagree with twin forums and prefer tree like forum, the rest was not required. If by tree like you mean what plasticbat suggested, my opinion on it is as below
First of all, a really good suggestion. But my personal worries about the tree like forum is that it really adds complexity to the forum and we are trying to achieve the opposite. Not only would I have to go one by one to each thread to read upon each suggestion, I am limited to only talk about that suggestion. This post is already opining on multiple suggestions from multiple people. Sometimes i may want to combine two suggestions, so do i go to both forums and copy paste? Furthermore, creating a new thread may prevent people from starting fresh suggestions (instead of building up on previous ones) because they do not want or like to be critiqued and would just prefer to quickly suggest what they think could be a useful advice. In other words, making threads with suggestions opens you up for critiquing and some may not be willing to go that far, considering some people may give a suggestion and never return to the CDP. Lastly, if each new suggestion was to be in a different thread, i can see some suggestions being much longer than you see them currently, but if they could provide an abstract/introduction with NB at the end or conclusion, then at may get rid of some stress. But i still believe that stack exchange style is the superior of the both.
As to @micky1p00 , so i don't have to make another post.
To your point Number 1 ( i am glad you numbered them) , as i have mentioned in my previous post, voting gives the general consensus regarding a subject. It is but a useful piece of "side information", as long as Chris and other staff are not basing their entire decisions on it. If a bad suggestion gets 1000 votes, you can bet that Chris and the staff would not consider it and i am sure you agree with me on this one. If however, a good suggestion gets 1000 votes because of a streamer's influence, the team would still have discussed and critiqued the suggestion internally. In other words, let this voting being detrimental to CDP propaganda die here, it is but a trivial matter.
As for 3, we are discussing whether it be agreeing or disagreeing and this forms part of evolving the discussion. What i don't like (personally) is that you nitpick a single line out of my comment, to create a strawman and write an essay on that. That in my eyes is discussion for the sake of argument and leads to unnecessary heated debates and makes other CDP participants lose interest. Anyone reading our comments probably has no idea what we are arguing about because they would need to follow through our original comments, so i was wondering that passionate folks could always go to the CDP part where critiquing is allowed and people who simply want a gist of the discussion could go its twin forum. Stack exchange is the superior of both, if the resources are available.
Btw the char limit was Sarcasm, sorry for my lame British Sarcasm
Conclusion 1) I agree with Stack exchange like forum 2) Twin forum requires no resources to be spent but the stack exchange still being superior in my eyes. 3) I disagree with voting being detrimental to the CDP. 4) Number 1 and 2 tackle the word limit issue. 5) In regards to my previous comments, i still prefer tags for approved suggestions by the developer and for their to be a search-able function for them. 6) i strongly agree with having numbered comments for ease of referencing and navigating through comments. 7) I disagree with forcing people to format their suggestions, the emphasis should be making CDP easier to follow not educating GAMERS to format their responses.
2
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
edited March 2020
1. Voting - I think you misunderstood my issue with it. Why we want the voting to begin with, if we agree it's unreliable in measuring the idea due to social traits. Please notice that I didn't bring the Devs sifting through ideas as the problem. But the requirement of any voting system to begin with. You want one to sort and filter? but if your sort relies on broken system, what good it is? What it adds? You don't want to read it all, and focus on something deemed more worthy of your time? I understand. What I don't see is how the voting, in our eco-system is a good solution. I just don't think you will get what you want from it, and others will lose much from it. Or you think the votes will, in large, reflect quality reliably? (just to understand).
2. I fail to see where I nitpicked a line, it was your general request over several posts which I don't wish to quote to create a huge post. Nor I wrote an essay, my post is more or less the same size as your part that is addressed to me. How would you suggest for me to "disagree" or get better clarification? (BTW any 'bickering' that involved me in the previous one, I was the one who asked for it to be moved to a separate thread)
3. Perhaps I misunderstood something, but I think you did advocate for word limit, and voting. So why my response to that is a strawmen?
But I guess the above is better reserved for another time and another place.
Encouraging format - A format allows to skim over posts much faster than any limit on post length.
Standard formats also encourage to actually think over and provide the relevant information. "What problem you are trying to solve". And I'll take example from the argument above (not for the sake of argument, but for the easy example), if a post starts with "I get back after a couple of days and there are 10 pages of posts I can't read" no matter what the solution, I can perhaps offer "How about filtering for quoted posts, so you can see all the posts a dev quoted and the response" versus "I want a voting system" to which ofc you get the reply I've replied earlier. - This saves time and cognitive effort for everyone as a reader to see the posters issue, how they suggest to solve it (if they do) and perhaps add to it or find something that can be improved. Sifting through any non-formatted post to understand the issue to begin with is harder than formatted. Though I will say that the format can be improved, like was suggested by several people already.
Comment numbering - They are actually numbered, look at the link of the "comment time", with regular installation, clicking will also put you on the comment. This integration with ARC site just broke it, like it broke opening stuff in new tabs and many more things. Which is a shame. In any case, I'm afraid I don't see how numbering helps, if you are going to post "What Bob said in post number #24", for me going and clicking there is epicly annoying, like breadcrumb chase. I don't believe it solves any issue, and I'll rather scroll over quoted posts than need to treasure hunt the context, but perhaps I've missed the issue it solves. IMO.
In any case I think I've spent on this thread more than I should. Everyone is free to do with anyone's else criticism and opinion whatever they choose, from try to improve the idea based on the issues brought up or ignore any short-coming, either is their valid choice IMO.
I would like us to strive toward a word limit (be concise) at the very least in Phase 1. Generally we aren't looking for design docs. We have many capable members of staff on our side who can do that although it is very possible we may ask a CDP member to go into more detail in Phase 2.
Regarding Sharp's analogy of designing a car: We don't need anyone to design a car at a mid to micro level in Phase 1 or even at all unless asked. You can easily in 300 words for example (number doesn't matter) set out the goals, success criteria, player value proposition, impact on business and so on succinctly. In fact our in house designs are shorter than some that have appeared on the CDP in most part and we take an approach of designs being like a Car brochure rather than a car manual. We want to capture the magic in a bottle, understand the pillars we are trying to achieve, how to achieve them at a high level and call out any considerations. Initially a goal/s is/are set, success criteria and then the team brainstorms (cross discipline) and puts forward a pitch that is discussed and then the group writes the design. Really all we need in this group in Phase 1 is a pitch (hence the format) and then if necessary in Phase 2 we can drill down.
