Improvements Board Concern

[Doshii Jun]

I was talking with Thomas this morning, and he wanted me to review a submission of his before he posted it. I said no, he should post it for the whole community to see. The following is what we discussed after that:

(11:08:15) osu_kiai: I simply try to make sure that it isn't rubished on the early stages - because if it is then no matter how many refinements I make it makes it less likely to be approved.
(11:08:51) osu_kiai: Normally I suffice with Orion, but he's not around - and I really like rationed feedback on my stuff. Not if it's possible - but if it's good.
(11:09:22) Jun: Hmmm.
(11:09:36) osu_kiai: And Orion's always going to say nice things about my stuff - we both support Elysia.
(11:12:01) Jun: I suppose.
(11:12:32) osu_kiai: And once you post in on the boards you can't really modify the design - like adding new rooms and weapons.
(11:12:43) osu_kiai: At this stage creative criticism actually matters.
(11:15:27) osu_kiai: I consider this a 'peer-review' stage.
(11:16:47) Jun: Hm.
(11:17:00) osu_kiai: Do I make a competant argument?
(11:19:19) Jun: You do. Which is troubling.
(11:19:34) osu_kiai: Don't worry about it. Arguments are my forte.
(11:19:42) Jun: No, that's not what I mean.
(11:20:30) Jun: Basically, you're saying that it's more advantageous to talk to a few people, refine something, then post a mostly-finished product because if you post something more raw, it won't get approved.
(11:20:46) Jun: Something I was doing with Yamatai's tech, but that's because I was designing for Wes.
(11:21:17) osu_kiai: Indeed.
(11:23:01) Jun: Should it be that way?
(11:23:19) osu_kiai: I don't think so.
(11:23:28) Jun: Neither do I.
(11:23:44) osu_kiai: I chose people that I think know what they're talking about and get my tech reviewed.
(11:23:57) osu_kiai: ^choose
(11:24:36) osu_kiai: For example - I sent my Elysian Destroyer to Rune. He said it needed more internal detail, so I've been giving it more internal detail.
(11:24:47) osu_kiai: If I'd post it I'd have never had the chance.
(11:25:03) Jun: *nods*
(11:26:07) osu_kiai: And that's the way I think development should be.
(11:26:47) Jun: You should be forced to have peer review?
(11:27:00) osu_kiai: Forced? Not neccesarily.
(11:27:11) osu_kiai: Just I think it's a good idea.
(11:27:24) Jun: Because if you don't, shit won't get approved. Right?
(11:27:35) osu_kiai: Or not in the best form.
(11:27:44) Jun: I want to copy this conversation into a post and bring it to everyone's attention. I don't like this vibe.

We seem to have reached a stage where there are two kinds of submissions: those that have no peer review (Zack's/Uso's come to mind) and those that do (my armor submissions, for example).

For some, peer review might not help -- Zack's stubborn, after all. But it might, and it certainly helps the rest of us.

But is that the way it should be? If we get stuff peer-reviewed by, say, Fred/Kotori, the submission might not go through much trouble. It could be fast-tracked to approval without the chance for the community to say otherwise.

There's also the concern of an "evolving" submission, which we've had enough of. If Thomas/Zakalwe wants to edit something, or make something better, he thinks he can't because the process bogs it down.

(11:36:58) osu_kiai: Simply put - once a criticism starts it's impractical - it means everyone has to review again. It completely changes the nature of the submission.
(11:37:23) osu_kiai: When I post something it is 'This is what I want to approve, what do I have to change to make sure it reaches that hallowed state.'
(11:37:42) osu_kiai: It's not the time to continue its development.

Does anyone have any reactions to this feeling? Does the review process hamper a submitter's ability to have what they want approved?

 

[Zack]

If you are going to modify the design after it has been posted then make a reply in that particular thread that states what you changed. That way people don't have to re-read the entire submission. If anything what British Tom is doing is just a much slower route of 'peer review'.



I feel that the problem is lazy mods in the tech forum. No one seems to be willing to put in the time to prevent trolling by people who are making responses without actually reading the submission (and in turn nerfs its chances of getting approved) and to give feedback on submissions so they can be tweaked for approval.

 

[Doshii Jun]

There are three mods in the tech forum -- Wes, Kotori and myself. I cannot speak for them, but I will say for myself that I'm not lazy. I was put in as a mod because, well, I don't fully know. I'm trusted somehow, that's all I know.

Is that a factor too, though? Do we need more tech mods?

Other opinions, please.

 

[Fred]

Oh, trust me, you like me better when I'm lazy. You wouldn't want me to be proactive in the tech board.

Heads would roll.

 

[Zakalwe]

Kotori, I think I speak earnestly when I beg of you: Be proactive.

On this topic - I personally follow the system of getting some people whose opinions I value on a tech front to look through my tech before posting. If a further system was implemented I'd certainly be interested.

 

[MoonMan]

I don't see much of a problem with just running the roughdraft by a single person for peer-editting sake.

