Goblin Squad Member
|
Crowdforging threads are threads where the original poster posts an idea intended to be run through the community for constructive feedback in order to help them improve that idea. These threads use non-official rules we ask the members of the community to respect in order to eliminate non-constructive posts and allow us to focus solely on the idea's being proposed.
1. Suggested additions to the idea.
2. Suggested tweaks to the idea.
3. Suggested changes to the idea.
4. Suggestions to drop parts of the idea.
5. Comments highlighting aspects of the idea that others may not have thought of yet.
1. That you like/do not like the idea.
2. Company/settlement recruitment.
3. Any commentary on individuals, groups, alliances or anything else not directly related to the idea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would really like to see this weapon have some kind of a bleed attack.
I like the idea of making it add a damage over time effect, but don't you think poison fits a bit better than bleed?
If we add a bleed or poison effect we should probably make it count as an exotic weapon rather than martial.
That would be pretty overpowered if this weapon can do both blunt and slashing damage. Perhaps we should drop it's ability to do blunt damage?
I don't think that's overpowered at all. Have you noticed how slow the attack speed of this weapon is?
These weapons suck. I don't want them in this game.
Just find another topic to post in if you feel the need to bash the original idea. Don't bump an idea you obviously don't agree with. There is a grey symbol next to it in the topic list that will allow you to hide it from your view.
As previously stated suggesting changes, tweaks, or that they drop parts of the idea is fine. This purely applies to if you disagree with the entire premise of the idea and don't want to see it implemented in any form.
I love these weapons! They should implement it!
While positive reinforcement is nice you can say all this by just favorite the idea you like. As previously stated though, feel free to highlight parts of the idea you like if you feel bringing those aspects of the idea to people's attention is productive.
Our company would love to recruit players wielding this weapons! Join us here.
Your company sucks! Nobody would join you!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. Title your thread like this:
Crowdforging Thread: Idea Name
2. Post this at the top of your thread.
**********
This is a crowdforging thread. Please refrain from replying unless giving constructive feedback. For more information on what to post and not to post in a crowdforging thread read this.**********
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
1. That you like/do not like the idea.
No. If I don't like an idea, I will fight against it.
And by the way, you will too. If you don't believe me, I can make a thread talking about the implementation of an appearance tab, with the possibility to apply a dress appearance to a plate armor, we'll see how that works out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, no. If I think an idea is funadmentally flawed, I will speak out against it. Otherwise you present the false impression that the community is in support of, or at best neutral to a given idea. Crowdforging does not mean echo chamber, dissent is a vital component of the process.
I agree that "This idea is terrible, and you are terrible, and you should feel bad." is not a constructive post. "I think this is bad idea for the following reasons..." is still a useful post.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The issue is that most every thread about an idea gets filled with more posts saying "This would take too much work to implement." "I don't like this idea." "This doesn't belong in this game." Etc.
A. The developers have a much better concept of what will and won't be too much work than the players. They also have a better idea what does and does not belong in the Pathfinder format.
B. Hating on an idea keeps it at the top of the forums. It also distracts from discussion that could be used to improve the idea.
If your comment on an idea is not in some way constructive/informative then it's better to leave it out. Half of the point of this is to force people who just can't resist hating on an idea to think about why they really hate it and what elements of it they would like to see tweaked/changed/dropped before they reply.
It's intentionally meant to exclude people who have entirely closed their mind to the idea and encourage constructive critisizm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Constructive criticism" is for writers and artists. In art, nothing is bad—it just "needs work". That doesn't apply here, whether you believe videogames are art or not, because some things simply can't be "constructed" on.
If I post saying "I want Goblinworks to add pregnancy mechanics," people shouldn't say, "Well, here's how that idea can be improved." Because it's a terrible idea.
Posts saying, "Here's why this is a bad idea," are perfectly productive and useful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Constructive criticism" is for writers and artists. In art, nothing is bad—it just "needs work". That doesn't apply here, whether you believe videogames are art or not, because some things simply can't be "constructed" on.
If I post saying "I want Goblinworks to add pregnancy mechanics," people shouldn't say, "Well, here's how that idea can be improved." Because it's a terrible idea.