On another tops isn't off topic is CDP member professionalism and politics (This is an every day part of any working group). Why is there animosity between folks? You can see it in the tone of many posts and responses. There is no prize for being the best CDP member. We are a group on a clear mission with huge opportunity. How can we learn to work better with one another? I don't want to be overly guiding because I don't believe this is in the best interest of the output of the group and therefore the value to the game.
Thanks
Chris
4
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
I would like us to strive toward a word limit (be concise) at the very least in Phase 1. Generally we aren't looking for design docs. We have many capable members of staff on our side who can do that although it is very possible we may ask a CDP member to go into more detail in Phase 2.
Regarding Sharp's analogy of designing a car: We don't need anyone to design a car at a mid to micro level in Phase 1 or even at all unless asked. You can easily in 300 words for example (number doesn't matter) set out the goals, success criteria, player value proposition, impact on business and so on succinctly. In fact our in house designs are shorter than some that have appeared on the CDP in most part and we take an approach of designs being like a Car brochure rather than a car manual. We want to capture the magic in a bottle, understand the pillars we are trying to achieve, how to achieve them at a high level and call out any considerations. Initially a goal/s is/are set, success criteria and then the team brainstorms (cross discipline) and puts forward a pitch that is discussed and then the group writes the design. Really all we need in this group in Phase 1 is a pitch (hence the format) and then if necessary in Phase 2 we can drill down.
On another tops isn't off topic is CDP member professionalism and politics (This is an every day part of any working group). Why is there animosity between folks? You can see it in the tone of many posts and responses. There is no prize for being the best CDP member. We are a group on a clear mission with huge opportunity. How can we learn to work better with one another? I don't want to be overly guiding because I don't believe this is in the best interest of the output of the group and therefore the value to the game.
Thanks
Chris
I challenge you and anyone else who thinks you can do so, to summarize either my post on itemization or my post on the infinite dungeon in the rewards CDP in under 300 words, keeping in mind it still needs to do the following:
I would like us to strive toward a word limit (be concise) at the very least in Phase 1. Generally we aren't looking for design docs. We have many capable members of staff on our side who can do that although it is very possible we may ask a CDP member to go into more detail in Phase 2.
Regarding Sharp's analogy of designing a car: We don't need anyone to design a car at a mid to micro level in Phase 1 or even at all unless asked. You can easily in 300 words for example (number doesn't matter) set out the goals, success criteria, player value proposition, impact on business and so on succinctly. In fact our in house designs are shorter than some that have appeared on the CDP in most part and we take an approach of designs being like a Car brochure rather than a car manual. We want to capture the magic in a bottle, understand the pillars we are trying to achieve, how to achieve them at a high level and call out any considerations. Initially a goal/s is/are set, success criteria and then the team brainstorms (cross discipline) and puts forward a pitch that is discussed and then the group writes the design. Really all we need in this group in Phase 1 is a pitch (hence the format) and then if necessary in Phase 2 we can drill down.
On another tops isn't off topic is CDP member professionalism and politics (This is an every day part of any working group). Why is there animosity between folks? You can see it in the tone of many posts and responses. There is no prize for being the best CDP member. We are a group on a clear mission with huge opportunity. How can we learn to work better with one another? I don't want to be overly guiding because I don't believe this is in the best interest of the output of the group and therefore the value to the game.
Thanks
Chris
I challenge you and anyone else who thinks you can do so, to summarize either my post on itemization or my post on the infinite dungeon in the rewards CDP in under 300 words, keeping in mind it still needs to do the following:
Explain the problem.
Explain the methodology for the solution.
Explain who is affected.
Explain the risks and corcerns.
No one asked you to go so in depth. Please re read my post and note i am not getting into an argument with you (I don't have to). The CDP isn't about anyone one person and I think that sometimes you and others trip over yourselves.
Why should I accept a challenge based on what is a core communication issue when I can write Goals, Success Criteria, Player Value Proposition, Player Functionality and Dev Considerations in under 300 which the team then works on collaboratively and turn into design and then experience. We don't need more designers thanks, but we do massively value subject matter experts who care deeply about different areas of the world they enjoy and who provide ideas, and considerations with others and who can provide a different per view to our own.
Chris
7
rickcase276Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,404Arc User
And this is why I was worried about different types of players being heard. If a few people are constantly writing essays about how they want the game to be, and not worrying about other playstyles, then it drowns out others that prefer to be more concise. Or at least that is the perception it can give, the old "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" analogy.
It can make people not bother to post, as they will feel their ideas wont be considered due to not being fleshed out completely. Which I know is not the goals of the CDPs, or at least I would hope so.
Of note and like Sharp says I (And to perhaps a lesser degree the team) am going to read all the posts anyway outside of the toxic ones. All I am saying that one of the pillars of being a good designer/developer/leader is good communication and collaboration. Specifically because by being able to reach a wider audience you get more buy in, ideation insight, and risk mitigation. The issue for me isn't so much the long posts, it is the arguments that the long posts cause. For example the chance of CDP members reading a longer post than X amount of words is less than a more succinct post, this gets compounded when someone argues or drills on the original longing less people read the following posts and so on. This eventually leads to lapsing CDP members. So feel free to post full 'Designs' but consider the above especially when I have clearly pointed out we are looking for ideas, information, discussion as a group and not micro design.
I am going to put forward a proposal for Phase 1 and Phase 1 format over the weekend based on what i have read and the discussion so I would suggest keep your ideas for these two areas coming in.
Thanks
Chris
1
lantern22Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,111Arc User
edited March 2020
I find the original format too cumbersome
I generally like Sharps idea to simplify along the lines of
1. Problem 2. Solution 3. Potential Risks
I'm also finding it hard to read through the slabs of text, I'd prefer a succinct summary. Detailed Descriptions and slabs of text, no matter how valuable and worthy of sharing, are best appended to the body of text that is targeted toward the general population (like in all good business cases or a reports), perhaps the spoiler function thing in this forum could be used to append the "slabs" to the main post and still leave a summarised post that is easy for the plebs like me to read.
6
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
I would like us to strive toward a word limit (be concise) at the very least in Phase 1. Generally we aren't looking for design docs. We have many capable members of staff on our side who can do that although it is very possible we may ask a CDP member to go into more detail in Phase 2.
