Regarding whining and politeness (A quick note to everyone)

[Avimimus]

Hi Guys,

I noticed that Oleg Maddox got a little bit annoyed the other day. I don't think it should be up to the moderators to ensure common sense - so I thought we should discuss this a bit.

1. Usefulness:

Oleg has 9+ years of whining on record - he has kept notes you know.

This late in development he can fix very very few things. The code will be close to being fixed in stone. He needs to reach beta and make some sales. Until after SoW's release whining can only damage sales, it can't really improve the product.

However, a couple weeks after release (when Oleg is working on the patch), such input may have a role.

Although, I'd personally avoid too many complaints for the first four months so as not to damage sales and ensure there is as much money as possible to pay for releasing patches. Reviewers easily get false impressions.

2. Politeness:

It is also good to not just say:
"The terrain looks worse than Il-2. It looks horrible. Oh no!"

It is much more persuasive to preface the whine/request with something like:
"It is great to see the progress. I'd love to see if X feature of X part of the terrain engine can be improved for release. I feel it would add a lot.".

Notice how:
1) It starts positive and gives a 'nod' to the good parts
2) It makes a specific suggestion for a way to make an improvement (instead of simply trashing the work).
3) It makes room for differences of opinions and shows that it is your personal viewpoint (even if it is a viewpoint backed up by loads of wonderful evidence).

Common sense can say that you are much more likely to be listened to if you expect to be heard, but also show some respect for the good work that is being done.

You don't want Oleg to feel like he's been hit in the gut every time he posts something.

With great sincerity and a respect for whining, pleading and pitching,

-Avimimus

P.S. Any more ideas how we can make this more pleasant would be great to hear.


*Edit - regarding the features of the release*

I think a key thing for people to realise is that Oleg doesn't have any real competitors. His ten year old Il-2 engine is the only major WWII sim and no one is trying to outdo it. So, the standard business model would would be to release something with as little work done as possible - a minor improvement over past products, sold at the same price. This is how you make money. This is what business advice would say. Yet, Oleg is developing the best product he can without going bankrupt. Somehow most people don't see this. Oleg doesn't owe people every detail of development or immediate release of every feature. However, I also disagree with those who say that the relationship with the developer is a purely financial one - with a take it or leave it attitude. Oleg has never done what made business sense and he has consulted with the community from day one (listening a great deal). This is not "standard capitalism", this is something a little bit cleverer and more collaborative.

The way some people are acting, it is like they show up for closing time at a gourmet restaurant, the staff decided to keep it open for them, the chef comes out to deliver the food himself - and before even tasting the food they'd complain that they thought there would be 25 peas instead of 20.

If you have any thoughts - let me know.

[JG52Krupi]

Well said lets hope that everyone takes notice...

[philip.ed]

I agree as well.
If this is a debate, what about the concept of complete truth? By this I mean the ability for one to say what one thinks truthfully and honestly? Although a comment may seem harsh, perhaps (though) it is just honest? (of course, the post would have to be supported by evidence as you said)

[Blackdog_kt]

While i generally agree, i don't think that the end user is responsible for ensuring the sales of the product.

In fact, i think that sub-par products which are allowed to sell well only give off false impressions to the publishers (it's usually the publisher who's at fault and not the developer in most cases), allowing them to build a habbit of poor follow up support and giving the impression that the simulator community will take any bone that's thrown to them in order not to endanger the continuation of a series. In my opinion, this doesn't help the genre but damage it.

It's been argued at length in the recent past and in both cases that come to mind it was a publisher fault. One was the rushed state of RoF at release, which showed clear signs of improvement only after a dedicated flight sim publisher took over. In that case, most people who wanted to keep things "hush hush" used the argument that highlighting the negative stuff would "kill" the sim.
The other case was Silent Hunter V. This was totally inexcusable as the publisher could certainly afford the expense of some extra testing and the wait to come up with a better copy protection method that won't lock legitimate users out of the game. Again, in the subsim forums people argued that we should all stop talking about the negative stuff because Ubi might never publish a follow up title again. To be honest, i wish they won't. It would be much better for the series and the genre as a whole if a smaller independent publisher got the rights for the next installment. Even if they can't buy the rights to use the name and have to come up with a new one, people would buy it because they'd know it's from the makers of the SH series.

Just like if Oleg's team worked for a different company, we'd all still want to see what his next project would be and want to buy it, because it's the talent behind the code that matters and not the branding.

In my opinion it's the forced publisher deadlines, often tacked-on and poorly implemented copy protection methods and resulting drops in overall quality and usability that kills games. You can't force people to buy rotten tomatoes just because you're scared the local grocer will go out of business. In fact, it is usually in everyone's benefit but him if he does go out of business and someone more competent takes over the spot.

Highlighting what the customer base wants changed is a very important part of propelling this hobby forward. As long as it's not done rudely, it should persist because it's the main driving pressure for developers to improve and publishers to listen...it's our money that funds this industry and we have a say on things as a result.

That being said, i believe the situation around here has shifted to the other extreme where no matter how accomodating the developer is, there are people who will do their best to find fault with something just in order to score points in forum vendettas. This is also counter-productive, as it moves the focus from the constructive and useful effort of spotting and correcting mistakes and incorporating improvements, to hunting obsessively for tid-bits with the aim of rubbing it in people's faces for the sake of ego boosting.

The discerning factor between useful and useless input is mainly the intent, because this carries over to the equally important presentation and wording of the issue, which in turn determines how positive or negative the reception of said input is by the community at large.

