SSquirrel wrote: yellowdingo wrote: SSquirrel wrote: Yellowdingo, why are you posting your suggestions in this thread? Besides, the economy information is not something I would worry about for alpha material. I would have said it was contrary...if We are going to comment on what is wrong, then we should feel free to comment on what is missing.
Yes but this thread is a thread condemning what you are doing. These boards have no report option either. No, no its not. Not really.
What this thread is doing is bringing out a problem - that its taking too long to review all the responses that are being generated.
There are several solutions to that problem - only one of which is trying to force all posters to stick to what's 'on topic' (however 'on topic' is defined).
Now, personally, I think expecting a bunch of anonymous fan boy posters to start behaving according to some set of guidelines just because someone else said they should - well, I don't think that's a solution with much hope for success. I think we need a different solution.
Viral marketing?
Anyway...snark away folks. I never said anyone's post was dumb or useless. Not once.
What I DID say is that folks aren't focussing on the task at hand. By running off on tangents we are forcing Jason and company to wade through a lot of off topic info to get at what they actually want.
And you don't need to post page numbers in the "General" forum. That's why it's called "General" and not "Specific".
SSquirrel wrote: yellowdingo wrote: SSquirrel wrote: Yellowdingo, why are you posting your suggestions in this thread? Besides, the economy information is not something I would worry about for alpha material. I would have said it was contrary...if We are going to comment on what is wrong, then we should feel free to comment on what is missing.
Yes but this thread is a thread condemning what you are doing. These boards have no report option either. No need to report yellowdingo, for this living riddle is well documented. He openly mystifies the Paizo staff on an almost weekly basis and they've actually given up on solving him. Attrition is a b!tch.
He is... the dingo. You must fear and respect this (and keep your hands and legs in the car at all times). The last poster who didn't heed that warning rents his severed wrists out as flowerpots for the filthy rich.
Magenta's Cat wrote: Viral marketing?
Anyway...snark away folks. I never said anyone's post was dumb or useless. Not once.
What I DID say is that folks aren't focussing on the task at hand. By running off on tangents we are forcing Jason and company to wade through a lot of off topic info to get at what they actually want.
And you don't need to post page numbers in the "General" forum. That's why it's called "General" and not "Specific".
What I think we should do is elect among us a couple of volunteers who will strip away all the garbage (redundant content, flames, disputes, etc.) and just consolidate all remaining content into one thread on an ongoing basis (say, once a week).
'Off topic' stuff can be useful and should be kept in, in my opinion, but redundancy, flames, etc. can be removed. Everyone else can review the consolidation and, if anyone feels that their point wasn't properly brought over into the consolidation, they can raise a concern with the volunteers.
This position will require a tremondous amount of ethics, a keen and open mind willing to convey even positions they are vehmently oppossed to, patience to deal with people who've never learned basic civility, and reasonably good writing skills. Everyone else will need to give them their full support (that is, not allow them to have to deal with incivility alone) and, also, express patience in working with them (it will, after all, be a lot of hard work).
It doesn't need to be that radical or severe. As posters, we should be able to police ourselves.
We have a general Pathfinder RPG forum, a general Alpha 1 forum, and specific forums for posting specific playtest issues. For the Alpha 1 stuff, we've been asked to post page numbers for easy reference.
Before each one of us posts, we should ask ourselves "Am I in the right forum for this topic?" and "Am I in any way changing the subject of the thread I'm posting to?"
For instance, a thread about economics for Pathfinder would be perfectly suitable for the General Pathfinder RPG forum but probably not in the Alpha 1 General forum since the Alpha 1 document doesn't reference them in any way.
Magenta's Cat wrote: It doesn't need to be that radical or severe. As posters, we should be able to police ourselves.
We have a general Pathfinder RPG forum, a general Alpha 1 forum, and specific forums for posting specific playtest issues. For the Alpha 1 stuff, we've been asked to post page numbers for easy reference.
Before each one of us posts, we should ask ourselves "Am I in the right forum for this topic?" and "Am I in any way changing the subject of the thread I'm posting to?"
For instance, a thread about economics for Pathfinder would be perfectly suitable for the General Pathfinder RPG forum but probably not in the Alpha 1 General forum since the Alpha 1 document doesn't reference them in any way.
Its not about policing ourselves. By the very nature of the thing, topics here are going to grow organically. That means they are going to be unstructured. That's a -good- thing. The only time you want structured feedback is when you already know what kind of answers you'll accept. If you already know what kind of answers you'll accept, then what you are really looking for is purely quantitative, not qualitative, feedback. But quantitative feedback in the design process is of very limited use.
Consider, I do systems architecture for a living. That means that I map out the design of complex systems with clients in such a way that the design we create can be handed on to experts (database engineers, network engineers, etc.) so that the final product they create is on time, on scope, and on cost.
