If you have a testing exercise that is just come and share feedback without too many guidelines - it might attract some people to freestyle it. Tell what they think using their own speaking habits without bothering too much. The more guidelines you add - the more hurdles there are to just casually drop in and post something. Of course, everyone interprets them differently. Some take "don't be an asshole" as - no personal attacks. Others may take it as "be polite", or even "be nice". Depending on personal circumstances, interpretations of this guideline might be the difference between "eh, I can give it a shot" and "meh, what a bother".
My agenda was not to facilitate a helpful high-level feedback provision. There are already people who are on it. The idea was to involve those who don't want to bother too much. Whatever is posted could generate discussions and more participation. I am not disregarding the value of being helpful with the feedback provided - it is obvious we don't have problem with that as there are some people who are quite passionate about being helpful and nurturing. They post good extensive feedback in encouraging way that makes others to aspire to be like them.
Now whether the potential people I was concerned about exist or not - we'll never know who and when lurks. New people have been popping out here and there.
You can make argument that we should strive to bring the best of people instead of pandering to the lowest common denominator, but I believe that value can be found in anything and the opportunities should be explored. Again, you will teach people on how to be good organically by being an example to be followed if that is your concern.
In the end, it comes down to that I foolishly got influenced by my own bias and assumed that the most valuable thing coming out of this could be the volume of people getting involved as the more people could provide a bigger range of points of view for the testing projects showcased.
It is however now clear that community’s intent has been slightly different - to create grounds where authors can be given focused high-quality feedback, for this goal, setting up guidelines is completely OK.
Soo... uuh, yeah, I guess I'll see you all in the decembers test thread.
Edit: Also GlornII, you're quite charming, I appreciate your approach, have a like.
Cool, nice to see that conduct is such a big part of current mapsters culture.
I took my chance asking if people would be more chill about it, but I guess no luck. If I manage to direct an outsider to leave their feedback for this endeavor I hope you guys won't bully them too much should they say something inconsiderate. I'll be sure to stress to them how much everyone appreciates their professional approach.
Admittedly, I find strange that you dislike the idea of not being able to be mean to an author, and angry if an author defneds towards what they feel is an attack...
Author asking to invest time into their creation and then being defensive about anything sends the message that author really isn't open about what they want to hear. From feedback providers point of view - if you don't want to hear something - fine, you needed it more than me, I simply won't invest further time into this communication. It grinds my gears to see people shoot themselves in the foot because they don't realize concepts of demographics, personal preferences and the randomness of circumstances.
Wouldn't you agree that sometimes just giving a silent nod is more beneficial than acting on emotions? Sure, I'm being strict on author and not on tester, but the obligation to be gracious lies on the one who receives the benefits, in whatever form they may come.
I wonder if there were any other people who didn't leave feedback because they didn't have much good thing to say and censoring themselves to be positive was more of an effort than what seemed feasible. I know I played a few bi-weekly maps but refrained from posting stream of consciousness because of not wanting to come off too hurtful.
The "Don't be an asshole" rule, is slightly annoying. I mean, even if someone is an asshole in their feedback - someone else can go clarify the points and go in more detail, catch and elaborate the train of thought. Discussion at the expense of hurting someones feels is more beneficial than nothing at all, no?
About authors replying to feedback - from what I care - just "like" the post and move on, I'll know that you've read it and be happy that my X hours spent into playing and writing feedback posts served their purpose. There is nothing that grinds my gears more than mapmaker going defensive (or excusing themselves) on the feedback he recieves (unless defense was explicitly requested by poster). Politely asking for a ways to improve is ok tho.