Regarding Sharp's analogy of designing a car: We don't need anyone to design a car at a mid to micro level in Phase 1 or even at all unless asked. You can easily in 300 words for example (number doesn't matter) set out the goals, success criteria, player value proposition, impact on business and so on succinctly. In fact our in house designs are shorter than some that have appeared on the CDP in most part and we take an approach of designs being like a Car brochure rather than a car manual. We want to capture the magic in a bottle, understand the pillars we are trying to achieve, how to achieve them at a high level and call out any considerations. Initially a goal/s is/are set, success criteria and then the team brainstorms (cross discipline) and puts forward a pitch that is discussed and then the group writes the design. Really all we need in this group in Phase 1 is a pitch (hence the format) and then if necessary in Phase 2 we can drill down.
On another tops isn't off topic is CDP member professionalism and politics (This is an every day part of any working group). Why is there animosity between folks? You can see it in the tone of many posts and responses. There is no prize for being the best CDP member. We are a group on a clear mission with huge opportunity. How can we learn to work better with one another? I don't want to be overly guiding because I don't believe this is in the best interest of the output of the group and therefore the value to the game.
Thanks
Chris
I challenge you and anyone else who thinks you can do so, to summarize either my post on itemization or my post on the infinite dungeon in the rewards CDP in under 300 words, keeping in mind it still needs to do the following:
Explain the problem.
Explain the methodology for the solution.
Explain who is affected.
Explain the risks and corcerns.
No one asked you to go so in depth. Please re read my post and note i am not getting into an argument with you (I don't have to). The CDP isn't about anyone one person and I think that sometimes you and others trip over yourselves.
Chris
Then I seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of the CDP. I was under the impression, the purpose of the CDP was for us to provide our opinions on how we would solve a problem. Where phase 1 is the period where we share ideas (although self admittedly I have made a mess of this thread arguing backwards and forwards with people), then phase 2 is for discussion and phase 3 is the summary.
Emphasis there on how we would solve it. Not make a list of problems and a list of criteria for us to consider it solved, a methodology. Sometimes a methodology is short, sure. If someone says the kettle is not working, you could tell them to plug it in for example, but other times its a bit longer. Other times, its a bit more complicated than that and there are lots of ways you could go about solving the problem and they all have problems of their own. In that situation you want to make sure you get the solution right, otherwise you could end up with level scaling in Neverwinter in module 16 and I don't want to propose solutions that are like that.
If that is not what the CDP is however (and just tell me so that I know), I will stop contributing. I don't want to waste anyone's time if my presence is not wanted.
And as for why the animosity between posters, well, over a period of 5 or more years plenty of disagreements can occur and when it comes to a subject we are all passionate about, that can spill over.
Parsimony is always good but is usually harder to do. Even the last paragraph of the above post can be simplified to "I'd prefer a succinct summary of ideas with exposition in spoiler tags". I'm not the editorial police just asking y'all to think about this.
I dont like an enforced format. Not every suggestion has a "problem" associated with it or known "risks". If they do... then great. If a suggestion makes the game more fun... i don't think we need to note... PROBLEM: the game is not fun enough. A free format encourages thinking outside the box. Creative critical thinking is what we are encouraging, right?
I like a suggested format and a word limit. My suggestion is that if a poster wants to include large amounts of data or commentary... have them make a link to it that anyone can read if they are so inclined. If a player wants to make a detailed suggestion for difficulty levels and monster ratings throughout Neverwinter.. it should not go here. If it is linked here.. then the devs would be free to check it out and i bet they might if it sounds interesting.
1
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
I would like to point out, that many focus on the amount of text, but from my PoV as someone who can read (skim) very fast and in habit of reading (hundreds of books read) yet at the same time had to skip some posts and ideas at the rewards CDP, the issue is not the amount (there is correlation I assume, but that's not the issue) .
The issue will be cognitive load. How much time and effort I need to understand what the poster means. In some case I can understand it in short amount of time in a very long post, and I can give up on a 300 words post.
Length is a contributor, so is formatting, language (and I apologize as English is my third language), paragraphs and so on. So I would like to repeat my previous reply, encouraged structure can help tremendously to both create more flowing posts, and for readers to quickly understand the scope and idea behind a post.
I would like us to strive toward a word limit (be concise) at the very least in Phase 1. Generally we aren't looking for design docs. We have many capable members of staff on our side who can do that although it is very possible we may ask a CDP member to go into more detail in Phase 2.
Regarding Sharp's analogy of designing a car: We don't need anyone to design a car at a mid to micro level in Phase 1 or even at all unless asked. You can easily in 300 words for example (number doesn't matter) set out the goals, success criteria, player value proposition, impact on business and so on succinctly. In fact our in house designs are shorter than some that have appeared on the CDP in most part and we take an approach of designs being like a Car brochure rather than a car manual. We want to capture the magic in a bottle, understand the pillars we are trying to achieve, how to achieve them at a high level and call out any considerations. Initially a goal/s is/are set, success criteria and then the team brainstorms (cross discipline) and puts forward a pitch that is discussed and then the group writes the design. Really all we need in this group in Phase 1 is a pitch (hence the format) and then if necessary in Phase 2 we can drill down.
On another tops isn't off topic is CDP member professionalism and politics (This is an every day part of any working group). Why is there animosity between folks? You can see it in the tone of many posts and responses. There is no prize for being the best CDP member. We are a group on a clear mission with huge opportunity. How can we learn to work better with one another? I don't want to be overly guiding because I don't believe this is in the best interest of the output of the group and therefore the value to the game.
Thanks
Chris
I challenge you and anyone else who thinks you can do so, to summarize either my post on itemization or my post on the infinite dungeon in the rewards CDP in under 300 words, keeping in mind it still needs to do the following:
Explain the problem.
Explain the methodology for the solution.
Explain who is affected.
Explain the risks and corcerns.
No one asked you to go so in depth. Please re read my post and note i am not getting into an argument with you (I don't have to). The CDP isn't about anyone one person and I think that sometimes you and others trip over yourselves.
Chris
Then I seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of the CDP. I was under the impression, the purpose of the CDP was for us to provide our opinions on how we would solve a problem. Where phase 1 is the period where we share ideas (although self admittedly I have made a mess of this thread arguing backwards and forwards with people), then phase 2 is for discussion and phase 3 is the summary.
Emphasis there on how we would solve it. Not make a list of problems and a list of criteria for us to consider it solved, a methodology. Sometimes a methodology is short, sure. If someone says the kettle is not working, you could tell them to plug it in for example, but other times its a bit longer. Other times, its a bit more complicated than that and there are lots of ways you could go about solving the problem and they all have problems of their own. In that situation you want to make sure you get the solution right, otherwise you could end up with level scaling in Neverwinter in module 16 and I don't want to propose solutions that are like that.
