deci's letter of complaint

[deci]

the potterworldmc feedback and suggestions section has seen it all since its inception: terrible, mid, incredible ideas! reasonable and fair criticism, whining. womp womp'ing, yapping.
anyways! i'm here to debate that, for the health of the section and its inhabitants, some of the guidelines in the information thread should be enforced as rules which all players should abide to and that all threads posted, following this change, which break those rules should be declined or outright deleted without considering the suggestion, while also given a proper reasoning to encourage healthy conversation by a better repost. the rules i mostly want to be enforced are guideline 1 and 4
for how long are we planning to whine that the poltergeist team doesn't handle the forums well when we're the first to put no effort in behaving with orderly manner?
i shall now start by showcasing threads that could save a lot of wasted time on unnecessary dealings and increase feedback efficiency if they were decent to begin with:

thread 1 - my dog would have come up with a better thread that could have given staff actual motivation to answer this in much less than 6 months and with deserved consideration (guideline 1 ignored)

thread 2 | thread 3 | thread 4 | thread 5 | thread 6 | thread 7 (actually complaint since it's about more bags in general and not the single specific bags) | thread 8 - truly the potterworld of all time, i wonder how the team is still sane by having to handle suggestions like this quite often where they have to handle a morbillion stuff in one thread and be expected to answer as quickly as they do with threads that have just one suggestion (guideline 4 found dead in a ditch)

if you happen to have been called out in this thread don't take it too personally, it's normal to get a little silly if "rules" are not enforced, but be mindful that you can't pretend the seriousness and timeliness you deserve if this is how it is
i could have gone for longer with threads but i can't bother reading 4 years worth of threads history to prove a very valid point in my honest opinion, i mostly chose threads that were brought up recently and that have been ignored for some time / been answered very late / are still early but i needed examples
i might consider writing a post about guideline 3, involving proper regulation on duplicates i have never seen to avoid getting a post ignored just because it was declined 4 years ago, so if you like this post i might actually do that

i hope this thread enforces the idea that if we want to have better forums we should start by being the change it needs, but also needs to deserve, instead of throwing piles of dirt on volunteers because you don't feel listened (read guideline 7 and 9)

 

[Magma]

i disagree

 

[cheddarsoup]

i hope this thread enforces the idea that if we want to have better forums we should start by being the change it needs, but also needs to deserve, instead of throwing piles of dirt on volunteers because you don't feel listened (read guideline 7 and 9)

yeah we tried that route buddy suggestions still took years to get responses

if it will make you feel better d3ci i will chatgpt my suggestions from now on so that they reach whatever wordcount limit you think is best but the outcome will be the same. if a staff wants to come on here and genuinely say that us writing essays and doing the absolute most with our suggestions will reduce the response time to something actually reasonable then fair enough but from past experience that's not the case

either way it's just not worth it to even make suggestions atm because if something's not on the potterworld 2.0 grand plan it's not getting accepted

 

[cheddarsoup]

adding this because i know im being unfair to the polts but i generally think this is more of a system issue within the overall polt team rather than an individual polt issue, it's not necessarily their fault that the system is slow

appreciate the people who take time to read a lot of the suggestions i just wish it didnt take (at times) years to happen

in other words upper level polt team management stuff needs to become more efficient, i recognize theres a lot of cross-team communication that has to happen but there has to be a way to do it better than this

 

[deci]

yeah we tried that route buddy suggestions still took years to get responses

adding this because i know im being unfair to the polts but i generally think this is more of a system issue within the overall polt team rather than an individual polt issue, it's not necessarily their fault that the system is slow

so that would justify disregarding guidelines that were put to help the work? that's crazy

if it will make you feel better d3ci i will chatgpt my suggestions from now on so that they reach whatever wordcount limit you think is best

you completely missed the point but i won't expect those who need to understand this to do it on a whim: even just a slight explanation on what you mean (there are different old potion systems) and a few lines explaining why you feel like it'd be a good idea can do wonders in proving that your thread is worth any more than being a chore to manage (don't come yap about the idea itself like if often happens because i don't care, this thread is not about that)

either way it's just not worth it to even make suggestions atm because if something's not on the potterworld 2.0 grand plan it's not getting accepted

