|
Post by michael on Oct 13, 2019 13:10:56 GMT
I could reduce CID toxicity by about 80% with permanent bans of about 8 individuals on the CID forums. It's always good to see this attitude posted. Because every CID participant believes something like this. They all just have a different list of bad apples (I'm going to bet on "people who regularly disagree with me" for the vast majority of those lists). Michael would be on a number of those lists himself. CID brings out the worst in people, when it comes to declaring themselves the arbiter of all that's balanced, and everyone else an idiot who doesn't know how to play. I won't cry if it dies. No, I can point toward people who consistently antagonize other participants and actively work toward empowering only the factions they play in every single CID, regardless of whether I am participating in that CID or not. So, no, it’s not just people who disagree with me.
|
|
marke
Junior Strategist
Posts: 187
|
Post by marke on Oct 13, 2019 14:18:01 GMT
I still think hating on things is not as bad as hating on people.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Oct 13, 2019 16:25:58 GMT
It's always good to see this attitude posted. Because every CID participant believes something like this. They all just have a different list of bad apples (I'm going to bet on "people who regularly disagree with me" for the vast majority of those lists). Michael would be on a number of those lists himself. CID brings out the worst in people, when it comes to declaring themselves the arbiter of all that's balanced, and everyone else an idiot who doesn't know how to play. I won't cry if it dies. No, I can point toward people who consistently antagonize other participants and actively work toward empowering only the factions they play in every single CID, regardless of whether I am participating in that CID or not. So, no, it’s not just people who disagree with me.
Yeah, if you don't interview people to allow them in the process, there's always the strong chance you will get Jokers in the group that would be best employed as Menite Cleansers rather than Mechaniks.
|
|
|
Post by anoddman on Oct 13, 2019 23:44:38 GMT
Oh don't be condescending. I was specifically taking umbrage with your use of the word "originally." Pedantically quibbling over word choice is semantics. Agree to disagree, I guess. But it seems very silly to point out that the models are specifically designed for Riot Quest as a near-example of slowdowns when the game as a whole very likely couldn't exist without Warmachine crossplay. Yes, they're packaged as Riot Quest models, but attempting to create a light, arena-style game that can cross into the board-gaming community does not at all gel with unpainted, unassembled models. That's entirely because they were designed to be cross-compatible from the get-go. Who is being condescending? You assume much. I was explaining that semantics is the study of the meaning of language, which it is. It is not about the quibbling about word choice. Ask Merriam-Webster and Oxford and they will clear it up for you.
More importantly, YOU are the one quibbling about what I DIDN'T say, by implying that I actually did say it. Please actually read what I have stated three times now.
I mean, you're wrong. If I thought "orginally" was gramatically incorrect, that would be complaining about your syntax. If I thought "originally" was incorrect in the broader social context of this setting, that would be complaing about the pragmatics. Pointing out that the definition of "originally" does not apply in this context and that "simultaneously" is far more accurate is semantics. And you're right, you didn't say anything incorrect in your first statement. Just kind of a weird devil's advocate to play. If they weren't making Riot Quest models, they'd be filling the release schedule with something, no? I don't think Riot Quest is the result of additional development and production time available, but rather that it's making use of time that would be otherwise be spent on developing and producing strictly Warmachine models. Also, if it helps, my tone isn't intended to be angry here. I'm sure we'd be having a much more amicable conversation face to face!
|
|
|
Post by anoddman on Oct 13, 2019 23:48:20 GMT
No, I can point toward people who consistently antagonize other participants and actively work toward empowering only the factions they play in every single CID, regardless of whether I am participating in that CID or not. So, no, it’s not just people who disagree with me.
Yeah, if you don't interview people to allow them in the process, there's always the strong chance you will get Jokers in the group that would be best employed as Menite Cleansers rather than Mechaniks.
Also, sorry to lead off on a tangent! I agree whole-heartedly that the lack of screening/bans on CID is an issue. There really don't need to be people contributing to the discussion that aren't writing battle reports if the development team only really pays attention to the battle report feedback. I think having 25-35 community spots available to an active CID and keeping the information closed to the public is the best way to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Oct 15, 2019 7:01:25 GMT
You know, there used to be closed betas. You, as a play group, could apply as a public play tester, you were screened and were under a strict NDA. Truth be told, it was a lot of work, for a lot of people and I think it sort of died with the PG program.
They instated CID to fill the void and it's (even more) on a pure voluntary basis. The public character, supposedly, should yield iterations that are under constant peer review. But of course, when all screening goes out the window, you get people that are not actually qualified to be a play tester, nor a reviewer, which means the devs constantly have to sift through the dirt to find some gems and heavily moderate any discussion so it doesn't get (too) toxic or off point. So now it's still a lot of work for the devs, probably even more than it used to be, but there's a larger pool of potential testers so it's less work for the community as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by streetpizza on Oct 15, 2019 15:12:45 GMT
It's always good to see this attitude posted. Because every CID participant believes something like this. They all just have a different list of bad apples (I'm going to bet on "people who regularly disagree with me" for the vast majority of those lists). Michael would be on a number of those lists himself. CID brings out the worst in people, when it comes to declaring themselves the arbiter of all that's balanced, and everyone else an idiot who doesn't know how to play. I won't cry if it dies. No, I can point toward people who consistently antagonize other participants and actively work toward empowering only the factions they play in every single CID, regardless of whether I am participating in that CID or not. So, no, it’s not just people who disagree with me. The funny thing is you can actually do this empirically as well. The Forum has a search function where you can search by # of posts and then cross reference that against player rep which is purely a function of how many like your posts have received. There is a group of about 8ish people with an extremely high post count but only 1 or 2 bar reps that just need to be purged. They comment on every single post in the forum and add exceedingly little to the conversations. Start with those people and then ban people who've received more than one infraction for behavior and the CID forum will start to be a much more civil place with better discussions.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Oct 15, 2019 16:21:11 GMT
1) CID should be a closed playtest with invitations (and possible applications). The current format doesn't work 2) BECAUSE people are not transparent (or perhaps they are TOO transparent) with their bias. We clearly had coordinated lobbying by a small group of circle players - the resulting power creep is clear as day from any WTC stats you care to look at. 2.5) And you also saw it in the Khador CID - which I think GENERALLY were OK but where you had players do the whole "12 point Juggers are BUSTED" based on little more than a glance at the card and lengthy discussions about relative cost. As with the Original article, I too hope CID in its current form is killed off.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Oct 15, 2019 17:55:13 GMT
No, I can point toward people who consistently antagonize other participants and actively work toward empowering only the factions they play in every single CID, regardless of whether I am participating in that CID or not. So, no, it’s not just people who disagree with me. The funny thing is you can actually do this empirically as well. The Forum has a search function where you can search by # of posts and then cross reference that against player rep which is purely a function of how many like your posts have received. There is a group of about 8ish people with an extremely high post count but only 1 or 2 bar reps that just need to be purged. They comment on every single post in the forum and add exceedingly little to the conversations. Start with those people and then ban people who've received more than one infraction for behavior and the CID forum will start to be a much more civil place with better discussions. I hadn’t thought about that approach. Thanks!
|
|
zhoe
Junior Strategist
Posts: 254
|
Post by zhoe on Oct 16, 2019 4:09:53 GMT
fay reppass is teh new lead palaytestar pagini parson. cid is mor importan dan evah
|
|