Posts saying, "Here's why this is a bad idea," are perfectly productive and useful.
Despite trying to mandate (or possibly crowdforge) crowdforging, as long as it is a public forum I think you are going to get both of those kinds of replies.
A nice effort to make it all more productive. It is just not possible to herd feral cats posters.
My point is that posts of pure criticism are just as justified and important as posts of support-with-caveats.
A good comparison is when I review a story. I'm constructive overall, but I will point out individual lines and say, "Cut those." Is that constructive? No, the individual suggestion isn't, but together, it will lead to a better story—or a better game.
True constructive criticism means knowing when to say no.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The issue is that most every thread about an idea gets filled with more posts saying "This would take too much work to implement." "I don't like this idea." "This doesn't belong in this game." Etc.
A. The developers have a much better concept of what will and won't be too much work than the players. They also have a better idea what does and does not belong in the Pathfinder format.
Then stop proposing things, they don't need it either, in this logic.
B. Hating on an idea keeps it at the top of the forums. It also distracts from discussion that could be used to improve the idea.
If your comment on an idea is not in some way constructive/informative then it's better to leave it out. Half of the point of this is to force people who just can't resist hating on an idea to think about why they really hate it and what elements of it they would like to see tweaked/changed/dropped before they reply.
It's intentionally meant to exclude people who have entirely closed their mind to the idea and encourage constructive critisizm.
Andius, no, I still don't think that introducing werewolves and vampires and hunters as player characters is a good idea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While I'm not really in support of a pregnancy mechanic I would rather see the few supporters and those willing to give constructive critisizm work on building the basis for the best pregnancy mechanic possible than watch a bunch of people attack it.
Who know's maybe by the time they have crowdforged it enough to post it as a suggestion, it might be something I can actually back. If it's still a crap idea I trust I can hate on it, and GoblinWorks can see it's lack of merit, once it's posed as an actual suggestion.
Verbs like "attack" and "hate on" imply that the criticism isn't being handled politely and intelligently.
Sometimes someone just really doesn't think an idea is good or can be improved. They should be allowed to explain why. That is what I would see as an "informative" post.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Verbs like "attack" and "hate on" imply that the criticism isn't being handled politely and intelligently.
It generally isn't.
Andius, no, I still don't think that introducing werewolves and vampires and hunters as player characters is a good idea.
And I frankly don't care. I think we both know the reason you keep coming back to that thread is because you care less about the idea and more about fighting with me. I would hope that if the group you belong to really cares about a positive community they'd ask you to stop trolling.
Yeah, yeah, Sturgeon's Law. That applies to the supporters' suggestions, too. :P
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
And I frankly don't care. I think we both know the reason you keep coming back to that thread is because you care less about the idea and more about fighting with me. I would hope that if the group you belong to really cares about a positive community they'd ask you to stop trolling.
I posted a few times to actually be on your side, when you were saying things that were true. If you open your eyes a little, you will see that even though I really don't like you as a person, I take your side on a lot of subjects, probably as much as I am arguing against you. You just notice more our arguments, because well, it is less remarkable than five paragraphs of arguing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's ironic that Andius's guidelines—which contain a lot of good stuff, actually—mention...
3. Any commentary on individuals, groups, alliances or anything else not directly related to the idea.
...as something not to do.
Meanwhile, he's attacking Audocet's motives, bringing up his group, and accusing him of trolling.
Not cool, Andius.
As a writer, I can definitely say that some "art" is just flat out bad.
Telling people that is constructive. It's one of the first things you do to a new writer that just wrote something that is just flat out bad.
Hopefully not in the exact same words, though. No harm in cushioning the blow. ;P
Yeah, but I believe it's better to start being harsh once the person's good. Funny as it sounds, that's when they're probably into writing enough that they can take some suitably blunt critique.
Yeah, but I believe it's better to start being harsh once the person's good. Funny as it sounds, that's when they're probably into writing enough that they can take some suitably blunt critique.It may sound mean, but what that leads to is someone who isn't into writing enough to pursue it wasting theirs, and yours or someone else's time and then getting mad at you when you finally are truthful.
When I teach, I'm very blunt at this point. I don't pull punches.