this thread is unrelated to that whether it's true or false, fair or not

in other words upper level polt team management stuff needs to become more efficient, i recognize theres a lot of cross-team communication that has to happen but there has to be a way to do it better than this

hard agree except for the last part (stuff has been moving in the last weeks and that deserves a little recognition in this sea of yap), your whole argument is "it didn't work before" therefore you think doing the opposite is acceptable and/or helpful. this thread is not supposed to fix all the issues in a single day but act as one of the foundations for the future if it's accepted or not, if you're willing to provide a better reasoning as to why this wouldn't work i will be listening

 

[cheddarsoup]

so that would justify disregarding guidelines that were put to help the work? that's crazy

generally yes, if something isn't beneficial then there is no basic justification to continue doing it

you completely missed the point but i won't expect those who need to understand this to do it on a whim: even just a slight explanation on what you mean (there are different old potion systems) and a few lines explaining why you feel like it'd be a good idea can do wonders in proving that your thread is worth any more than being a chore to manage (don't come yap about the idea itself like if often happens because i don't care, this thread is not about that)

you are hard focusing on a suggestion made over a year ago that yes, in retrospect, could've had a bit more explanation to it (such as a link to the video that ivan added to it less than a day after it was posted)

this thread is unrelated to that whether it's true or false, fair or not

dope

hard agree except for the last part (stuff has been moving in the last weeks and that deserves a little recognition in this sea of yap), your whole argument is "it didn't work before" therefore you think doing the opposite is acceptable and/or helpful. this thread is not supposed to fix all the issues in a single day but act as one of the foundations for the future if it's accepted or not, if you're willing to provide a better reasoning as to why this wouldn't work i will be listening

i'm not going to give a reason as to why this would or would not work because there's no concrete evidence that either way works better - that's the whole point. there are threads from months ago that follow every single guideline listed that have no response

i dont even really disagree with a lot of what youre saying, im just telling you that i cba to try on the suggestions forums when any non no-brainer suggestion takes ages to get responded to and/or implemented

there are people who have their suggestions from a few years ago that probably dont even play anymore that still need some sort of response

if what you say is true and its getting better then thats awesome maybe people will try again, in the meantime i dont think its fair to reason that the suggestions forum sucks because of the suggesters

 

[deci]

generally yes, if something isn't beneficial then there is no basic justification to continue doing it

ah yes making things harder will surely help! the whole point is that the lack of care for those guidelines, some of which were put for simple basic courtesy, slows down everything else as well (some bias comes from back when i used to help manage these forums, back then there were no guidelines to begin with and that caused a big mess even before revelius (the time of all times) but i won't use anecdotal accounts to prove my point)

i dont think its fair to reason that the suggestions forum sucks because of the suggesters

my final comment on my first post was referencing a thread whose name i copied (this thread was born from ivan challenging me on whether i could make a better thread at 2 am on discord) where the poster spent a bazillion words in loads of "you didn't do this EXACTLY as i said, if you want to do better you must do exactly as i say" which can and will overshadow some very fair points that i can agree with and are there.
i never meant to imply forumers are THE reason it sucks because that's simply not true, but they certainly aren't helping when it comes to stuff like this and can be A reason it sucks at unfortunate times for both parties involved
but alas this thread is not about forumers being naughty (except for the remark at the end put for said silly reason, i even tried to justify the lack of care to some extent) but staff not enforcing their "rules", which i think would be beneficial in the long run

 

[Ivan_]

