All I see is people are whining that they get a feedback thread and have to deal with the possible flame of someone.
You either admit defeat that you did wrong in your actions or you give a lackluster answer if the flaming side is nitpicking the smallest details to get you wrong. At most you can say "Thank you for your feedback, we will try our best to improve".
I welcome the death of tracker requirements. Means we can focus on crafting fun, and not on meeting activity reqs. That, in turn, will boost our activity.
(03-22-2017, 01:37 PM)Tanith Wrote: I welcome the death of tracker requirements. Means we can focus on crafting fun, and not on meeting activity reqs. That, in turn, will boost our activity.
Yeah, that's really just a good thing. Less stress for smaller factions and more time to have fun.
Posts: 2,673
Threads: 219
Joined: Dec 2009
Staff roles: Forum Moderator
(03-22-2017, 07:12 AM)Auzari Wrote: I really hope we're not forced to reply to baiting 'feedback' - or rhetorical things which have no place or have their own answers. Would it be okay with a FAQ was just made instead? Also, the wording is kinda weird for the feedback rules section:
Quote:3) Poor in-game behaviour, characterised by repeated incidents which are harmful to server gameplay, and not merely once-off incidents or the exercise of tactical advantage, such as outnumbering, outgunning or outthinking an opponent.
Just to understand I'm not misreading it, it's listing it as: "Incidents which are harmful to the server gameplay and not merely once-off incidents"
"or the exercise of tactical advantage etcetc" - as two seperate things?
Or are they the same sentence, where-as it's saying both harmful incidents AND tactical advantage, outnumbering, outgunning, outthinking? English is a weird thing, people try to avoid using 'and' twice in a sentence. It just got me a little bit confused.
Just yesterday I read a court case wherein the very same linguistic issue (well, more precisely, the lack of a serial comma) was the entire point of contention. It's important that this question get answered.
Overall, I'm very wary about this move, but if the administration sincerely thinks it's a good idea, I'm willing to give it a shot. Does this mean the admins will be reading through feedback threads, and, if multiple people post in a negative manner about a certain thing over an extended period of time (ie, indicating no change on the part of the faction), the admins would step in and demand that something change, "or else"?
We have discontinued ''strict'' activity checks last year, actually.
We do, however, keep track of them and will be talking to factions that are struggling to figure out the situation at hand.
--------------
PSA: If you have been having stutter/FPS lag on Disco where it does not run as smoothly as other games, please look at the fix here: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...pid2306502
----------
People on this community have proven time and time again to be unable to handle Feedback threads in a constructive manner- fabricating loosely related "evidence" of accusations and then throwing them in the direction of a faction someone doesn't like is so commonplace that it ceases to be worth anyone's time- if it even was worth it to begin with.
I'm really just glad I don't lead a faction anymore. What even is the reason behind Officialdom? Devs refuse to listen or consider faction input 9/10 times- throwing in whatever storyline they think is "cool" despite the wishes and alternatives proposed by the actual faction leadership because of esoteric reasoning, and literally everyone with enough spare time to jam some derivative, creatively bankrupt backstory can throw together a 4 paragraph faction-creation post and be granted Officialdom provided people see them fly once in a while with no regard for actual quality of Roleplay or character and merit of the faction's leadership.
I know I'm a bit out of the loop with Disco these days but from what I've been told, and what I've casually ovbserved; this has only gotten worse. Is there even a reason to apply for Officialdom? What actual incentives are even being offered besides the loss of a massive amount of credits and time?
[ sci·am·ach ]
/sīˈamək/
A simple, angry man casually working his way through life on a personal quest to acquire copious amounts of street cred.
(03-22-2017, 09:43 PM)Scourgeclaw Wrote: People on this community have proven time and time again to be unable to handle Feedback threads in a constructive manner- fabricating loosely related "evidence" of accusations and then throwing them in the direction of a faction someone doesn't like is so commonplace that it ceases to be worth anyone's time- if it even was worth it to begin with.
Pretty much this. All this really does as far as I can see is make drama an official standard for faction officialdom. Do we really want that? Feedback threads have never yielded anything useful and are more or less places for people to dump tears and start fights, which are a complete waste of time and resources for anyone involved. What procedure or guidelines are in place to stop people from abusing this rule to target factions and smear their names?
It seems counter-productive to make problematic parts of the forums relevant.