If that is not what the CDP is however (and just tell me so that I know), I will stop contributing. I don't want to waste anyone's time if my presence is not wanted.
And as for why the animosity between posters, well, over a period of 5 or more years plenty of disagreements can occur and when it comes to a subject we are all passionate about, that can spill over.
The goal of CDP is to build worlds together through ideation, discussion, information sharing and collaborative problem solving. Nothing I have said today is in friction at all with the goal and the related pillars.
We are talking about degree of execution not purpose.
I get folks are passionate like you this isn't my first rodeo but the fact is many of these arguments I am talking about are absolutely outside of the Purpose of the CDP. Arguments that focus on the individual/s are of no use to the CDP. Like I said I am not a teacher here i am a member of the CDP and therefore I haven't felt that it be appropriate for me to intervene in said discussions but clearly it gets in the way of many of the CDP members ability to add value to the mission and journey we are in.
Personally I find your posts insightful and valuable but there is some unnecessary energy being used in terms of description around execution and micro design that for sure is having impact on the efficiency of the work group. Super useful if it has been asked for however. Therefore please don't conflate purpose with execution. Everyone should be focused on the goal and pillars.
Chris
3
blackmagidMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 111Arc User
Feedback Overview (short description of the proposed feedback) Create high level topics within the CDP section of the forum that must show the current CDP Number topic of discussion and the actual suggestion. (CDP #4 CDP – Create high level suggestion to allow for targeted discussion/feedback)
Feedback Goal (what this feedback would target and accomplish) Creating high level topics in this way would allow people to be able to clearly comment on a specific thread that is of interest to them, this may encourage more feedback.
Feedback Functionality (how would your feedback work in relation to the current design of Neverwinter) The forum software would not need to be changed. Once the feedback thread had been discussed and proposed – moderators could archive the threads into a single thread the same way they do now for outages etc.
Risks & Concerns (what problems can you foresee with implementing your feedback that you would like input on from members of this subforum) Aside from aiding readability I see no issues.
Length is a contributor, so is formatting, language (and I apologize as English is my third language), paragraphs and so on. So I would like to repeat my previous reply, encouraged structure can help tremendously to both create more flowing posts, and for readers to quickly understand the scope and idea behind a post.
I have not yet considered it like that, but you are probably right. I find myself usually paying close attention to posts that seem non-native english speaker, because it's like that for me too and I associate myself with everybody seemingly struggling like I do, but I have not yet thought about how this might impact the CDP. Encouraged structure would be fine for me too, enforced structure is a no-no for me personally, as soon as I look at a structure proposal my mind goes blank even on topics more dear to me. For me brainstorming usually was hugely impacted by the communication in the team, and by proposals of others. I know there are people that usually start with an idea they are often very adamant in, people that have already planned something out in the greatest detail, people that go with the flow and spring up with ideas in the middle of discussing something else entirely... Minds work differently. But yes, a point I will consider the next time before immediately rejecting a format/structure.
Presenting ideas improves with knowledge of ones audience. In the CDPs up till now, most are writing for themselves or likeminded people. So the detail oriented write fully fleshed out designs detailed to the smallest cog. Others shoot off a few terse sentences, and everything in between.
What seems to be going on here is that we are defining the audience to write for, and adding some boundaries to the process. I can only applaud it.
We are also still very new to this process and there is no real trust. As a result nobody trust that an idea, bad or good, can make it on their own merits or fail on their lack of merit. Instead they must be attacked or defended with flamethrowrs of holy fire. This is not healthy for the debating environment.
As much as I dislike sounding like some "be nice to eachother" hippie, I would suggest that leaving ideas to stand on their own, especially in phase 1.. and then collectively filtering in a no debate way what makes it to phase 2, may seriously improve the signal to noise ratio.. This is not a new concept, thousands of teams are doing this every day in ideation or brainstorming sessions.
I am willing to spend time on reading very verbose and detailed ideas, but I for one am out the moment the holy fire comes out. Not to mention any "I am taking my ball and going home" rhethoric.
4
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
edited March 2020
I agree that we should not be arguing in phase 1 though and in future I won't do so. I initially did not intend to, but then other people started doing it as well and I kind of felt that well, when in Rome do as the Romans, so to speak. I do apologize for doing so.
I have not yet considered it like that, but you are probably right. I find myself usually paying close attention to posts that seem non-native english speaker, because it's like that for me too and I associate myself with everybody seemingly struggling like I do, but I have not yet thought about how this might impact the CDP. Encouraged structure would be fine for me too, enforced structure is a no-no for me personally, as soon as I look at a structure proposal my mind goes blank even on topics more dear to me. For me brainstorming usually was hugely impacted by the communication in the team, and by proposals of others. I know there are people that usually start with an idea they are often very adamant in, people that have already planned something out in the greatest detail, people that go with the flow and spring up with ideas in the middle of discussing something else entirely... Minds work differently. But yes, a point I will consider the next time before immediately rejecting a format/structure.
I debated responding to this or not, mainly because I feel like I have derailed this thread a lot. If chris thinks it should go, please remove it, but I think that as this is a CDP about the CDP its *maybe* ok to be a little bit more free form? I don't know. I personally don't really mind whether there is an enforced format or not even though I did propose one, because I understand how stifling it is to have to write under someone elses format that is not your own. Every time you need to fill in government forms and you want to be anywhere else doing anything else, it isn't pleasant. I think that is something we can all agree on.
I would like us to strive toward a word limit (be concise) at the very least in Phase 1. Chris
@cwhitesidedev#9752 Hey Chris, i was wondering if it could be possible that someone could summarise the different ideas/suggestions in phase 1 before phase 2 starts? Part of me and i hope many others, learns immensely from other suggestions and then expanding on those suggestions. I believe in an evolving discussion but i am against CDP participants to be arguing over their suggestions. Disagreeing and agreeing doesn't necessarily result into evolving of a discussion. What does is the constructive feedback, and whilst such heated discussions have some feedback, the rest of the 90% is actually argument for the sake of argument. If you don't like a suggestion, I believe you should tell your reasons (don't even need to quote most of the time) and move on and whilst being guilty of the same, i do believe i should strive to limit the number of my posts and word limit when necessary but i hope i have touched upon several suggestions in my posts. The current problems i see with the CDP are of course the volume of replies which most comments have focused on but also what about the below situation:
Sometimes i just don't have the time to read the CDP and by the time i do, the CDP has progressed to few dozens of pages and that's where i think to myself "do i have the energy"? I am sure many others are in the same shoes, and whilst i can only speak for myself, what i need in this situation is a summary of different kind of ideas to expand on or to get the general gist of the CDP's progression. In the same way, any insight from you or the staff would be great, because i can see which suggestions meet your viability criteria. I will state again, not all good suggestions are healthy for the game, most of these suggestions cannot possibly consider the resources, the expense and the availability of expertise required to perform such feat. In short, can we have a search function to search for specific person's comments only?