Disagree.
1. Your examples are bad. My threads that you named are clearly targeting one specific team with one concept. New bags, new arenas, even the new world content (and specifically what i said in the last paragraph of that thread which you probably didn't even read) are ideas that go together, I would never suggest those separately as I think that's even more inefficient and then those ideas get away from the general concept of what I am suggesting. Even if every specific bag or arena gets declined individually, the thread as a concept could get accepted. Matty's Gringotts thread is also very specific and it's a bit absurd to say those ideas should be written is several threads. The whole purpose of poltergeists is to discuss those idea and forward them, if they aren't able to like, split Death's thread into two (one for the spells and one for the hat) and forward it like that to the two responsible teams, then what's the point of their discussion and existance? At that point we can just add a rule that each suggestion should target one specific team and then remove poltergeists all together.
2. In case of @cheddarsoup, even tho someone might argue youre fully right, you aren't. We further dicussed the idea on the thread and clearly addressed everything that could've been put as the original message, but that shouldn't matter. That just proves my point of poltergeists who only look at the original idea written, wash it down and then forward it, leaving out everything that was dicussed on the thread most of the time (and the whole protocol says to leave players to discuss for up to 2 weeks before poltergeists officially review the thread as A WHOLE). That's exactly why I wrote the original letter of complaint in first place.
3.

either way it's just not worth it to even make suggestions atm because if something's not on the potterworld 2.0 grand plan it's not getting accepted

The sad truth. I understand it partially, but declining ideas that were on hold for years is extremelly disappointing.
4.

you completely missed the point but i won't expect those who need to understand this to do it on a whim: even just a slight explanation on what you mean (there are different old potion systems) and a few lines explaining why you feel like it'd be a good idea can do wonders in proving that your thread is worth any more than being a chore to manage (don't come yap about the idea itself like if often happens because i don't care, this thread is not about that)

again, we did that on the thread, you're reading between the lines here (a common poltergeist behavior). Or should I say. you're not reading after the first few lines. Here's a definition from the internet for the word thread - a series of connected posts or comments on a specific topic or conversation.
5.

my final comment on my first post was referencing a thread whose name i copied (this thread was born from ivan challenging me on whether i could make a better thread at 2 am on discord) where the poster spent a bazillion words in loads of "you didn't do this EXACTLY as i said, if you want to do better you must do exactly as i say"

never said that. If you carefully read what I'm saying and revisited those threads, it will make so much more sense. And it will make even more sense if you've read the discussions I've had with Ash and other staff who assured me I would get the replies I have never recieved. I will not message those people AGAIN like an idiot so I just made the thread which actually should help the poltergeists navigate around and do what's been promised long long ago before I made the threads (not all of them, but there's at least five threads where I was promised an update). One of the biggest concerns I'm trying to highlight is exactly what I said above about threads being more than just the first message written, and by ignoring the actual thread and dicussion, of course you're doing injustice both to the idea/s and players involved.
6.

staff not enforcing their "rules"

And finally, those were never rules, nor shall they be
EDIT - I will gladly invite @Ashh and every other staff who I have talked in PMs to confirm that I was in fact discussing a lot of those threads with them and was promised updates. I'm fully aware that people are rolling their eyes when they see my thread and generally my comments on forums, but I'm also aware that my thread is more than simple "yapping" or whatever you wanna paint it as. Everything that I'm saying is with the best of intentions for the server, and I will not feel sorry for any individual or a team as a whole if I think you aren't doing the server justice.

 

[deci]

Your examples are bad. My threads that you named are clearly targeting one specific team with one concept. New bags, new arenas, even the new world content (and specifically what i said in the last paragraph of that thread which you probably didn't even read) are ideas that go together, I would never suggest those separately as I think that's even more inefficient and then those ideas get away from the general concept of what I am suggesting

ignoring the fact you completely disregard that the guideline was put for a reason and that you still chose to emphasize the "removed" bags thread, which is very telling of how weak your argument is, those are still different ideas that get discussed on at different levels. putting them in the same thread puts more pressure on handling and updating the thread accordingly, but that's no concern of yours since all you do is write a bunch of essays on how bad it is for you to not be listened
moreover, you put great effort on detailing the different dungeons in the "world content thread", why bother if the whole point is just to add more of that stuff, if not to get it accepted as is? same thing with the arenas, hence proving those are multiple things you want added

The whole purpose of poltergeists is to discuss those idea and forward them, if they aren't able to like, split Death's thread into two (one for the spells and one for the hat) and forward it like that to the two responsible teams, then what's the point of their discussion and existance? At that point we can just add a rule that each suggestion should target one specific team and then remove poltergeists all together.

ah yes let's get rid of the mediator team, what could go wrong? disingenuous at best (they are fully capable of doing that, but it's unnecessary pressure that lengthens the time the thread is answered to and the quality at it is managed, which could be avoided by, for starters, being a little more considerate if you're aware of the guideline)