Although, I don't blame people for avoiding the Tech Submissions forum like the plague. Honestly, there is more drama in that thread than ALL of the plotships rolled into one.

 

[Karma Mechanic]

I'm not against the peer review process, I feel it is quite useful, however I do appreciate when people take the time to consider all aspects of design before hand, and work on their submissions until they have reached a level that they believe is likely to be approved.

In my case that was the approach I took with the Ptichka aeroshuttle I designed. It was approved in its original form with no complaints. Though I didn't seek review from anyone beforehand on my submission, if people want to do so I think its fine.

 

[DocTomoe]

Sweet glorious thread how I love you. This is the kind of stuff that has irked me since the beginning. For people like me, who does not have an audience to review their material, it is a dreadful time to post on the tech forum. Either the post gets riddled full of holes, which can be patched up easily, but ultimately be counted against it, or the post simply gets locked and pushed aside, when it is a simple matter of changing a number or two, or even adding a small bit of wording detail.

Fine example would be the plasma weapon I submitted. I tried once, it got shot down (insta-locked) due to "Bullet sized warp drives not being cool". Then the next time (same day), I submitted the same tech, but with a tweaked number or two and an extra paragraph going into details about function... which were exactly the same as before.

The tech submission forum is a quagmire. You can post a tech item, it could take a matter of hours, or a matter of weeks (sometimes months) to get feedback on the submission, which results in a large quantity of wasted time. On top of that, if you have a setting which needs to be built upon, a span of months to have an item approved is terrible, even more so because of contributors in a player base being reluctant to post their ideas (Osaka and the power armor idea he has for example. Been fine tuning it for months now.). Even if you do spend an absurd amount of time fine tuning your idea, you're still going to have to surrender to the critics in the tech forum, which could shoot down an idea for any number of reasons. (Example: Vesper's atmospheric suit, which was shot down due to a name issue. A 29 instead of a 27.)

The solution to this matter, would be to have a tech forum admin who could read through each post, evaluate it's feasibility within the setting, and within realistic bounds. Such an admin would also have to be able to give useful feedback, otherwise this will result in the tech forum simply being a place for tech to either die, or be approved, with no margin for improvement or alteration.

Oh well... thats my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Doshii Jun]

What my concern is, really, is that people feel they have to have a peer-review, because if they don't they won't be approved. It seems like the mods (myself included) have reached a stage where we'll only approve something that is put a certain way.

I don't know if that's bad or good.

 

[Toshiro]

I do have to sometimes ask for advice and nag to get things moving, so I can see the issue...

It isn't the system that is slowing things down, it's the approval times...and we can't blame the tech mods...there just aren't enough people who understand all this stuff to make a team that can approve things readily.

 

[Zack]

I agree entirely with what DocTomoe and Toshiro have to say.

 

[Strangelove]

Well, from what I've seen, the three major (or at least most active) eggheads active around this place are Uso, myself, and Osakan. Uso seems to know his way around theorertical physics, quantum mechanics, and relevant applications quite well. I myself am quite knowledgeable on humanities (medicine, neurology, psychology, sociology, cybernetics), and Osakan seems to have an excellent analytical perception when it comes to technical detail...even if he hides it well.

I think part of the problem may be the 'picky Mod' factor. There are some Mods that, when they see a proposal on something they know little about, will generally just leave it for another Mod to handle. If something falls in between the cracks of their collective fields of expertise, it may end up being untouched for weeks at a time. Perhaps rather than ignoring said articles, we can make a policy where a Mod will simply contact one of said tech heads (or another SARPer who is adept at such things) and flag it as "Under review by ______." Said tech head helps hammer out all the technical issues until all that's left is for the Mods to do is handle the 'SARP' factors, such toning down power for balance, or making sure something coincides with SARP canon.

Having assigned reviewers may be a better system than "hope a Mod wanders by and decides to look at my submission." And if a reviewer is slacking and the article left untouched for over a week, the creator can simply bump it and request review by someone different. I know it isn't perfect, but may it be an effective alternative to the current system of 'pick and choose' what they want to review.

 

[Doshii Jun]

That's an idea. I know I do that constantly; I rarely approve things unless I understand them fully. But Kotori's not technically proficient either, and that leaves Wes, who has enough to do.

A technical person on the site would have to be someone not affiliated with the submitter, wouldn't it? To ensure the process is trustworthy?

 

[Fred]

I'm biased, completely so. I go from a point of view that leans on what I believe the SARP could and should be. Tech feasibility has little to no impact on me versus the cool factor and balance behind a submission.

That's generally why I let people like Zakalwe, DocTomoe, Cora, Uso Tasuki, Leutre, OsakanOne and Vesper (and more, this is by no means an exhaustive list) go at each other and debate over submissions. Once I see what sort of reasoning come out and see the more tech inclined people start agreeing on something, it tells me the submission might be worthwhile of approving.

 

[Wes]

I don't like the idea of stuff being developed out of the public view - I'd rather a half-done submission be posted as "In Progress," than have "tech cliques" my fellow SARPers secretively convene and discuss tech they may or may not stick in the forum.