I didn't used to be that way, but I noticed a trend (and after talking to others that teach creative writing, I realized I"m not the only one). If you're not harsh, the person doesn't think it's that bad. They think, if it was really that bad, he would have been harsher.
This is bad for both the people that are good writers and the people that are bad writers. The good writers don't get pushed enough or prepared for the real world of writing. The bad writers waste their time doing something that they will never pursue after the first real hurdle of criticism.
I would rather have a person get mad over me being honest and truthful, and not waste everyone's time (which gives more time to focus on those actually interested in pursuing the topic).
Here's a piece that sums up the general feeling of most writer's in the industry and what happens when you read other people's work: It's got some foul language, so be warned
I do a lot of reviews myself (and I've received quite a few) and I've found the "bad" writers aren't that different from "good" writers who haven't gotten enough reviews yet. "Good" writers can also be driven away from the hobby if disheartened by excessive harshness early on.
Eh, I guess we just disagree. It's an old debate and we aren't gonna settle it today. :P
EDIT: By the way, I'll concede that I'm not a professional teacher and you know more about this stuff than I do. The last sentence of my argument pretty much sums up my stance: This is an old debate that's being waged by a lot of people, and I think a lot of it just comes down to style and opinion.
(I should mention that while I was composing my response, he pulled the ultimate amateur move, and sent me an e-mail saying, "If you haven't read it yet, don't! I have a new draft. Read this!" In other words, "The draft I told you was ready for professional input, wasn't actually.")
By the way, if you haven't read that post I wrote, don't! I made a new edit. Read that!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You're right, this clearly isn't crowdforging. It's an attempt at an edict.
It's something those desiring can do to try to ask the community to use their threads to have more productive discussions.
Nobody has to do it. I simply figured a community that prides itself on trying to create a "positive atmosphere" would have the restraint to not come in and bash on other people's ideas without giving useful feedback if the original poster asked them not to.
Just kind of an unwritten rule like not using other people's recruitment topics to promote your own company.
I forgot that some groups definitions of "positive interaction" is "whatever is beneficial for our groups" and actually has nothing to do with what's good for the community as a whole.
How disappointing.
Alright, I think I get your position.
With that in mind, from now on, I'll expect people who don't want "bashing" to place, in their first post, this simple message:
If you are fully against my idea, you are not welcome on this thread. Make your own thread, and offer your criticisms there. Have a nice day!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You're right, this clearly isn't crowdforging. It's an attempt at an edict.It's something those desiring can do to try to ask the community to use their threads to have more productive discussions.
Nobody has to do it. I simply figured a community that prides itself on trying to create a "positive atmosphere" would have the restraint to not come in and bash on other people's ideas without giving useful feedback if the original poster asked them not to.
Just kind of an unwritten rule like not using other people's recruitment topics to promote your own company.
I forgot that some groups definitions of "positive interaction" is "whatever is beneficial for our groups" and actually has nothing to do with what's good for the community as a whole.
How disappointing.
In no way is that what is being meant, and I sincerely hope you have the honesty to admit it.
I have agreed with some of your points before. I have also disagreed with some of your points before. I will continue to honestly evaluate each of your ideas, regardless of our past interactions.
If they are bad, I will say so. This thread comes across as saying "No one is allowed to disagree with a crowdforging thread proposal." The community is saying no *and providing reasons why*. It would appear that you are now attempting to rebrand these points as a personal attack, when they are instead a critique of your idea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've spelled out my reason's why I think they should have to offer some form of constructive criticism if they reply.
I think the more major rule is people should respect the OP's intent for a thread. I mean I could go into the TEO/TSV threads and directely address everything being posted there that I consider to be dishonest or decieving to your potential recruits. Every time you talk about having experienced PvPers, being in a good location, etc.
But I don't because the OP's intent is to recruit, not debate policy. Which is why I take those kind of discussions to threads I perceive as policy debate threads.
Crowdforging threads are intended for people who want to run an idea through the constructive criticism of their peers. Not defend their right to have the idea, or fight over whether it's a worthwhile use of their time to try to improve upon it.
So we can be civil and respect the OP's intent, or I can remove the gloves and stop respecting your threads because there is no Paizo rule stating I can't call you on your crap in a recruitment thread.