2. In case of @cheddarsoup, even tho someone might argue youre fully right, you aren't. We further dicussed the idea on the thread and clearly addressed everything that could've been put as the original message, but that shouldn't matter.

that doesn't change how the post was started at all, nitpicking the details of the thread won't change the general point

That just proves my point of poltergeists who only look at the original idea written, wash it down and then forward it, leaving out everything that was dicussed on the thread most of the time (and the whole protocol says to leave players to discuss for up to 2 weeks before poltergeists officially review the thread as A WHOLE). That's exactly why I wrote the original letter of complaint in first place.

and now i represent the poltergeist team! that's crazy

The sad truth. I understand it partially, but declining ideas that were on hold for years is extremelly disappointing.

womp womp, i agree that getting stuff declined after years is sad and unfair but this is completely unrelated, pointing it out to gather popular consensus shows that your argument is feeble

again, we did that on the thread, you're reading between the lines here

more nitpicking on a thread that shouldn't have existed to begin with in that state

never said that. If you carefully read what I'm saying and revisited those threads, it will make so much more sense.

is all you can do when someone doesn't agree with you to tell them to read your argument again? or does it not go through your head that maybe your discussion didn't get "ignored" but was not something they want to implement? if you fail to recognise that then it's only normal that the first thing someone can think is that you're being whiny and entitled, considering i've yet to see anyone else with this one issue on such a large scale as you

And finally, those were never rules, nor shall they be

"rules" was put in quotation marks for a reason... what a banger of a line! i find it crazy that you are so vehemently against a suggestion that mainly involves how poltergeists want to handle their threads, if they believe it's better as i suggested they will accept it and if not they will decline it respectfully, but who are you to already decide how they should work?

 

[Ivan_]

putting them in the same thread puts more pressure on handling and updating the thread accordingly

they are fully capable of doing that, but it's unnecessary pressure that lengthens the time the thread is answered to and the quality at it is managed

does it not go through your head that maybe your discussion didn't get "ignored" but was not something they want to implement?

i shall now start by showcasing threads that could save a lot of wasted time on unnecessary dealings and increase feedback efficiency if they were decent to begin with:

a few lines explaining why you feel like it'd be a good idea can do wonders in proving that your thread is worth any more than being a chore to manage

and now i represent the poltergeist team! that's crazy

Well considering examples above, you do seem to know a lot of things you can't know as a normal player. You've either reflecting your experience on the team from 5 years ago (which would be ironic considering how long it's been since) or someone on the team rn is fueling you (I wonder who).

nitpicking the details of the thread won't change the general point

Again my general point is that threads (refer to the definition given) are being ignored. Thats my pain point on my own thread and rn, I've named more than enough examples for it to be a fact.

completely unrelated, pointing it out to gather popular consensus shows that your argument is feeble

I was replying to Kamer?

is all you can do when someone doesn't agree with you to tell them to read your argument again?

You said something completely wrong firstly which showed you didn't read my thread, nor the threads I linked. THE FIRST example clearly shows what I'm talking about. You cannot not agree with me when it's not even an opinion, it's a fact that the whole discussion was ignored, it's a fact that I was promised an update and never got it?? What is there to agree upon? Lol. You're confusing.

i find it crazy that you are so vehemently against a suggestion that mainly involves how poltergeists want to handle their threads

You seem to find a lot of things I said crazy, meanwhile you wrote this whole thread with me in mind. What do you want me to say? Yay polts I didn't realize you took all of those years on threads bc i didn't separate each building idea when I suggested a gringotts rework. Should I separately suggest each block change (with coordinates) so that's it easier for you . Should I delete my original thread and post 24 separate ones 😭😭😭😭?