1
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
I've went over the CDP introduction posts and I can't find the phases. I know they were mentioned several times but I can't see any clear "on top" description of them and the expectations (or my search failed me).
Proposals, drill down, can mean different things to different people. So perhaps some firmer guidelines should be set.
If in phase1, we are supposed to propose our stuff, lets pin a post "No reactions at this stage" and we try to get along, or the moderators will bash to submission. Without hinting, mentioning, or anything else that calls out for response. Comments lead to comments.
If in phase 2 we are expected to debate and expand those suggestions then free for all it is, ok not really free for all, but IMO productive debate should have shortcomings and negatives brought up, and tried to be fixed. It's not an insult or personal affront. Being open to criticism is as important as to provide it in constructive manner.
If the above is the intent then this hasn't really happened so far in any of the CDP topics. People read, people react, sometimes it is constructive, sometimes I had to ask for all my posts (together with a bunch of others) to be removed.
Should it be separated? I see how ideas get drowned among the discussion, but how such separation will affect the quality of phase 2? will people go back after two weeks to look for that idea they thought is good, or should be improved? I expect that not as much.
Restructuring the format as a whole can solve this (trees, threads, anything), but if not, and we must adhere to phases as the best compromise between giving room for new ideas and feedback to the existing, then perhaps those phases should be more emphasized.
On another tops isn't off topic is CDP member professionalism and politics (This is an every day part of any working group). Why is there animosity between folks? You can see it in the tone of many posts and responses. There is no prize for being the best CDP member. We are a group on a clear mission with huge opportunity. How can we learn to work better with one another? I don't want to be overly guiding because I don't believe this is in the best interest of the output of the group and therefore the value to the game.
I hope this will not sound as smart-assing as it's not my intention, but there is no winning here. If there is an intention for discussion about ideas and their shortcomings, it takes at least 300 words just to fluff any criticism to avoid any chance of someone getting insulted, walking on egg-shells. If one just skips the fluff, and just points out a problem with some goal / idea, then they are enemy of the state. If they try to fluff it, then they are boring essay wall of text writers, and enemy number 2. No winning.
2
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
As to micky1p00 , so i don't have to make another post.
What i don't like (personally) is that you nitpick a single line out of my comment, to create a strawman and write an essay on that. That in my eyes is discussion for the sake of argument and leads to unnecessary heated debates and makes other CDP participants lose interest. Anyone reading our comments probably has no idea what we are arguing about because they would need to follow through our original comments, so i was wondering that passionate folks could always go to the CDP part where critiquing is allowed and people who simply want a gist of the discussion could go its twin forum. Stack exchange is the superior of both, if the resources are available.
I'm not sure what you mean here. You are saying to me that I've nitpicked a single line, and strawmaned it.
Voting is but a good piece of "side information". Not all voting is based on streamer influence as you are claiming apparently, some voting will indicate general interest of the public. The only time voting becomes a concern is that top voted comments are always taken as suggestions that are good or are to be implemented which i have explained is not an issue giving examples of how the developers still critiquing each discussion based on their own viability checklist.
Lastly, i didn't say you nitpicked, please read the post again. Formatting does help, i never disagreed, but are you actually trying to educate GAMERS? Will it work? I believe i have fairly touched upon your points, let us move on because Chris by now has a good idea about them and both of us are not willing to change our stance.
I want to emphasize that I didn't single out streamers, I've provided several examples and I can provide many more, guild leaders, custom channels, discords, and other social circles where people can mobilize voters while at the same time the general public is not really as interested in the debates.
-- I agree that we should stop. I apologize for the off-topic, and perhaps this should be moved out eventually.
I have hard time with the clunky format/design of the Neverwinter Arc forums in general. Its hard to keep track of subtopics as there are no easy to use drop down menus. A person needs to scroll through all of the postings to keep track of things and its difficult to search for any prior posting. It’s also very iPad and tablet unfriendly. It just feels really clunky and outdated like this game in many ways. Why do I need with Arc Defender pin every time I attempt to logon to this forum? Everything is so linear. I applaud anyone who can structure formatted responses with this horrid tool. So my suggestion for CDP would be to update your forum software.
My take on the "word count issue": I think it's more with people having a wall-of-text disease by feeling compelled to provide a thorough examination of the entire structure and conception of their argumentation and trying to already dump out answers to every possible argument that can be raised against it. I'm 100% guilty and I'm trying to change .
Now, what I suggest about it is to not try and just make people chop off their argument, but to make them restructure their post by only explaining the point and the basic framework of thought as argument, then placing the big long analysis in a spoiler or in a different section. So only people who disagree with the original points will (maybe) read them or who are interested on how, but it's also helpful for those who are just want to see the ideas already made
Edit: I would 100% say to place them into a tagged spoiler, because just the mental image of looking to a wall long post is moral-breaking. And also takes a lot of scrolling through even if I would just agreed with it in general.
My take on the "word count issue": I think it's more with people having a wall-of-text disease by feeling compelled to provide a thorough examination of the entire structure and conception of their argumentation and trying to already dump out answers to every possible argument that can be raised against it. I'm 100% guilty and I'm trying to change .
Now, what I suggest about it is to not try and just make people chop off their argument, but to make them restructure their post by only explaining the point and the basic framework of thought as argument, then placing the big long analysis in a spoiler or in a different section. So only people who disagree with the original points will (maybe) read them or who are interested on how, but it's also helpful for those who are just want to see the ideas already made
Yes. I think this is the best solution the group has put forward.
My take on the "word count issue": I think it's more with people having a wall-of-text disease by feeling compelled to provide a thorough examination of the entire structure and conception of their argumentation and trying to already dump out answers to every possible argument that can be raised against it. I'm 100% guilty and I'm trying to change .