Now, ask yourself, what happens if I just assume I already know what the customer wants and hand them a small slip of paper full of checkboxes in which they can decide between which of two alternatives they hate least? Is the product going to be successful? Consider if I toss that little slip of paper over the wall to them and they are only allowed to respond by what's on that paper. Am I going to get good feedback from them?
No, I'm not. This is the same thing.
Stunty_the_Dwarf wrote: ...yammering chuckleheads discussing the merits of said proposal (and not, of course, the merits or flaws of the PF RAW). I admit that I have been one of them, although mostly as a "GAH! Please god no!" kind of poster ...
So now I'm a yammering chucklehead? Ok. I can live with that :P
Oh, by the way. Smurf!
At least we are starting to see some threads with the page numbers now. Hopefully this trend will continue...
Le schtroumphf in europe.
ehb1022 wrote: Le schtroumphf in europe. Strumpf? That's something I put on my feet so they won't be cold.
Around here, it's Schlumpf. And around here is in Europe. :P
In Europe, there are at least a dozen different names for them - one per country (Greece has two actually)
LilithsThrall wrote:
What I think we should do is elect among us a couple of volunteers who will strip away all the garbage (redundant content, flames, disputes, etc.)
And who will those volunteers be? The guy with a chip on his shoulder? Someone with an agenda? Some prejudiced (insert edition here) fanboy?
I think this is a very bad idea. I might agree to it if it was Paizo who did the "cleaning", or someone Paizo chooses since they know tha they won't misuse their power.
The Jade wrote:
He is... the dingo.
He ate the baby. It's true, I swear!
Anyway, excuse me, I'll go and post some houserule of mine into some discussion because I can.
KaeYoss wrote:
Strumpf? That's something I put on my feet so they won't be cold.
Around here, it's Schlumpf. And around here is in Europe. :P
In Europe, there are at least a dozen different names for them - one per country (Greece has two actually)
In Russia, Smurf smurf you.
LilithsThrall wrote:
No, no its not. Not really.
What this thread is doing is bringing out a problem - that its taking too long to review all the responses that are being generated.
There are several solutions to that problem - only one of which is trying to force all posters to stick to what's 'on topic' (however 'on topic' is defined).
Now, personally, I think expecting a bunch of anonymous fan boy posters to start behaving according to some set of guidelines just because someone else said they should - well, I don't think that's a solution with much hope for success. I think we need a different solution.
This thread was not asking people to post more of their ideas, which is what yellowdingo is doing. If he loves his economic ideas so much, make another topic and don't pollute other discussion. Really, this isnt' rocket science here.
When the guidelines have been set by Paizo, sure I expect them to follow them. It's perfectly fine to have a more structured environment for feedback, esp if you want your feedback heard. Why do you think you have to go thru phone VRUs when you call a company? They want to get your question/problem to the most specific line so you don't have your problem about your internet service end up at billing, where they will just have to transfer you again.
SSquirrel wrote:
Why do you think you have to go thru phone VRUs when you call a company? They want to get your question/problem to the most specific line so you don't have your problem about your internet service end up at billing, where they will just have to transfer you again.
Customers calling a company and getting a VRU typically occurs later in the SDLC then PRPG is at this time.
Piazo is a well known company in the D&D/d20 community.
They make an annoucement that they will not be going with WotC down the 4e path. They are going to create a new "core set" of books to kee 3.x alive.
They then open the playtest of said material to *everyone*.
Was this sort of "you shold include X" and "anything dealing with Y needs to be changed to Z" discussion not expected? I certainly know why, for example, Steve Jackson Games limits playtest participation and the like. Unless someone has a *lot* of time wade through the material and pick out the signal from the noise... it will be a source of confusion for many.
But if someone does have the time to wade through it all... then this is fine. Bear in mind that, the further along this goes, the less the participation is likely to be. People will slow down and things will reach a more manageable speed.
Oh... and even the stuff many feel is off-topic has been enjoyable to read thus far. Some of it is even enlightened and inspired.
K. David Ladage wrote: But if someone does have the time to wade through it all... then this is fine. Its not only fine, the finished product is never better than the depth of relationship with the customer - except by dumb luck.
K. David Ladage wrote: Bear in mind that, the further along this goes, the less the participation is likely to be. People will slow down and things will reach a more manageable speed. True for a number of reasons. There's the instant popularity factor. There's also the fact that the most critical decisions (for good or bad) are made at the beginning - once these critical early decisions are made, the people who disagree with them go elsewhere.
K. David Ladage wrote: Oh... and even the stuff many feel is off-topic has been enjoyable to read thus far. Some of it is even enlightened and inspired. I thought so too. Say whatever else you want to about it, I thought the OP on the economics post made a brilliant couple of posts on the topic.
