Quote:
Originally Posted by skadooshh
Sounds like a lot of work, for very little extra reward. Who decides what suggestions make the cut etc?
What changes have been made that were suggested in this thread, that were -ev for players? Genuinely curious, I haven't read the whole thing.
Anytime you have two players disagree on the direction of changes you pretty much can assume that one suggestion is bad for the game. I mean thats not airtight logic, but its quite obvious we are always going to have new or bad players make -ev suggestions for the game. Which is fine and can even be encouraged. But we should want those suggestions to NOT be in the proposal thread because then later they get quoted as "What you asked for". I mean my observation is that it happens every single time and/or more and more as time goes by. But also there is never a clear argument to be had from the players perspective, we have no single consensus, we just have intelligent players and proposals that get drowned out by noise.
And btw when I initially proposed this, I made the point that this would MUTUALLY beneficial, since customer dissatisfaction is obviously -ev for the site, and also because the players do often come up with mutually beneficial ideas.
There are smart, talented, and creative players still left in this community, and probably more that aren't far (lurking etc.), we all understand that proposed changes must benefit the sites but what we need to establish is that mutually beneficial changes should take precedent in dialogue and "negotiations". Who could argue against mutually beneficial changes?
We should be seeking them, highlighting them, backing them up with math, translating them into a simple presentation, and then expecting that they be adopted quickly.
The problem of how to organize a consensus is pretty straight forward, I'd feel ashamed as a community of self-proclaimed game theorists if we could not strategize ourselves out of a paper bag (a single thread!)
Edit: Please understand, and this is why players like Sect7G understand the importance of this suggestion, the difficulty of coming to consensus is a security mechanism in itself. It means that the ideas the players get behind will ALWAYS be quality proposals that everyone agrees on. What I suggest is not intuitive, but we will all benefit if we understood it properly. There is no extra work required, the extra thread, creates natural order.
Do we want change?
Last edited by Proprietious; 03-22-2016 at 05:23 PM.