Surrender Button

[IcePack]

Im not the SUGGESTIONS guy.

Indeed. So stay the hell out of future conversations involving suggestions, because you apparently have nothing to say that hasn't already been said a thousand times and that we aren't already perfectly aware of. That's the problem with this site, it's been around for over 10 years and everyone still thinks they have original things to say.

How about I keep providing my opinions and you actually do your job and collect feedback and data from the site and its customers instead of pushing your view / opinion. Thats the problem with suggestions, one guy thinks his opinion is the only one and thinks their way is the only way.

[Metsfanmax]

Im not the SUGGESTIONS guy.

Indeed. So stay the hell out of future conversations involving suggestions, because you apparently have nothing to say that hasn't already been said a thousand times and that we aren't already perfectly aware of. That's the problem with this site, it's been around for over 10 years and everyone still thinks they have original things to say.

How about I keep providing my opinions and you actually do your job and collect feedback and data from the site and its customers instead of pushing your view / opinion. Thats the problem with suggestions, one guy thinks his opinion is the only one and thinks their way is the only way.

I listened to your opinion. I listened to it far more than I had any obligation to. It's time for other people to chime in now.

[IcePack]

Im not the SUGGESTIONS guy.

Indeed. So stay the hell out of future conversations involving suggestions, because you apparently have nothing to say that hasn't already been said a thousand times and that we aren't already perfectly aware of. That's the problem with this site, it's been around for over 10 years and everyone still thinks they have original things to say.

How about I keep providing my opinions and you actually do your job and collect feedback and data from the site and its customers instead of pushing your view / opinion. Thats the problem with suggestions, one guy thinks his opinion is the only one and thinks their way is the only way.

I listened to your opinion. I listened to it far more than I had any obligation to. It's time for other people to chime in now.

No you didn't listen, you argued and misinterpreted and told me to go f*ck myself. Thats not someone whos open to ideas and listens to both sides.
Thats someone entrenched in their opinion and being an asshole. Or should I say "enlightened". Enlightened asshole.

[Metsfanmax]

Im not the SUGGESTIONS guy.

Indeed. So stay the hell out of future conversations involving suggestions, because you apparently have nothing to say that hasn't already been said a thousand times and that we aren't already perfectly aware of. That's the problem with this site, it's been around for over 10 years and everyone still thinks they have original things to say.

How about I keep providing my opinions and you actually do your job and collect feedback and data from the site and its customers instead of pushing your view / opinion. Thats the problem with suggestions, one guy thinks his opinion is the only one and thinks their way is the only way.

I listened to your opinion. I listened to it far more than I had any obligation to. It's time for other people to chime in now.

No you didn't listen, you argued and misinterpreted and told me to go f*ck myself. Thats not someone whos open to ideas and listens to both sides.
Thats someone entrenched in their opinion and being an asshole. Or should I say "enlightened". Enlightened asshole.

I did listen to your arguments. I seriously disagree with them and your motivations for presenting them (and said so), but I did listen to them and acknowledge them.

[Metsfanmax]

For the record, the reason I am opposing your statements so strongly is that you are holding this suggestion to a higher standard than has ever been applied on CC. We've rolled out many new game features on the site before -- fog, trench, polymorphic, parachute reinforcements, zombie, nuclear, hundreds of maps, speed games, round limits, autotournaments, bot games, coins, battle royales, etc. -- and NOT ONCE IN THE HISTORY OF THE SITE did any feature get held up because someone said "before we do this, we must indicate precisely what every possible abuse of this feature is and how much abuse constitutes a failure." We collected the information that was reasonable to collect, and used our common sense for the rest, and when problems came up, we addressed them as needed. The standard you are applying is something that has not ever been used here before and the only reason you are suggesting it is because you don't like the feature. If you tell me when was the last time you -- or anyone other than the webmasters -- surveyed any game option or feature over the history of all relevant games and presented a report on it, including all of the abuses and failure modes that happened, then I'll concede the argument immediately. If you can even tell me when was the last time you personally held any other feature to this standard, I'll concede the argument immediately.

show

[IcePack]

Im not the SUGGESTIONS guy.

Indeed. So stay the hell out of future conversations involving suggestions, because you apparently have nothing to say that hasn't already been said a thousand times and that we aren't already perfectly aware of. That's the problem with this site, it's been around for over 10 years and everyone still thinks they have original things to say.