 

[deci]

Well considering examples above, you do seem to know a lot of things you can't know as a normal player. You've either reflecting your experience on the team from 5 years ago (which would be ironic considering how long it's been since) or someone on the team rn is fueling you (I wonder who).

god forbid i use COMMON SENSE and the info on the proceedings from the guidelines (which are the exact same as when i was staff, erm erm- i wonder if you ever read them )

Again my general point is that threads (refer to the definition given) are being ignored. Thats my pain point on my own thread and rn, I've named more than enough examples for it to be a fact.

my guy i was talking about MY general point

I was replying to Kamer?

still put in on the same post, among all the stuff criticising my view

You said something completely wrong firstly which showed you didn't read my thread, nor the threads I linked. THE FIRST example clearly shows what I'm talking about. You cannot not agree with me when it's not even an opinion, it's a fact that the whole discussion was ignored, it's a fact that I was promised an update and never got it?? What is there to agree upon? Lol. You're confusing.

do not strawman me, i've clearly stated on a post replying to cheddarsoup that there are also fair points among your thread as well (guess what? not everything is JUST black or white!)

What do you want me to say? Yay polts I didn't realize you took all of those years on threads bc i didn't separate each building idea when I suggested a gringotts rework. Should I separately suggest each block change (with coordinates) so that's it easier for you . Should I delete my original thread and post 24 separate ones 😭😭😭😭?

 

[Ivan_]

god forbid i use COMMON SENSE and the info on the proceedings from the guidelines (which are the exact same as when i was staff, erm erm- i wonder if you ever read them )

its not common sense tho, how do you know its still an issue? you cannot know that. Maybe they have zero issues with several ideas on one thread now (considering they did say their system is updated at one point)

do not strawman me, i've clearly stated on a post replying to cheddarsoup that there are also fair points among your thread as well (guess what? not everything is JUST black or white!)

you said

where the poster spent a bazillion words in loads of "you didn't do this EXACTLY as i said, if you want to do better you must do exactly as i say"

which is pretty black and white, its just false. Not once did i say that or anything in that manner so of course I'm gonna defend myself on that lol

im asking seriously, what do you want me to do if i'm promised an update and its forgotten about because its not a thread (another reason why i made it a thread). Im directly asking you about the example you named, so what do we do? do you really believe what you are saying

 

[deci]

its not common sense tho, how do you know its still an issue? you cannot know that. Maybe they have zero issues with several ideas on one thread now (considering they did say their system is updated at one point)

then they will decline the thread, first you say i know too much and now i know nothing it's crazy (and yes it is common sense to try and follow guidelines since they're there for a reason )

every other point is just a waste of time unrelated to the thread or a refusal to reason even a little also by changing topic at random, have a nice day

 

[Ivan_]

first you say i know too much and now i know nothing it's crazy

no, i questioned your knowledge, you said how its common sense and it simply isn't. Following guidelines is one thing, assuming/knowing everything you listed above is another, and you cannot mark it as common knowledge. You are casually naming what they are or aren't capable of, you're saying those threads are putting pressure on them, that it lengthens the time for a reply and downgrades quality, that they "ignore" things they simply do not want to implement, calling threads a "wasted of time" and a "chore".. Where is all of this coming from? This isn't common knowledge or something that someone can just assume.

 

[Harrison]

Hello @deci,

We wanted to give an update this thread, and thank you for compiling it. As has been highlighted across the board we realise that we have not been enforcing our guidelines too well lately. While this is true, we do also understand that these guidelines are quite old, and we think it is time for a refresh. As such we will be reviewing our current guidelines and tweaking them over the next month or so. This will be in-line with the release of our Discord Forums, and continued work on the web forums to see what works best. We will most likely tweak the guideline about one idea per thread to instead allow multiple ideas that align to the same bigger idea, but we still ask that any large ideas or unrelated ideas go on individual threads to make it easier to not only follow the conversation, but also handle it to its full potential.

We understand too that a lot of decisions recently have been addressing old threads that were made from players who no longer play. We let this slip, but we are now working on getting back on top of it, and part of this process will involve clearing the backlog of old suggestions. With regards to new threads, we now have a new policy where we will be aiming to have threads responded to within a 1 month turnaround period. In addition to this, we have also made sure that all comments on threads are read and taken into consideration whether they be sent pre-or-post decision. We have also improved our internal accountability mechanisms to ensure that each department stays on top of their suggestions, sets timeline goals, and that "quick win" suggestions aren't left to sit for years.