"Do you really want to decline the quest? This cannot be reversed"

[SoggyShorts]

@TSmack @Ashrem
https://beta.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/wm-new-way-to-motivate-help-neighbors.6347/

 

[Devman]

maybe, that the choices we make in how to present information to others has a consequence.

I wish I had worded the poll differently .

(declaring my decision to be "not sensible")

It was certainly not my intension to chastise you , but I stand by the opinion that rejecting a tiny little improvement (opinion) because it may delay greater improvements is not "sensible" . Again , that's just my opinion .

I understand the game has greater areas the need attention . I also understand that those issues have been addressed time and time again . My little quirk about repetitive needless pop up messages must seem like small potato's , and I agree , it is . That's why I thought there was a remote possibility that a tiny little feature like a check box could be implemented . I never imagined that it would be met with such stark opposition .

Honestly, I didn't really stop to consider what negative connotations this idea would provoke . While I still think it would be a nice little improvement , after seeing all of the negative responses , I wish I had kept my mouth shut and kept clicking . Hell , add some more messages .. "Are you Really sure you want to Decline this Quest" ... click ... "Are you Really Really sure you want to decline this Quest" ... click ... " Are you absolutely positive You want to Decline this Quest" .. click .. " Last chance to change You Mind" .. click ... " Your going to regret It " ... click ... "Maybe you should take a Moment and Think about your Decision " ... click ... "


My clickin finger is primed and ready to roll ... anything is better than watching my silly idea put this community at each others throats .

 

[SoggyShorts]

Honestly, I didn't really stop to consider what negative connotations this idea would provoke . While I still think it would be a nice little improvement , after seeing all of the negative responses , I wish I had kept my mouth shut and kept clicking

I for one am glad you started this thread. Debate leads to learning for both sides. Despite some posts that may seem insulting if read a certain way I don't think anyone has intentionally attacked anyone else.
There's a huge limitation imposed by communicating through through text.
Here's an example:
"No, don't stop" = keep going
"No! Don't! Stop!" = call 911

 

[Ashrem]

I stand by the opinion that rejecting a tiny little improvement (opinion) because it may delay greater improvements is not "sensible".

And, again, that's not why I voted against it. I voted against it because I don't think it is an "improvement" in that I don't think it further's the developers' intent, regardless of how much or little effort it requires. I agree that it would be an improvement from the point of view of a significant sub-set of players. If there wasn't an indication from the developers that it promotes behaviour of which they are not in favour, that would be enough.

 

[DeletedUser43]

Dev, you made a really valid simple suggestion that should have been implemented in this game from the beginning. I can't imagine why all these people came here to attack. It is so sad. Now we are stuck with that stupid mind numbing bloody message for another two flipping years.
Sigh. Frankly, I think that message is the number one thing I hate most about this game and I find it so so so sad that anyone would fight for it to stay.

 

[SoggyShorts]

I can't imagine why all these people came here to attack.

Seriously?

 

[Ashrem]

I can't imagine why all these people came here to attack.

There aren't very many people here who are attacking anyone.

 

[Devman]

I think that message is the number one thing I hate most about this game and I find it so so so sad that anyone would fight for it to stay

Precisely

 

[DeletedUser43]

There aren't very many people here who are attacking anyone.

Came here to attack the IDEA. Why does every message have to have some evil intent read into it?

 

[Ashrem]

OMFG!!! Came here to attack the IDEA. What is WITH people? Why does every message have to have some evil intent read into it?????

Probably because you used the word attack? Explaining why you made a choice (after someone says they don't understand why anyone would make that choice) is not an attack, regardless of whether you meant people or ideas.

 

[DeletedUser43]

No wonder no one bothers with the forums. Sigh.

 

[Ashrem]

No wonder no one bothers with the forums. Sigh.

Agreed.

 

[Devman]

I like order and following rules

Insinuating those in agreement with the idea don't like order or following the rules : could be interpreted as an "attack" on both the person and Idea.

some players love finding an imbalance in a game and using it to beat the system

Insinuates that anyone in agreement with this proposed change is in favor of imbalanced game play and or "beating the system"

Some players figured this out and thought "sweet, I can get way more supplies than I should be able to

Suggesting that players in favor of this Idea are also in favor of doing something they shouldn't be doing .