How about I keep providing my opinions and you actually do your job and collect feedback and data from the site and its customers instead of pushing your view / opinion. Thats the problem with suggestions, one guy thinks his opinion is the only one and thinks their way is the only way.

I listened to your opinion. I listened to it far more than I had any obligation to. It's time for other people to chime in now.

No you didn't listen, you argued and misinterpreted and told me to go f*ck myself. Thats not someone whos open to ideas and listens to both sides.
Thats someone entrenched in their opinion and being an asshole. Or should I say "enlightened". Enlightened asshole.

I did listen to your arguments. I seriously disagree with them and your motivations for presenting them (and said so), but I did listen to them and acknowledge them.

Right, you listened.

First response to my thoughts on rolling a feature back

Your argument is empirically denied by the fact that we have rolled back features before.

Wasn't unrelated and the basis of your comment was from literally years ago (when you sit here and criticise me for having thoughts from 10 years ago, you bring up ancient examples of roll backs)

So you can't go around claiming that other unrelated stuff applies here.

Super open to listening to both sides I can tell.

You're not talking about anything.

But since your so open to listening, and enlightened thinker, you wouldn't attack someone personally right?

If you think that, you don't know anything about development.

Up to this point totally ignored what I actually said and continued to attack me and my opinion.

At this point you're just arguing because you don't like it, not because you have any good arguments.

Told me to stop working with Wham because...IDK nothing to do with what I had to say, at all?

If you think the above is wrong, then you should probably stop working with him, because it's pretty damning to suggest he'd let abuse go on unchecked.

Really listening to me by now.

You're the one who works with bigWham so closely, go figure out how to get them if this is something you're so worried about. If not, stop making noise about it.

Model suggestions guy right here. Very open to listening. Oh, and enlightened.

you can go f*ck yourself

f*ck off

Oh course, you didn't tell me to do ANYTHING at all right?

Because, as a member of the CC team, and leader of the beta testers, you care about the quality of the features we implement even when you don't always agree with the decisions the site makes? Or is that not the case, maybe you only test the features you like?

Yep, I'm literally shocked by how well you listened here.

you have no business being involved in the running of this site.

I didn't tell you to do anything.

OMG how dare someone with an opposing view share their feelings

You're the one who jumped in this thread and opened your mouth with your feelings on the subject.

Yep. Enlightened AND OPEN. From the start. Preach.

I'm done with you.

What a stand up suggestions guy fostering ideas from all sides.

stay the hell out of future conversations involving suggestions

Yep, very open to other ideas. I'm sold. You are the enlightened one. THE ONE AND ONLY enlightened guy who knows ANYTHING about suggestions, ANYTHING about game development, ANYTHING about running the site, are are the ONLY enlightened thinker who can possibly deem something good for the site. The rest of us are just pawns right, I mean, f*ck those paying customers who've been here for ten years. They just think they have original ideas, but YOU know better.

That's the problem with this site, it's been around for over 10 years and everyone still thinks they have original things to say.

I did listen to your arguments. I seriously disagree with them and your motivations for presenting them (and said so), but I did listen to them and acknowledge them.

Yep. I can tell, thanks for all that listening. And gosh golly gee this un enlightened fool sure feels acknowledged!

[Metsfanmax]

Right, you listened.

Yes, I listened. Listening does not constitute agreement. It does not constitute being nice to you. It does not constitute saying that your ideas have merit.

[IcePack]

For the record, the reason I am opposing your statements so strongly is that you are holding this suggestion to a higher standard than has ever been applied on CC. We've rolled out many new game features on the site before -- fog, trench, polymorphic, parachute reinforcements, zombie, nuclear, hundreds of maps, speed games, round limits, autotournaments, bot games, coins, battle royales, etc. -- and NOT ONCE IN THE HISTORY OF THE SITE did any feature get held up because someone said "before we do this, we must indicate precisely what every possible abuse of this feature is and how much abuse constitutes a failure." We collected the information that was reasonable to collect, and used our common sense for the rest, and when problems came up, we addressed them as needed. The standard you are applying is something that has not ever been used here before and the only reason you are suggesting it is because you don't like the feature. If you tell me when was the last time you -- or anyone other than the webmasters -- surveyed any game option or feature over the history of all relevant games and presented a report on it, including all of the abuses and failure modes that happened, then I'll concede the argument immediately. If you can even tell me when was the last time you personally held any other feature to this standard, I'll concede the argument immediately.

