About Gameplay+ and the value of brevity

DeathBurst·10/16/2018, 1:09:26 PM·23 votes·11,799 views

Seriously, I love the idea of Gameplay+, but people need to understand that a 10-pages long OP does not mean they have good arguments to defend their opinion.

Making a huge ass list of bad (or simply weak) arguments does not make a compelling case. It's just tiring to read, and muddies the conversation. I could elaborate, but... you see the irony, don't you?

And the problem is, Moderators insist on argued posts, not simple opinion, to encourage discussions (and that's a good thing), but people just take that as meaning long posts. No guys, a good idea, a good argument, can be expressed simply, and you shouldn't need 10 pages for that. Go to the heart of the matter, and don't lose yourself in the meaningless details.

And this is something that Moderation should emphasize. It's not just the posters' fault, it's also that Moderation communicated badly about it.

19 Comments

ModThe Djinn10/16/2018, 1:12:26 PM8 votes

It's not just the posters' fault, it's also that Moderation communicated badly about it.

Definitely possible. I'll make sure we re-evaluate this. Gameplay+ may take a little while to get perfect, and we appreciate the patience while we do so.

ModKnightsKemplar10/16/2018, 3:16:24 PM2 votes

Djinn beat me here, but I'll add my thoughts since I am one of the mods regularly stepping into the submissions to look at things.

This is definitely something that a lot of submissions get wrong. Now, we will approve a long thread that has substance, and that's how some of these novellas make it through. I do consider it a negative thing, though, to be frank.

On the other side, we do have a lot of submissions that obviously took a long time to put together and then are denied. The authors of those threads are understandably frustrated; if you're reading this and you are one of those authors, take our friend DeathBurs7's suggestion seriously.

Here is a thread that we approved that was rather short. Now, I do think some of that space could be better used to outline the problem and describe why "Impact" is a great solution, but it's a thread that has good potential to start an interesting conversation. That's why we approved it.

For a perfect balance, I think making an outline of your thread would be a good start. Give yourself a clear logical pathway to follow, and don't deviate from it in the post. Waste no sentences. If you include phrases like "but this is beside the point" or "here's just a section where I rant," then you're off to a bad start. Don't do those things on G+. Gameplay still exists for a reason.

NepgearDesu10/16/2018, 3:02:39 PM1 votes

I'd question the fact that a select few stamp arguments as relevant or fallacious by their publication, or absence thereof, in the GP+ section. If you let me simplify, it is the exertion of a prejudice: that a few elite or chosen ones have knowledge that regular people do not possess, and that the former have the right to choose what's right for the latter. (from the guidelines thread: "Downvotes are, arguably, intended to filter out content that doesn't foster meaningful discussion; however, the approval process will serve this purpose instead, removing the need for downvotes." That's unilaterally removing power from regular users and giving it whole to a small group, by the way.)

If anything, I'd suggest a feature for said select few to push forward what they deem of interest. Once published, the interesting thread would be stamped "approved", and could be put at the top of the boards for about a day, more if it collects upvotes and comments, less if most people downvote or won't care. This would be the equivalent to a popular vote on an issue that our moderators feel is a compelling case, even though I'm unsure whether they wouldn't drown under push requests. Also, I have no idea how feasible it is.

As a somehow related note: I can't for the life of me find any post in the GP+ section beside the one I linked, whichever button I click. Edit: Ah! Now it works.

PaffWasTaken10/16/2018, 11:23:41 PM1 votes

This is actually something that I really hated about the boards mentality as a whole:

If someone shares a brief opinion that is very very popular, it'll get refuted either way by the minority of persons who dosen't agree with it by saying things like "you can't make your point viable without development"

For example, if someone in the gameplay boards say "Graves is overpowered and unfun to play against, he definitely needs to be severely nerfed to bring him back in an healthy state" he'll definitely get a lot of people who agrees with him; its short, its efficient, and reflect perfectly his opinion, one that a lot of people share. On the other hand, some Graves mains can just come and say "lol you have no proof about what you say and you don't have anything elaborate to justify any changes made to our beloved champion", thus making the deliberation seemingly useless.

On the other hand, if he DOES make a long and elaborate post about it, it makes it a lot harder to read and less and less people are able to tell if they agree with his opinion since they have to agree with a page long of content.

TL;DR, a brief post of about 3-5 lines with 100 upvotes talks a lot more and has a lot more impact than another one with ten times more characters only gaining 20-ish upvotes. Yet, the former type of posts seems to not be impactful enought in the eyes of the dev or to people with opposing opinions, and THAT really is a shame

Tahngarthor10/21/2018, 4:51:38 AM1 votes

I get that saying words just for the sake of saying words doesn't mean you have a good post, but what bugs me is that a good post might be rejected just because the subject matter isn't a popular topic. Honestly, lack of popularity itself in my opinion is all the more reason to bring out such discussions.

Oakleaf Ranger10/21/2018, 7:29:57 PM1 votes

This post game me hope after I got turned off by gameplay + a while ago. I was wrong though... Fuck the people in charge of gameplay +