I thought I was being blunt (if a little sarcastic and judgy)

Self explanatory

The only fun bit is the exploit and the exploit is to annoying... make the exploit better!

Accusing those who are in agreement with the proposed idea of being an Exploiter .

I guess that def. makes the person doing the exploiting the tool

The accusation that anyone who is in favor if the proposed idea is a "Tool"

If there is an advantage to be gained there will always be players who not only do it, but do it to excess

Suggesting that those in favor of the proposed idea would also be in favor of taking excessive advantage .

I find it amusing that some players want to make taking advantage of this easier

See above .

'If you make a flawed system less annoying to exploit I promise I won't exploit it'

Sarcasm suggesting that those in favor if the proposed idea are exploiters .

and I was kind of being insulting previously

Self explanatory .


So yea ... some of the responses could be , and have been viewed as either an attack on the poster , the voter in favor , or the idea in whole .

Just saying ... BobbyKitty has a very valid point

 

[DeletedUser43]

Thanks Devman.

 

[Ashrem]

Well I did say "not very many" not "none"

"I like order and following rules" is a bit of a stretch on the attack front. And the same is true of TSmack's posts. They certainly feel judgmental, but it's a stretch to call them attacks.

That said, there is a clear and present difference between a debate elevating emotions and leading people to post things that can be interpreted as attacks, and "all these people came here to attack."

I don't think anyone came here to attack anyone or anything. I think the people who posted in this thread did so because they have opinions. Clearly some of those opinions are strong, and the people expressing them probably suffer from previous experiences. Blanket statements about the motivations of "all these people" are needlessly incendiary.

 

[DeletedUser43]

Blanket statements about the motivations of "all these people" are needlessly incendiary.

As opposed to all those comments? Naming a thing is worse than doing a thing? You clearly have chosen a "side" and have decided to ignore or whitewash any comment that doesn't go along with your bias and have decided to pounce on any slight semantics that go against your bias.

This discussion is way off topic now and needs to end.

 

[Ashrem]

As opposed to all those comments? Naming a thing is worse than doing a thing?

No. In conjunction with all those comments. Those people didn't defend their comments as being justified. In fact, they both acknowledged they were mistakes, and in at least one case apologized for having made them before they were brought up as ammunition against everyone.

 

[Devman]

They certainly feel judgmental, but it's a stretch to call them attacks.

Often times a reader who encounters seemingly judgmental comments will perceive the response as an attack on their position .

I don't think anyone came here to attack anyone or anything

It really doesn't matter what the intent of the visitor was for visiting , I think some of you may be focusing a little too heavily on the word "attack" . I think the principle of the term is what's at question . Some of the remarks were seemingly offensive , and again , an offense will often be interpreted as an attack .

Blanket statements about the motivations of "all these people" are needlessly incendiary.

If you are sincerely concerned about "Blanket statements" and "incendiary" remarks , can I suggest you peruse my last post , its chock-full of these .


Me thinks this thread be getting a wee bit off topic .

 

[Ashrem]

The intent always matters when the statement is about intent. Saying someone came somewhere to do something is about nothing but intent.

I never said anyone was right to make blanket statements. Making them then expressing regret about it is a different category of incendiary from making them and then defending them as being right.

Among my many flaws is a difficulty walking away when people are willing to keep discussing things.

 

[DeletedUser43]

You mean when you haven't gotten the last word? Got it. Heard it loud and clear. I have been shockingly and horrendously incendiary. Yes yes yes yes. I hear you. Here you go. You now have the last word. Now can we get back to the topic?

The intent always matters when the statement is about intent. Saying someone came somewhere to do something is about nothing but intent.

I never said anyone was right to make blanket statements. Making them then expressing regret about it is a different category of incendiary from making them and then defending them as being right.

Among my many flaws is a difficulty walking away when people are willing to keep discussing things.