Really, no feature EVER had different types of abuse discussed? And that was about initial implimentation, now we are talking about expansion of a controversial feature. So guess what, we CAN talk about more then "every feature in the past". Youre all about enlightened thinking and progress right?

Yes, I'm only asking questions because I dont like it. You are correct. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be asked.

Again, you are talking about INITIAL feature implimentations. We are now talking about EXPANSION. Implimenting something NEW is different then EXPANSION.

[IcePack]

Right, you listened.

Yes, I listened. Listening does not constitute agreement. It does not constitute being nice to you. It does not constitute saying that your ideas have merit.

Still not listening, but thats cool. You might be reading it but you aren't actually listening to what I am saying.

[Metsfanmax]

For the record, the reason I am opposing your statements so strongly is that you are holding this suggestion to a higher standard than has ever been applied on CC. We've rolled out many new game features on the site before -- fog, trench, polymorphic, parachute reinforcements, zombie, nuclear, hundreds of maps, speed games, round limits, autotournaments, bot games, coins, battle royales, etc. -- and NOT ONCE IN THE HISTORY OF THE SITE did any feature get held up because someone said "before we do this, we must indicate precisely what every possible abuse of this feature is and how much abuse constitutes a failure." We collected the information that was reasonable to collect, and used our common sense for the rest, and when problems came up, we addressed them as needed. The standard you are applying is something that has not ever been used here before and the only reason you are suggesting it is because you don't like the feature. If you tell me when was the last time you -- or anyone other than the webmasters -- surveyed any game option or feature over the history of all relevant games and presented a report on it, including all of the abuses and failure modes that happened, then I'll concede the argument immediately. If you can even tell me when was the last time you personally held any other feature to this standard, I'll concede the argument immediately.

Really, no feature EVER had different types of abuse discussed?

I said, and I quote, no feature got "held up because someone said "before we do this, we must indicate precisely what every possible abuse of this feature is and how much abuse constitutes a failure."" Of course abuses have been discussed. No one ever asked for a precise quantitative definition of rampant abuse, and asked for it to be predicted before the feature was rolled out. No one ever asked for the person who had the idea to be able to express every possible failure mode. Everyone knows that this is an unreasonable standard, a standard designed to kill a suggestion rather than have an honest discussion about its merits.

And that was about initial implimentation, now we are talking about expansion of a controversial feature.

So guess what, we CAN talk about more then "every feature in the past". Youre all about enlightened thinking and progress right?

The difference between "expansion" and "roll out" in this context is meaningless. For all intents and purposes, the current resign option is a beta feature. It exists in such a small subset of games that it's really nothing more. Indeed, part of the motivation for having such a limited usage profile at the beginning was just to make sure that it worked -- we always intended to revisit it at a later date once the initial "testing" was done. The set of games that were chosen for this "beta test" are intentionally chosen so that meaningful levels of abuse (in absolute terms) would not be possible, given how uncommon they were. So we can easily compare this expansion to the roll out of any new feature. And then we should ask the question, when has any new feature been subject to the level of scrutiny you are holding this one to, after it was rolled out? And the answer, of course, is never. If we cared so much about abuse, then after every new feature roll out, we would have waited three months or six months and then scrutinized all games to see if there were abuses that weren't reported. This has never been done in the history of CC. Even the webmasters, who I am sure collect private stats as new features roll out, to make sure the implementation is clean, don't examine these features to the level of scrutiny you're suggesting here. All of us are implicitly relying on bug reports and C&A cases to catch the major things. It's not a perfect system. But it's the system we've got, and the only one that can make sense given how volunteer-driven everything is here.

Yes, I'm only asking questions because I dont like it. You are correct. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be asked.

You can ask them all you like. I'm telling you why I'm ignoring them, and why everyone who cares about feature rollouts on this site should too.

[IcePack]

I'm telling you why I'm ignoring them, and why everyone who cares about feature rollouts on this site should too.

Because you know whats best for us lowly masses, as the enlightened one. Right.

[Metsfanmax]

I'm telling you why I'm ignoring them, and why everyone who cares about feature rollouts on this site should too.

Because you know whats best for us lowly masses, as the enlightened one. Right.