You don't agree with me not liking people giving non-constructive criticism in my threads meant to enhance ideas, I don't like you spreading falsehoods and using old catch phrases I made for your group that no longer apply in your recruitment threads. Let's agree to disagree and stay out of eachother's threads if we can't follow eachother's rules.
I'm hearing a lot of support for "constructive", but a lot of silence about "criticism". They go hand-in-hand. Pointing out problems is how Crowdforging works.
As for the threat to start targeting companies' threads for their "lies", I think everyone but you recognizes the absurdity in the comparison.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm hearing a lot of support for "constructive", but a lot of silence about "criticism".
As I've stated. Proposed changes, tweaks, additions, or subtractions from the idea are all welcome. If someone creates a thread with the intent of enhancing an idea. "I don't like this idea, it shouldn't be in game." Gives them nothing they can work with though.
If their intent is to determine community support for the idea then that's one thing. If their intent is to refine the idea to it's best possible form before the community weighs in on whether or not they want it in game, then those kinds of posts have no place. Giving them is just a disrespectful as starting a fight in another group's recruitment thread.
This idea is relying on the common decency of others so I guess we'll see who has it and who doesn't.
This idea is relying on the common decency of others so I guess we'll see who has it and who doesn't.
Ooh! Ooh! I know!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They should refine the idea to it's best possible form before proposing it to the community that is going to weigh in on it.
Have you ever read a Goblinwork's blog? They're being paid to make this game. We are not. But apparently you favor holding us to a higher standard than them?
Sometimes it's very helpful to have the input of other's and when a small group of very vocal naysayers crash your thread debating whether you should even be considering the idea that really detracts from your ability to get anything useful done.
It's clearly a subtraction of the entire idea. It's far more respectful than letting them waste hours, days, or weeks on an idea that has no merit.
That's not your determination to make. Making it isn't being helpful, it's being an a!!#&++.
By making a suggestion and posting it, you're opening it to constructive criticism. Sorry, but you're gonna have to...what were the words you used?
deal with it.
The trouble is, your definition of constructive criticism is kind of questionable.
The purpose of constructive criticism is to improve the outcome. In collaborative work, this kind of criticism is a valuable tool in raising and maintaining performance standards. Constructive criticism must always focus on the work rather than the person...
...Those who criticize need to value and invite criticism....
...I-message: stating explicitly that what you say is your view and your view only.
Pointing out the flaws in an idea—what you define as "bashing"—is useful, constructive criticism. Not all con-crit is positive. Sometimes it is stating that, in your opinion, flaws make an idea unworkable.
Our constructive criticism is applied to improve the outcome of the game. If we're polite and state our reasons clearly, you have no reason to complain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A better idea would be to limit a given criticism to once per person; if you've said it before, don't say it again.
And I'm gonna take Brutus's advice here and call it quits.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I don't think that it is interesting to create a game in the game : I don't want some complex lunar cycle, factions entire specific game designs.
But I don't see why not having the possibility to apply archetypes to our characters, with major downsides, so it stays, in the end, a CURSE, and something not to be chosen lightly.
Werewolves aren't necessarily evil in nature, it doesn't force you to change your alignment, unlike vampires, which are automatically evil by nature.
Don't exaggerate. Yeah, good werewolves can exist, no, they are not a significant number. When there is a significant amount of alignment variety, they don't just write a specific alignment, they write "most XXX are of YY alignment", like for dwarves.
So, if they exist at all, they are a very tiny, insignificant minority.
And don't start me on the definition of "insignificant minority", otherwise I will talk about immigration and call you a socialist. :D
Just for a little perspective, that is the entirety of my interventions, on your werewolves thread. I don't think that I was trying to have a fight with you, or discredit you or your idea.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Contructive Criticism is a trying to enhance the OUTCOME, while focusing in the WORK not the PERSON. Not to enhance the Idea itself.
If the idea is not good, even when improved (as the exemple of werewolves and vampires imho), a statement "I don't think this idea could be implemented" is a constructive criticism in the way that would enhance the OUTCOME by not being done at all.
Remember that opinions are always subjective, and disagreement are not always personal. But people in here (and all around internet) tend to forget this.