Now, what I suggest about it is to not try and just make people chop off their argument, but to make them restructure their post by only explaining the point and the basic framework of thought as argument, then placing the big long analysis in a spoiler or in a different section. So only people who disagree with the original points will (maybe) read them or who are interested on how, but it's also helpful for those who are just want to see the ideas already made
Yes. I think this is the best solution the group has put forward.
Chris
That is what stack exchange like forum is or a twin forum. A stack exchange has collapse-able (spoiler) that expands and provides further detail. A twin forum basically has one forum that has brief outline of a suggestion, whereas the other forum has in depth suggestion.
What the rest of us are also trying to get across is that the critiquing part also needs to be hidden i.e. collapse-able because otherwise the volume of replies prevents people from following the CDP.
Also, a bit too optimistic idea, but I probably would delay discussing solutions altogether, because the problem with the "Problem-solution" approach is that it makes people have to predetermine their ideas on what the problem and make a solution on sometimes faulty premises or at least, fully different viewpoint. But they never be able to recognize it if they are only arguing about the solution.
It's not just better in avoiding basic misunderstandings, but as already proven, sometimes every viewpoint is good source of information, but other times @cwhitesidedev#9752 needs to step in and clarify things, which is easier when caught the moment the misunderstanding happens, not when it appears up tangled in part of a different topic. Especially if that's like page 5 and probably will get missed by a lot of people after 10-15 page, unlike a starting post for Phase 3 to list up solutions and ideas (PH1-2 would be problems and discussing them).
I will say this much, as a community that has been made to feel like we are not being listened to we will have a lot to say when we are suddenly asked for our opinions.
Please be patient with those that wall of text, lips sewn shut will disgorge thoughts long bottled up when the razor stroke grants them freedom to flap again.
wait that wasn't coffee i just drank it was goth juice.
Ego etiam cupo recrari et amari diu post mortem meam I too wish to be recreated, and to be loved long after my death.
Comments
This post will be long because i am going to touch upon a plethora of suggestions.
@thefabricant
Let me elaborate, I stated "We should strive to limit our word limit in the CDP". Which of the following does that match closer to
1) We need to introduce a hard cap word limit.
2) We should limit our "own" word count in the CDP.
I know the 300 word limit was an example but seemed like an exaggeration to me. Regardless, lets go straight to the point.
The emphasis of my comment was to encourage people to limit their "own" word count on CDP, whilst the twin forum could tackle the critiquing part. The twin forum was your answer. Your initial reply did not cover any part of that and that to me was very disturbing. The twin forum also does not result in people butchering their idea, so again, i would have to say that you missed the point.
By tree like forum, do you mean a stack exchange like forum whereby each parent thread contains replies, the replies contain comments but the comments can't contain comments (i.e. like youtube comment section), then we are in affirmative (i have mentioned Stack exchange in my previous posts). Had your initial reply went straight to the point of why you disagree with twin forums and prefer tree like forum, the rest was not required. If by tree like you mean what plasticbat suggested, my opinion on it is as below
@plasticbat
First of all, a really good suggestion. But my personal worries about the tree like forum is that it really adds complexity to the forum and we are trying to achieve the opposite. Not only would I have to go one by one to each thread to read upon each suggestion, I am limited to only talk about that suggestion. This post is already opining on multiple suggestions from multiple people. Sometimes i may want to combine two suggestions, so do i go to both forums and copy paste? Furthermore, creating a new thread may prevent people from starting fresh suggestions (instead of building up on previous ones) because they do not want or like to be critiqued and would just prefer to quickly suggest what they think could be a useful advice. In other words, making threads with suggestions opens you up for critiquing and some may not be willing to go that far, considering some people may give a suggestion and never return to the CDP. Lastly, if each new suggestion was to be in a different thread, i can see some suggestions being much longer than you see them currently, but if they could provide an abstract/introduction with NB at the end or conclusion, then at may get rid of some stress. But i still believe that stack exchange style is the superior of the both.
As to @micky1p00 , so i don't have to make another post.
To your point Number 1 ( i am glad you numbered them) , as i have mentioned in my previous post, voting gives the general consensus regarding a subject. It is but a useful piece of "side information", as long as Chris and other staff are not basing their entire decisions on it. If a bad suggestion gets 1000 votes, you can bet that Chris and the staff would not consider it and i am sure you agree with me on this one. If however, a good suggestion gets 1000 votes because of a streamer's influence, the team would still have discussed and critiqued the suggestion internally. In other words, let this voting being detrimental to CDP propaganda die here, it is but a trivial matter.
As for 3, we are discussing whether it be agreeing or disagreeing and this forms part of evolving the discussion. What i don't like (personally) is that you nitpick a single line out of my comment, to create a strawman and write an essay on that. That in my eyes is discussion for the sake of argument and leads to unnecessary heated debates and makes other CDP participants lose interest. Anyone reading our comments probably has no idea what we are arguing about because they would need to follow through our original comments, so i was wondering that passionate folks could always go to the CDP part where critiquing is allowed and people who simply want a gist of the discussion could go its twin forum. Stack exchange is the superior of both, if the resources are available.
Btw the char limit was Sarcasm, sorry for my lame British Sarcasm
Conclusion
1) I agree with Stack exchange like forum
2) Twin forum requires no resources to be spent but the stack exchange still being superior in my eyes.
3) I disagree with voting being detrimental to the CDP.
4) Number 1 and 2 tackle the word limit issue.
5) In regards to my previous comments, i still prefer tags for approved suggestions by the developer and for their to be a search-able function for them.
6) i strongly agree with having numbered comments for ease of referencing and navigating through comments.
7) I disagree with forcing people to format their suggestions, the emphasis should be making CDP easier to follow not educating GAMERS to format their responses.
2. I fail to see where I nitpicked a line, it was your general request over several posts which I don't wish to quote to create a huge post. Nor I wrote an essay, my post is more or less the same size as your part that is addressed to me. How would you suggest for me to "disagree" or get better clarification? (BTW any 'bickering' that involved me in the previous one, I was the one who asked for it to be moved to a separate thread)
3. Perhaps I misunderstood something, but I think you did advocate for word limit, and voting. So why my response to that is a strawmen?
But I guess the above is better reserved for another time and another place.
Encouraging format - A format allows to skim over posts much faster than any limit on post length.