Why is it that you are allowed to have your opinion and try to influence others what to think, but when I have an opinion, I'm suddenly speaking for everyone?

[IcePack]

I'm telling you why I'm ignoring them, and why everyone who cares about feature rollouts on this site should too.

Because you know whats best for us lowly masses, as the enlightened one. Right.

Why is it that you are allowed to have your opinion and try to influence others what to think, but when I have an opinion, I'm suddenly speaking for everyone?

I can't quite put my finger on it... maybe its something you said before...

That's the problem with this site, it's been around for over 10 years and everyone still thinks they have original things to say.

Can't...quite....place it....

You're the one who jumped in this thread and opened your mouth with your feelings on the subject.

If only I could think of it....

stay the hell out of future conversations involving suggestions

If only I could remember when you spoke from on high for the rest of us UNENLIGHTENED FOLK...

[IcePack]

From someone else who doesn't want to have to argue with mets:

If surrender button is kept/expanded, it needs to be re positioned. I've accidentally hit it before and it scares me when I see it.

[Metsfanmax]

I just want to share a record of some of the delightful things IcePack said on my wall. Good stuff when evaluating whether you think he is proper Team CC material.



He later deleted his posts on my wall, and when I called him out on it, he said



Because deleting your posts is the best way to prove you have nothing to hide!

[IcePack]

I just want to share a record of some of the delightful things IcePack said on my wall. Good stuff when evaluating whether you think he is proper Team CC material.

Because deleting your posts is the best way to provide you have nothing to hide!

Yep, and as I told you I didn't delete my posts to hide anything. Admin can see anything even after deletion, so that would be pointless.
Its because I'm done dealing with you being an enlightened prick. On my wall from Mets:

Most people on this site have great ideas. I've never seen one from you.

User avatar
by Metsfanmax
on Mon Oct 02, 2017

[Metsfanmax]

I just want to share a record of some of the delightful things IcePack said on my wall. Good stuff when evaluating whether you think he is proper Team CC material.

Because deleting your posts is the best way to provide you have nothing to hide!

Yep, and as I told you I didn't delete my posts to hide anything. Admin can see anything even after deletion, so that would be pointless.
Its because I'm done dealing with you being an enlightened prick. On my wall from Mets:

Most people on this site have great ideas. I've never seen one from you.

User avatar
by Metsfanmax
on Mon Oct 02, 2017

That, sadly, is true. You have put an incredible number of hours of effort into this site. CC is all the better for your having participated in it as a volunteer. But I've never seen you express an original idea, or express a good idea in a useful way. I'm sorry that I have to say it so bluntly, but you kind of forced my hand here.

Many of the things you have said in this thread are worth saying -- by someone who understands the appropriate context in which to say them, and the relative import of the ideas. You do not, as evidenced by the fact that you are saying in this thread that have never once been said before about any other CC feature. That is why I hold your opinions about suggestions in low regard, because you don't have a consistent framework by which you judge them. You decided that you did not like the suggestion, and then came up with arguments for how to oppose it, and you only applied those arguments to this suggestion and not any other suggestion. (Do you know how I know that? It's because your very first post in this thread was "It’s still a shitty idea I’m just done wasting my time arguing about it.") That is not how proper policy ought to get made.

I am not especially enlightened. I say stupid shit all the time, including plenty of times in this very thread. If I have ever had any value to the site (doubtful, I know), it is only because I am rational and consistent.

[IcePack]

I just want to share a record of some of the delightful things IcePack said on my wall. Good stuff when evaluating whether you think he is proper Team CC material.

Because deleting your posts is the best way to provide you have nothing to hide!

Yep, and as I told you I didn't delete my posts to hide anything. Admin can see anything even after deletion, so that would be pointless.
Its because I'm done dealing with you being an enlightened prick. On my wall from Mets:

Most people on this site have great ideas. I've never seen one from you.

User avatar
by Metsfanmax
on Mon Oct 02, 2017

That, sadly, is true. You have put an incredible number of hours of effort into this site. CC is all the better for your having participated in it as a volunteer. But I've never seen you express an original idea, or express a good idea in a useful way. I'm sorry that I have to say it so bluntly, but you kind of forced my hand here.

