Existing trolls

[Lucifer]

Here's the question: How many of you think twice about making suggestions to the developers here because you don't want to get trolled by doing so?

[XzL.Smart]

I would post more in the suggestions if I didn't feel you were too swamped with this game already. I don't really want to give you anything else to add onto the to do list.

[kyle]

I guess I would have to say NO, but most of the ideas I have I just go ahead and add into sty+ct

[Word]

I don't understand the question...

I already know that you won't like my proposals and that someone will troll the posts
But I still post it so it's probably my own fault if i get trolled.
And not all things Phytotron posted are offensive (if that's the reason why you started this topic).

It can't be that bad to think twice about something.

I voted yes, but i think most people would vote like me because it's not just trolls in general - everyone who posts his ideas, views or opinions here should be able to defend it.

Forums need trolls.

On one side there are lots of players who expect fancy extras (this is the group whose posts gets trolled), then there are those pessimists who want "back to the roots" - somewhat the "radical conservatives of the game" (troll group 1) - and there are players who don't expect too much from you because they know about the effort you invest in the game - although most of us players can't see it (troll group 2). Give us fancy extras instead!

Really, after a while you should be vaccinated against it!

One the other side - and that's more frustrating for me (although everyone understands it)- there are the wishes which are just impossible to fullfill, especially those coming from non-programmers like me (the last proposals I made for example - "nice idea, but can't be done yet, as always"). But again, that's our own fault.

PLEASE DON'T TROLL ME NOW

[sinewav]

Forums need trolls.

No, they absolutely do not. Forums don't even need constructive arguments unless the topics call for them. They certainly don't need troublemakers of any kind.

I think the term "troll" is being a little over-generalized. A troll is someone who posts a contradictory viewpoint for the sole reason of causing an argument, whether they hold that position or not. Then there are people who are just dicks. Sometimes it's hard to tell if your dealing with a troll or just another dick.

[PsYkO]

Are any trolls good at this game?

[Word]

Forums need trolls.

No, they absolutely do not. Forums don't even need constructive arguments unless the topics call for them. They certainly don't need troublemakers of any kind.

ok, then i change the sentence:
Forums need dicks

I mean, Lucifer's real question is "do you think this forum needs Phytotron?" and i would still vote yes.

[gawdzilla]

Word just insulted Phytotron, yet still complimented him.

Bravo.

[Word]

Word just insulted Phytotron, yet still complimented him.

Bravo.

can we vote on Lizmatic next? Then I'd know what to say

[teen]

its fun to argue

[Luke-Jr]

its fun to argue

No it isn't.

[Phytotron]

• Lucifer doesn't want any opinion voiced that could impede his plans for this game. He's stubborn and domineering, regardless of the lip service he pays to diplomacy and free speech now and then. And if he wants xyz special features, then by god, they're going to be implemented.

• Only objections or criticisms of positions Lucifer supports are tagged as trolling. That's called a straw man. It's a common tactic of his.

• Lucifer is plenty guilty of "trolling," criticism, shooting people down, trashing others' positions, mocking and denigrating people. But he turns around and makes statements as though he's above all that, and puts little smiley emoticons with it. He's done that for years. There's a word for that sort of thing, too.

• The word "troll[ing]" is absolutely being overused and over-generalised. It's similar to the way players ingame refer to anyone they don't like as xdude, no matter how dissimilar they may be. According to wikipedia: "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." Lucifer's usual usage does not, hardy ever fit this meaning. Neither does Word's.

• Of course this thread is a passive-aggressive, not-so-vailed swipe at me. It's more of his fallacious sophistry. For whatever petty reason (he once declared it was because I'm an "elitist book-learned bastard"), I stick in his craw more that most anyone else involved with this forum or game, and he can't stand that I've gotten involved with the forum again. If anyone's honest, they'd have to admit there are several people a lot more offensive, obscene, destructive, disruptive, ranting, "trollish," or whatever than I (and of course, I'm often the one pointing them out), but they don't seem to bother him. Indeed, he often encourages it and plays along! Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that I have never bought into, and consequently stand up and push back against, his domineering, stubborn, macho magisterial Texas Big Man act. Why so many people do buy into that, and hold him in some sort of esteem or place themselves in a kiss-ass position is beyond me. I think he's a phoney-baloney joke, myself.