Standard formats also encourage to actually think over and provide the relevant information. "What problem you are trying to solve". And I'll take example from the argument above (not for the sake of argument, but for the easy example), if a post starts with "I get back after a couple of days and there are 10 pages of posts I can't read" no matter what the solution, I can perhaps offer "How about filtering for quoted posts, so you can see all the posts a dev quoted and the response" versus "I want a voting system" to which ofc you get the reply I've replied earlier. - This saves time and cognitive effort for everyone as a reader to see the posters issue, how they suggest to solve it (if they do) and perhaps add to it or find something that can be improved. Sifting through any non-formatted post to understand the issue to begin with is harder than formatted. Though I will say that the format can be improved, like was suggested by several people already.
Comment numbering - They are actually numbered, look at the link of the "comment time", with regular installation, clicking will also put you on the comment. This integration with ARC site just broke it, like it broke opening stuff in new tabs and many more things. Which is a shame. In any case, I'm afraid I don't see how numbering helps, if you are going to post "What Bob said in post number #24", for me going and clicking there is epicly annoying, like breadcrumb chase. I don't believe it solves any issue, and I'll rather scroll over quoted posts than need to treasure hunt the context, but perhaps I've missed the issue it solves. IMO.
In any case I think I've spent on this thread more than I should. Everyone is free to do with anyone's else criticism and opinion whatever they choose, from try to improve the idea based on the issues brought up or ignore any short-coming, either is their valid choice IMO.
Regarding Sharp's analogy of designing a car: We don't need anyone to design a car at a mid to micro level in Phase 1 or even at all unless asked. You can easily in 300 words for example (number doesn't matter) set out the goals, success criteria, player value proposition, impact on business and so on succinctly. In fact our in house designs are shorter than some that have appeared on the CDP in most part and we take an approach of designs being like a Car brochure rather than a car manual. We want to capture the magic in a bottle, understand the pillars we are trying to achieve, how to achieve them at a high level and call out any considerations. Initially a goal/s is/are set, success criteria and then the team brainstorms (cross discipline) and puts forward a pitch that is discussed and then the group writes the design. Really all we need in this group in Phase 1 is a pitch (hence the format) and then if necessary in Phase 2 we can drill down.
On another tops isn't off topic is CDP member professionalism and politics (This is an every day part of any working group). Why is there animosity between folks? You can see it in the tone of many posts and responses. There is no prize for being the best CDP member. We are a group on a clear mission with huge opportunity. How can we learn to work better with one another? I don't want to be overly guiding because I don't believe this is in the best interest of the output of the group and therefore the value to the game.
Thanks
Chris
Why should I accept a challenge based on what is a core communication issue when I can write Goals, Success Criteria, Player Value Proposition, Player Functionality and Dev Considerations in under 300 which the team then works on collaboratively and turn into design and then experience. We don't need more designers thanks, but we do massively value subject matter experts who care deeply about different areas of the world they enjoy and who provide ideas, and considerations with others and who can provide a different per view to our own.
Chris
It can make people not bother to post, as they will feel their ideas wont be considered due to not being fleshed out completely. Which I know is not the goals of the CDPs, or at least I would hope so.
Chris
Thanks
Chris
I generally like Sharps idea to simplify along the lines of
1. Problem
2. Solution
3. Potential Risks
I'm also finding it hard to read through the slabs of text, I'd prefer a succinct summary. Detailed Descriptions and slabs of text, no matter how valuable and worthy of sharing, are best appended to the body of text that is targeted toward the general population (like in all good business cases or a reports), perhaps the spoiler function thing in this forum could be used to append the "slabs" to the main post and still leave a summarised post that is easy for the plebs like me to read.
Emphasis there on how we would solve it. Not make a list of problems and a list of criteria for us to consider it solved, a methodology. Sometimes a methodology is short, sure. If someone says the kettle is not working, you could tell them to plug it in for example, but other times its a bit longer. Other times, its a bit more complicated than that and there are lots of ways you could go about solving the problem and they all have problems of their own. In that situation you want to make sure you get the solution right, otherwise you could end up with level scaling in Neverwinter in module 16 and I don't want to propose solutions that are like that.
If that is not what the CDP is however (and just tell me so that I know), I will stop contributing. I don't want to waste anyone's time if my presence is not wanted.
And as for why the animosity between posters, well, over a period of 5 or more years plenty of disagreements can occur and when it comes to a subject we are all passionate about, that can spill over.
I like a suggested format and a word limit. My suggestion is that if a poster wants to include large amounts of data or commentary... have them make a link to it that anyone can read if they are so inclined. If a player wants to make a detailed suggestion for difficulty levels and monster ratings throughout Neverwinter.. it should not go here. If it is linked here.. then the devs would be free to check it out and i bet they might if it sounds interesting.
The issue will be cognitive load. How much time and effort I need to understand what the poster means. In some case I can understand it in short amount of time in a very long post, and I can give up on a 300 words post.
Length is a contributor, so is formatting, language (and I apologize as English is my third language), paragraphs and so on. So I would like to repeat my previous reply, encouraged structure can help tremendously to both create more flowing posts, and for readers to quickly understand the scope and idea behind a post.
We are talking about degree of execution not purpose.
I get folks are passionate like you this isn't my first rodeo but the fact is many of these arguments I am talking about are absolutely outside of the Purpose of the CDP. Arguments that focus on the individual/s are of no use to the CDP. Like I said I am not a teacher here i am a member of the CDP and therefore I haven't felt that it be appropriate for me to intervene in said discussions but clearly it gets in the way of many of the CDP members ability to add value to the mission and journey we are in.
Personally I find your posts insightful and valuable but there is some unnecessary energy being used in terms of description around execution and micro design that for sure is having impact on the efficiency of the work group. Super useful if it has been asked for however. Therefore please don't conflate purpose with execution. Everyone should be focused on the goal and pillars.
Chris
Create high level topics within the CDP section of the forum that must show the current CDP Number topic of discussion and the actual suggestion. (CDP #4 CDP – Create high level suggestion to allow for targeted discussion/feedback)
Feedback Goal (what this feedback would target and accomplish)
Creating high level topics in this way would allow people to be able to clearly comment on a specific thread that is of interest to them, this may encourage more feedback.
Feedback Functionality (how would your feedback work in relation to the current design of Neverwinter)
The forum software would not need to be changed. Once the feedback thread had been discussed and proposed – moderators could archive the threads into a single thread the same way they do now for outages etc.
Risks & Concerns (what problems can you foresee with implementing your feedback that you would like input on from members of this subforum)
Aside from aiding readability I see no issues.