Many of the things you have said in this thread are worth saying -- by someone who understands the appropriate context in which to say them, and the relative import of the ideas. You do not, as evidenced by the fact that you are saying in this thread that have never once been said before about any other CC feature. That is why I hold your opinions about suggestions in low regard, because you don't have a consistent framework by which you judge them. You decided that you did not like the suggestion, and then came up with arguments for how to oppose it, and you only applied those arguments to this suggestion and not any other suggestion. That is not how proper policy ought to get made.

I am not especially enlightened. I say stupid shit all the time, including plenty of times in this very thread. If I have ever had any value to the site (doubtful, I know), it is only because I am rational and consistent.

I really dont care what you think of my volunteering here, nor do I care whether you think I've had original ideas. The people who impliment them know what I bring to the table, whether they are ideas, time, or getting other things done. You are involved in so little at this point, you wouldn't know what I was involved with anyway. So similarly, I hold your opinion on that matter "in very low regard".

I dont care what has been said about other features. I care about this feature. Not in the same way as you do, but what happens with it I still have a valid opinion. So you can bring up whatever you will about whatever you want, but does not make my opinion on this any less valid regardless of what has or has not been done with any other feature. I haven't been involved in every other feature. But I am involved here. But again, you are bringing up implimenting new ideas, vs expanding this one. Which IMO are different matters entirely. With this one, data can be collected. I dont care if no data has been collected before. That doesn't mean data SHOULDN"T have been collected for past ideas. It means it wasn't. But we aren't talking about every other idea you have been involved with. We are talking about this one.

So again, I say just because it wasn't done before, and nobody has asked these questions in the past, doesn't make them any less valid now. You want to talk about proper policy, but I can't control what was done poorly in the past, I can only control what is being done now. (control isn't the right word, influence or provide opinion would be better).

So, "proper policy" doesn't get defined by things that weren't done before. Proper policy and enlightened thinking is looking forward. Not backward.

Consistent is fine, but consistent can be consistently bad, which isn't something that we should base our decisions moving forward on just for sake of being consistent.

[Metsfanmax]

I dont care what has been said about other features. I care about this feature.

Yep, that's pretty much my point. Why should anyone give your opinion on feature implementation any merit whatsoever when you're openly admitting that your statements completely ignore the context of every other feature implementation on CC? It's like a giant sign saying "I've got an axe to grind." You're going to be as absent from future feature discussions as you were from the past ones once this discussion dies. I think everyone who is paying attention should see how much weight to give your opinions based on that. It would be like me jumping into a clans dispute and saying HOLD THE f*ck UP GUYS, YOU HAVE NOT ADJUDICATED THESE RIGHT IN THE PAST. BUT I'M ON THE SCENE NOW, AND HERE'S HOW IT OUGHT TO BE.

But again, you are bringing up implimenting new ideas, vs expanding this one. Which IMO are different matters entirely. With this one, data can be collected.

The data that can be collected, whatever that is, is almost completely irrelevant to this suggestion. If you'd bothered to read my wall before posting on it, you would have noticed that the last post on it was DoomYoshi trying to get me in here to support this idea. I did not want to, and I responded on his wall and said, "I saw that thread, but it's a little disingenuous. We limited the surrender button functionality to the point where virtually all of the abuses envisioned by its detractors were impossible, because the surrender button doesn't apply in the vast majority of games." That is, it wouldn't make any sense for me to argue that no abuse will happen when we roll this out to all games because no abuse happened in the tiny set of games where we designed it such that no abuses could happen. I can go and find every game with a resignation that has happened to this point, find zero examples of abuse, and still not be convinced by the suggestion here purely because of that. I expected no abuse, because the decision was made to neuter the implementation to the extent that abuse was impossible. I'm not going to be surprised when I don't find any. Nor should it surprise you, or make one iota of difference to your opinion on this subject. My suggestion that there will probably be no abuse if we expand this to all two player games only is based on common sense, as is every other feature before we implement it. And it is based on the common sense idea that if things go wrong, we can fix them.

I dont care if no data has been collected before. That doesn't mean data SHOULDN"T have been collected for past ideas.

We have collected data before, but it's always been in the ways that we have the means to support -- anecdotal data of reports from members. That's the way it has always been, and probably always will be. Would it be great if we had a QA team whose job it was to collect this data? Of course. But we don't. So suggesting that the nonexistent QA team be dispatched to survey this feature (and not any other feature) is kind of falling on deaf ears.