• Unfortunately, Lucifer has had, and continues to have, a heavy hand in the development of this game and the sort of additions to which I think I—and several others who happen to agree with me—have every legitimate right to voice objection. If anything, many have told me they won't post here in support of those positions because of "the devs" like Lucifer shooting them down. How about that, tough guy?

• If you don't want feedback, then shut this down and dump the open-source and community involvement facades. Even then, you had better expect criticism from your users/customers. No enterprise, public or private, should be shielded from criticism. I don't care if it's a game developer, musician, small-time entrepreneur, big business CEO, author, philosophy, politician, or religion. What the hell are you doing for employment these days, anyway? You still want to work for NASA or something?

[Lucifer]

Heh, it's too easy to say "Lucifer hates Phytotron". Sadly, I don't. Don't get me wrong, I'm not sparing any *love* for him...

But this isn't just about Phytotron. And it's not about voicing contradictory opinions, it's about how we respond to them. In particular, it's about how some people here (Phytotron being the most recent, and therefore the most *visible* example) respond by attacking and insulting the person who's voicing the opinion. It's one thing to say "I don't agree with that, I think we should stick to the core game." It's another thing entirely to say "I do not understand the obsession with turning this game into something else entirely and imbuing it with every harebrained neato nifty special feature and coding hobby masturbation you can come up with that has absolutely nothing to do with the basic game. Why? Do something else!" That's an attack, not simply "voicing contradictory opinions".

I put this poll up because I wanted to know if people really were avoiding coming here because of that sort of behavior. There's a deeper question here, actually. It's this: is it because of this sort of behavior that we get so many accusations of being a closed community?

I don't know if any of you have noticed, but for the last couple of months, I've only been checking the forums weekly at best. They look completely different when you don't check them every day. Phytotron's posts, which are of relatively low frequency, stand out a lot more, as well as many of the other similar posts.

I don't think I've ever seen a developer here come right out and attack/insult somebody who's made a suggestion. We've disagreed with suggestions plenty of times, but there's a world of difference between disagreeing and discussing and attacking/insulting. If you want to prove me wrong, please provide links.

Edit: Sorry, couple of things I forgot. First, if I wanted to ask "How many people hate Phytotron?", I would have done so. Remember when luke-jr and I used to fight all the time? Which is the second thing I wanted to mention: luke-jr and I don't fight anymore. How did that happen?

[Concord]

Heh,

Can I share my thoughts on this? Would that be ok?

Developments are self-fulfilling, we don't need to worry about adding to the game. "Silly" features don't detract from any "serious" ones. So does it really matter if their added or not? Maybe the rubber code is changed between 0.2.7 and 0.2.8, but the old, less, can be created from the new, which has more. Good developments create popular servers, see Fortress and Capture the Flag, average ones create empty servers, see Styball (apologies P4) and shooting, bad ones don't make it on to the master list at all, cycle_width.

The code changes don't actually do anything unless server admins and players use the new developments. This is where I think the conflict is. I think, and I hope Phytotron will correct if I'm wrong, that some players, Phytotron being the most vocal here, lament that new experimental features take players from the old, which are time tested and often facilitate higher level gameplay. The most notable example is the first Fortress server, as it got worked out over the early months, and a large player base moved from last man standing to Fortress. Players now play in servers with zones, flags, shooting, 16 axes, racing, map rotation. Tell me if I'm wrong Phytotron, but this is where the trouble for you is. Of course the new servers are made possible by new code, so the argument needs to be presented to the developers, not to the server admins enacting the stuff.

[Lucifer]

Well, I don't really want the thread to go off onto a tangent talking about Phytotron's criticisms themselves, since it's not about that, but I should point something out that's usually missed. With every new feature that's been added, the "core game" was improved. Weaknesses revealed that weren't previously known, etc. There've been a number of bugs fixed that ctf showed us, even though we've never merged the ctf patch itself, and those bugs were fixed. Numerous examples abound. (multi-axis support, fortress play, etc. Even high rubber shows bugs that don't come up normally and get attention because there's people that experience them)

But anyway, the question isn't about what people say, it's how they say it. It's also not about what we should do about it, it's about sizing up the problem and also determining what it is, exactly, if it really is a problem. The question was asked in an open-ended way so that you could even include me in your definition of troll, answer "yes", and then join the discussion to explain it.

I'm not saying "don't talk about <this thing> here", but if we do get sidetracked, somebody ought to start a new thread for it.