LilithsThrall wrote:
Customers calling a company and getting a VRU typically occurs later in the SDLC then PRPG is at this time.
You ignored the point which is that a focused setup for responses is more valuable than people randomly throwing their crap into threads that have nothing to do with what they are talking about.
SSquirrel wrote: LilithsThrall wrote:
Customers calling a company and getting a VRU typically occurs later in the SDLC then PRPG is at this time.
You ignored the point which is that a focused setup for responses is more valuable than people randomly throwing their crap into threads that have nothing to do with what they are talking about.
No, I got your point. The point you ignored is that we aren't talking about that part of the SDLC - that your point is irrelevant because its about an entirely different part of the SDLC for an entirely different type of product.
Its like if I said "peizoelectricity plays a part in the mending of bones" and you replied "yeah, well blood has copper in it". Its a total non sequitor.
Holy crap, blood has copper in it? I'm calling mom to tell her she was wrong about me being worthless . . .
KnightErrantJR wrote: Holy crap, blood has copper in it? I'm calling mom to tell her she was wrong about me being worthless . . . Too funny!
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm playing the game and giving feedback.
LilithsThrall wrote:
No, I got your point. The point you ignored is that we aren't talking about that part of the SDLC - that your point is irrelevant because its about an entirely different part of the SDLC for an entirely different type of product.
Its like if I said "peizoelectricity plays a part in the mending of bones" and you replied "yeah, well blood has copper in it". Its a total non sequitor.
How so? They're asking for feedback. If this was phone based, they would (I would hope) have it setup to go to specific channels for more accuracy. Feedback is feedback and being completely off topic in a thread trying to hijack it doesn't help anyone, which is what yellowdingo was doing.
In other words, if this was a thread complaining about the lack of a detailed economic system and yellowdingo was posting his economics information in response, that would be great. But this was a thread about people ignoring everything and posting what they want regardless of topicality or pointing to where in the alpha their feedback is addressing.
I think I'm about done w/these boards.
SSquirrel wrote: LilithsThrall wrote:
No, I got your point. The point you ignored is that we aren't talking about that part of the SDLC - that your point is irrelevant because its about an entirely different part of the SDLC for an entirely different type of product.
Its like if I said "peizoelectricity plays a part in the mending of bones" and you replied "yeah, well blood has copper in it". Its a total non sequitor.
How so? They're asking for feedback. If this was phone based, they would (I would hope) have it setup to go to specific channels for more accuracy. Feedback is feedback and being completely off topic in a thread trying to hijack it doesn't help anyone, which is what yellowdingo was doing.
In other words, if this was a thread complaining about the lack of a detailed economic system and yellowdingo was posting his economics information in response, that would be great. But this was a thread about people ignoring everything and posting what they want regardless of topicality or pointing to where in the alpha their feedback is addressing.
I think I'm about done w/these boards.
Don't give up, Squirrel. You guys just disagree. Happens all the time, man. We have a lot of fun and a lot of good information and help is passed along here at Paizo.com. Sometimes you get engaged in a go 'round that start feeling ugly and you just walk it off and go to a different thread is all.
SSquirrel wrote: LilithsThrall wrote:
No, I got your point. The point you ignored is that we aren't talking about that part of the SDLC - that your point is irrelevant because its about an entirely different part of the SDLC for an entirely different type of product.
Its like if I said "peizoelectricity plays a part in the mending of bones" and you replied "yeah, well blood has copper in it". Its a total non sequitor.
How so? They're asking for feedback. If this was phone based, they would (I would hope) have it setup to go to specific channels for more accuracy. Feedback is feedback and being completely off topic in a thread trying to hijack it doesn't help anyone, which is what yellowdingo was doing.
In other words, if this was a thread complaining about the lack of a detailed economic system and yellowdingo was posting his economics information in response, that would be great. But this was a thread about people ignoring everything and posting what they want regardless of topicality or pointing to where in the alpha their feedback is addressing.
I think I'm about done w/these boards.
Dude, how about this? You've already made up your mind. I can't force you to change it. I'm not being paid to teach anyone here systems development. So, yeah, dropping it is a good call. We can at least agree on that. Fair enough.
I thought Dingo was trying to agree with the OP by using an ironic post that proves the point.
Certainly would have fit better in the thread about economies started by Frank or K of Frank & K.
I'm kind of concerned with some of the playtesters in that they don't know what is and what is not balanced. The statements made in my "damage spells need a buff" thread frighten and confuse me. I am thoroughly dismayed at the thought that people think that nukes are fine in 3.5.
ehb1022 wrote: Le schtroumphf in europe. And apparently, also here in Canada in Quebec.
KnightErrantJR wrote: In Russia, Smurf smurf you. How can you smurfing say that on here. That's so smurfing smurf that I'm surprised the smurf moderators haven't smurfed you.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