Ideally, submissions should be built on the wiki where ALL players can have a chance to see a submission and improve it - instead of nitpicking and asking for edits, I want people to edit the problems out of submissions themselves.

Submissions can (And have) been approved within minutes of their posting; this is especially true for simple stuff and anything that exists in real life. The more revolutionary or super high tech something is, though, the longer it'll take to get approved, though, because that stuff could make major (and not necessarily good) changes to the setting.

Submissions with multiple new compoments (such as a new type of engine or weapon) should have those compoments submitted first, and seperately.

If I don't get a good feeling from a submission, I'm going to leave it there, no matter how many bumps it gets. I don't need to explain what's wrong if I don't feel like it (it's often something like shitty spelling/grammar, trying to outclass current top tech). New military weapons and startships will recieve the closest examination of all, because they're way too common already. Even major edits might not save a "no good feelings" submission (especially if they make it more powerful, like what Razeal just did with the Trinity by adding gravity manipulation and stuff). I have no obligation to approve anything. If a submission sucks, it can sit there and rot while other submissions (quality ones) get approved. I'd like to make all people happy, but when it comes to tech, I'm not going to change the whole SARP for some designer's ego to be soothed.

The best way for tech to get easily approved is for it to be all of the following: humble, interesting, useful (filling a niche), logical, and well presented.

 

[Doshii Jun]

But Wes, the concerns people have are legitimate, aren't they? We already have such tech cliques -- people who are trusted to review something before it's posted. It isn't secret at all; it's done openly.

Posting stuff on the wiki directly -- I freely admit I don't like it, and I don't support it, no matter what anyone says. We cannot give up the instinct that though were are supposedly developing something for the community's benefit, it must be personal. There must be something of us within that submission. We're not altruists here.

I must also disagree with the idea that we don't explain what's wrong with something. That is the least we can do, I feel -- even if we're not "helpful" about it, we should state our objections, either as players or mods.

It's this kind of mentality that's existed so far that compels designers to seek out peer review. To just ignore something without giving a reason for its failure means that designer does not get better, does not improve. That does not seem to be in the spirit of a community such as ours. It doesn't mean everyone can get better, but a minimal effort should be made, shouldn't it? I even try, when I can. You do it often too, Wes.

Perhaps it would help to clarify the rules further, to be more precise? The ideas of presentation, humility, and interest are noteworthy.

 

[Fred]

I support Doshii's point of view, though I see nothing wrong in convening with either him or Zakalwe when we actually try to think up stuff. If tech cliques are successful (the power armors, the Elysian scoutship, the Miharu), they can't be that much of an hindrance, can they?

 

[Zack]

If the people using the forum are finding the experience of submitting tech difficult then I think there is a problem. Just because stuff is getting approved doesn't mean that the approving is going well.

 

[Le Blue Dude]

Look, I'm three quarters of the way to dyslexic at times. Burning people for spelling is evil. grammar and spelling, if they hamper communication, are importent. But if they don't, it's kinda dumb to burn people.



And it would be REALLY evil to not tell someone why you are saying no. People need to be given a chance to explain and refine. Otherwise the tech forum would degenerate into a sort of highly formalized ritual where the best ideas, and the new things don't get approved, but rather the drudgery things that follow the same tired pattern as everything else.... Personally I am a fan of lateral thinking, being somewhat incapable of liner thinking. Add in that I am none too good with units and measurements.... (Wait a light second is HOW MANY MILES? And... about how big is a mile?) And when I try to refine it looks like it doesn't get re-read. *sigh*

 

[Yangfan]

From my experience, a lot of the drama in the tech forum stems from people's inability to take criticism gracefully. It's human nature to get defensive about something that you worked hard on, and if you have had bad experiences in the past with submitting "works in progress" to the tech forum, what's wrong with consulting with a few fellow players before hand?

Of course, it would be better if each tech submission is published from the inception of the idea, and is allowed to grow organically, and be contributed to by the community, but that presumes that everyone here has the patience of a saint, and we're only human. I see the tech "cliques" as a natural evolution of the submission process, as a way for tech writers to avoid flame wars in the tech forum.

Blue Dude, look, allow me to be blunt here. Most of the time, we call people are grammar because bad spelling and grammar DOES hamper communication. We're spending our free time reading something that you wrote. At least have the courtesy to run your work through a spell-checkeer, or press the handy "spell check" button before you submit. It would take 10 seconds out of your life at most.

Diagnosing yourself with dyslexia won't help much. Frankly, I see a lot of people using that as an excuse and a crutch. We may not look sympathetic all the time here, at least you're among people who, as fellow players of SARP, have an incentive to help you improve your writing skills. I assure you that the people who will one day read your, say, college application, or job application, will be far less sympathetic of your condition.

The GMs here are only human. We get irritated and annoyed just as easily as other people, and I admit that we over-react from time to time. But we're just trying to help in our own way. Please remember that.