Look at Flying Pencil (formerly Frantishek) for example. He provided some interesting data from hands-on experience with some warbirds in a museum. The community receives his comments in a positive way because he backs things up with hard data, he is genuinely interested in helping improve certain aspects of the sim for the entire community and as a result, it shows in the way he words his posts and people like reading them.

I too could grab a camera and start visiting museums, but if i came here and posted in an aggressive manner, demanding the moon and the stars with the sole purpose of flaunting my amateur expertise in front of everyone's face, you can be sure that it would both show through in the way i worded things and also that the reception by and large would be a negative one, thus ruining both the presentation of otherwise useful material and my future credibility as a poster.

I think the majority of people are not disruptive by choice and design. In my opinion, what happens most of the time is that a lot of people can't cope with having their viewpoint challenged in any way and coupled with the overall enthusiasm and impatience it leads to trouble.
I often see posters who know their stuff and have valuable insight, ruining their own posts by always being too eager to pick up the glove and reducing themselves to troll-bait.

Finally, there's the issue of the language barrier. There are many cases where a non-native speaker will come off sounding overly negative or agressive, when in fact the main culprit is the lack of proper syntax that makes his posts sound "somehow" that doesn't agree with the rest.

[WTE_Galway]

Constructive:
"Historically xxx should be ... "
"My research has shown ... "
"Eventually it would be good to see feature ... "

Not Constructive:
"I don't like .. "
"I demand to know ... "
"I like game xxxx better .... "
"This (minor cosmetic detail) must be fixed immediately ..."
"I am very unhappy with ... "
"When playing Halo/Sims3/MAss Effect/WoW (or similar non relevant game) I find .... "

[Avimimus]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

I agree as well.
If this is a debate, what about the concept of complete truth? By this I mean the ability for one to say what one thinks truthfully and honestly? Although a comment may seem harsh, perhaps (though) it is just honest? (of course, the post would have to be supported by evidence as you said)

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

In my opinion it's the forced publisher deadlines, often tacked-on and poorly implemented copy protection methods and resulting drops in overall quality and usability that kills games. You can't force people to buy rotten tomatoes just because you're scared the local grocer will go out of business. In fact, it is usually in everyone's benefit but him if he does go out of business and someone more competent takes over the spot.
....
Highlighting what the customer base wants changed is a very important part of propelling this hobby forward. As long as it's not done rudely, it should persist because it's the main driving pressure for developers to improve and publishers to listen...it's our money that funds this industry and we have a say on things as a result.

I like the point about honesty.

It is also really important to encourage a toleration for polite criticism and feedback.

I know that I'll never completely overcome a tendency to periodically criticise the fact that Rise of Flight accounts are tied to the e-mail address used to register them and not the owner of the DVD case / manual / printed access code. I worry that this publishing decision will create some issues (especially around second hand copies etc.)

However, I've noticed a somewhat derogatory attitude by some users on the SimHQ forums and Jason (the publisher) seems a bit touchy sometimes - which ultimately discourages honest dialogue and participation.

So - thanks for emphasizing this aspect.

At the same time, giving an impression that it is still a wonderful project (777/Neoqb have created a really lovely feeling of flight - for example), can keep casual visitors from deciding against buying the product.

I suppose that criticism and praise really are not incompatible (even in the same post).

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I think the majority of people are not disruptive by choice and design. In my opinion, what happens most of the time is that a lot of people can't cope with having their viewpoint challenged in any way and coupled with the overall enthusiasm and impatience it leads to trouble.
I often see posters who know their stuff and have valuable insight, ruining their own posts by always being too eager to pick up the glove and reducing themselves to troll-bait.

Finally, there's the issue of the language barrier. There are many cases where a non-native speaker will come off sounding overly negative or agressive, when in fact the main culprit is the lack of proper syntax that makes his posts sound "somehow" that doesn't agree with the rest.

Nice points.

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

Constructive:
"Historically xxx should be ... "
"My research has shown ... "
"Eventually it would be good to see feature ... "

Not Constructive:
"I don't like .. "
"I demand to know ... "
"I like game xxxx better .... "
"This (minor cosmetic detail) must be fixed immediately ..."
"I am very unhappy with ... "
"When playing Halo/Sims3/MAss Effect/WoW (or similar non relevant game) I find .... "

Well said!...I sure am so sick and tired of the, in their own mind experts each Friday, along with their rude attitudes

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

I agree as well.
If this is a debate, what about the concept of complete truth? By this I mean the ability for one to say what one thinks truthfully and honestly? Although a comment may seem harsh, perhaps (though) it is just honest? (of course, the post would have to be supported by evidence as you said)

Supported by evidence...I'm still waiting on your non flat, WRONG, cloud base whine evidence. Oleg has not posted shots that allow a determination as to cloud base shape. But yet you describe the images as being such.

[BadAim]

I'll make one comment for the moment. Too often people hide behind "honesty" as an excuse for rudeness. This is not a new problem, as it is mentioned in writings known to be 3000+ years old. If one has a problem in this area, it is a good idea to remain silent, as it is better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and prove it.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

I agree as well.
If this is a debate, what about the concept of complete truth? By this I mean the ability for one to say what one thinks truthfully and honestly? Although a comment may seem harsh, perhaps (though) it is just honest? (of course, the post would have to be supported by evidence as you said)

Without being overly wordy it is still possible to be truthful and to the point without seeming harsh.