Thanks
BlackMagi
Encouraged structure would be fine for me too, enforced structure is a no-no for me personally, as soon as I look at a structure proposal my mind goes blank even on topics more dear to me.
For me brainstorming usually was hugely impacted by the communication in the team, and by proposals of others. I know there are people that usually start with an idea they are often very adamant in, people that have already planned something out in the greatest detail, people that go with the flow and spring up with ideas in the middle of discussing something else entirely... Minds work differently.
But yes, a point I will consider the next time before immediately rejecting a format/structure.
In the CDPs up till now, most are writing for themselves or likeminded people. So the detail oriented write fully fleshed out designs detailed to the smallest cog. Others shoot off a few terse sentences, and everything in between.
What seems to be going on here is that we are defining the audience to write for, and adding some boundaries to the process. I can only applaud it.
We are also still very new to this process and there is no real trust. As a result nobody trust that an idea, bad or good, can make it on their own merits or fail on their lack of merit. Instead they must be attacked or defended with flamethrowrs of holy fire. This is not healthy for the debating environment.
As much as I dislike sounding like some "be nice to eachother" hippie, I would suggest that leaving ideas to stand on their own, especially in phase 1.. and then collectively filtering in a no debate way what makes it to phase 2, may seriously improve the signal to noise ratio.. This is not a new concept, thousands of teams are doing this every day in ideation or brainstorming sessions.
I am willing to spend time on reading very verbose and detailed ideas, but I for one am out the moment the holy fire comes out. Not to mention any "I am taking my ball and going home" rhethoric.
I debated responding to this or not, mainly because I feel like I have derailed this thread a lot. If chris thinks it should go, please remove it, but I think that as this is a CDP about the CDP its *maybe* ok to be a little bit more free form? I don't know. I personally don't really mind whether there is an enforced format or not even though I did propose one, because I understand how stifling it is to have to write under someone elses format that is not your own. Every time you need to fill in government forms and you want to be anywhere else doing anything else, it isn't pleasant. I think that is something we can all agree on.
Hey Chris, i was wondering if it could be possible that someone could summarise the different ideas/suggestions in phase 1 before phase 2 starts? Part of me and i hope many others, learns immensely from other suggestions and then expanding on those suggestions. I believe in an evolving discussion but i am against CDP participants to be arguing over their suggestions. Disagreeing and agreeing doesn't necessarily result into evolving of a discussion. What does is the constructive feedback, and whilst such heated discussions have some feedback, the rest of the 90% is actually argument for the sake of argument. If you don't like a suggestion, I believe you should tell your reasons (don't even need to quote most of the time) and move on and whilst being guilty of the same, i do believe i should strive to limit the number of my posts and word limit when necessary but i hope i have touched upon several suggestions in my posts. The current problems i see with the CDP are of course the volume of replies which most comments have focused on but also what about the below situation:
Sometimes i just don't have the time to read the CDP and by the time i do, the CDP has progressed to few dozens of pages and that's where i think to myself "do i have the energy"? I am sure many others are in the same shoes, and whilst i can only speak for myself, what i need in this situation is a summary of different kind of ideas to expand on or to get the general gist of the CDP's progression. In the same way, any insight from you or the staff would be great, because i can see which suggestions meet your viability criteria. I will state again, not all good suggestions are healthy for the game, most of these suggestions cannot possibly consider the resources, the expense and the availability of expertise required to perform such feat. In short, can we have a search function to search for specific person's comments only?
Proposals, drill down, can mean different things to different people. So perhaps some firmer guidelines should be set.
If in phase1, we are supposed to propose our stuff, lets pin a post "No reactions at this stage" and we try to get along, or the moderators will bash to submission. Without hinting, mentioning, or anything else that calls out for response. Comments lead to comments.
If in phase 2 we are expected to debate and expand those suggestions then free for all it is, ok not really free for all, but IMO productive debate should have shortcomings and negatives brought up, and tried to be fixed. It's not an insult or personal affront. Being open to criticism is as important as to provide it in constructive manner.
If the above is the intent then this hasn't really happened so far in any of the CDP topics. People read, people react, sometimes it is constructive, sometimes I had to ask for all my posts (together with a bunch of others) to be removed.
Should it be separated? I see how ideas get drowned among the discussion, but how such separation will affect the quality of phase 2? will people go back after two weeks to look for that idea they thought is good, or should be improved? I expect that not as much.
Restructuring the format as a whole can solve this (trees, threads, anything), but if not, and we must adhere to phases as the best compromise between giving room for new ideas and feedback to the existing, then perhaps those phases should be more emphasized. I hope this will not sound as smart-assing as it's not my intention, but there is no winning here.
If there is an intention for discussion about ideas and their shortcomings, it takes at least 300 words just to fluff any criticism to avoid any chance of someone getting insulted, walking on egg-shells. If one just skips the fluff, and just points out a problem with some goal / idea, then they are enemy of the state. If they try to fluff it, then they are boring essay wall of text writers, and enemy number 2. No winning.
--
I agree that we should stop. I apologize for the off-topic, and perhaps this should be moved out eventually.
Everything is so linear. I applaud anyone who can structure formatted responses with this horrid tool. So my suggestion for CDP would be to update your forum software.
Now, what I suggest about it is to not try and just make people chop off their argument, but to make them restructure their post by only explaining the point and the basic framework of thought as argument, then placing the big long analysis in a spoiler or in a different section. So only people who disagree with the original points will (maybe) read them or who are interested on how, but it's also helpful for those who are just want to see the ideas already made
Edit: I would 100% say to place them into a tagged spoiler, because just the mental image of looking to a wall long post is moral-breaking. And also takes a lot of scrolling through even if I would just agreed with it in general.
Chris
What the rest of us are also trying to get across is that the critiquing part also needs to be hidden i.e. collapse-able because otherwise the volume of replies prevents people from following the CDP.
It's not just better in avoiding basic misunderstandings, but as already proven, sometimes every viewpoint is good source of information, but other times @cwhitesidedev#9752 needs to step in and clarify things, which is easier when caught the moment the misunderstanding happens, not when it appears up tangled in part of a different topic. Especially if that's like page 5 and probably will get missed by a lot of people after 10-15 page, unlike a starting post for Phase 3 to list up solutions and ideas (PH1-2 would be problems and discussing them).
Please be patient with those that wall of text, lips sewn shut will disgorge thoughts long bottled up when the razor stroke grants them freedom to flap again.
wait that wasn't coffee i just drank it was goth juice.
I too wish to be recreated, and to be loved long after my death.