So again, I say just because it wasn't done before, and nobody has asked these questions in the past, doesn't make them any less valid now.

They're as invalid now as they ever were, because no one has the time, inclination, or access to do it. If I had access to a database of all games and could easily query the games that had had resignations, I would have generated statistics on it a long time ago, because I am in fact interested in this. But I don't, so I can't. CC is not going to suspend all future feature implementation just because you, IcePack, suddenly walked onto the scene and discovered that we do not have a paid QA staff.

[Metsfanmax]

If surrender button is kept/expanded, it needs to be re positioned. I've accidentally hit it before and it scares me when I see it.

This sounds like a good idea to me. It's why a confirmation was added, but I obviously don't have a problem with improving the UI aspect of it and making it harder to do accidentally. Now that panels are mandatory, perhaps the button can be hid in one of the panels rather than on the main playing area.

[IcePack]

I dont care what has been said about other features. I care about this feature.

Yep, that's pretty much my point. Why should anyone give your opinion on feature implementation any merit whatsoever when you're openly admitting that your statements completely ignore the context of every other feature implementation on CC? It's like a giant sign saying "I've got an axe to grind." You're going to be as absent from future feature discussions as you were from the past ones once this discussion dies. I think everyone who is paying attention should see how much weight to give your opinions based on that.

I'm not absent, I comment on ones that matter to me. Just as I'm sure other people do as well. I dont care about how ALL features have been handled, just the ones I get involved with. Simplier to understnad for you? I dont have an axe to grind, I have a strong opinion on this suggestion as I have before. Most of the time I'm absent from suggestions area because I'm busy implimenting other things for clans skipping the essentially dead suggestions process, because it was well....dead. Everyone can weigh whatever they like. I think most can understand what I'm saying, its to bad you can't.

But again, you are bringing up implimenting new ideas, vs expanding this one. Which IMO are different matters entirely. With this one, data can be collected.

The data that can be collected, whatever that is, is almost completely irrelevant to this suggestion. If you'd bothered to read my wall before posting on it, you would have noticed that the last post on it was DoomYoshi trying to get me in here to support this idea. I did not want to, and I responded on his wall and said, "I saw that thread, but it's a little disingenuous. We limited the surrender button functionality to the point where virtually all of the abuses envisioned by its detractors were impossible, because the surrender button doesn't apply in the vast majority of games." That is, it wouldn't make any sense for me to argue that no abuse will happen when we roll this out to all games because no abuse happened in the tiny set of games where we designed it such that no abuses could happen. I can go and find every game with a resignation that has happened to this point, find zero examples of abuse, and still not be convinced by the suggestion here purely because of that. I expected no abuse, because the decision was made to neuter the implementation to the extent that abuse was impossible. I'm not going to be surprised when I don't find any. Nor should it surprise you, or make one iota of difference to your opinion on this subject. My suggestion that there will probably be no abuse if we expand this to all two player games only is based on common sense, as is every other feature before we implement it. And it is based on the common sense idea that if things go wrong, we can fix them.

Now thats something that actually makes sense, thanks for bringing something up thats relevant instead of just saying " i can't get any data!". Explaining that the suggestion was implimented in a way that would allow for very little abuse is a valid point, though again not knowing how much its been used is valid and we dont have any info on that. I already made my comment about fixing / roll backs, so I'm not goign to address it again.

I dont care if no data has been collected before. That doesn't mean data SHOULDN"T have been collected for past ideas.

We have collected data before, but it's always been in the ways that we have the means to support -- anecdotal data of reports from members. That's the way it has always been, and probably always will be. Would it be great if we had a QA team whose job it was to collect this data? Of course. But we don't. So suggesting that the nonexistent QA team be dispatched to survey this feature (and not any other feature) is kind of falling on deaf ears.

It doesn't have to be a special QA team. Thats something when expanding a suggestion, one would expect the suggestions team to look at before implimenting. You should know, since you know so much about development and such.

So again, I say just because it wasn't done before, and nobody has asked these questions in the past, doesn't make them any less valid now.

They're as invalid now as they ever were, because no one has the time, inclination, or access to do it. If I had access to a database of all games and could easily query the games that had had resignations, I would have generated statistics on it a long time ago, because I am in fact interested in this. But I don't, so I can't. CC is not going to suspend all future feature implementation just because you, IcePack, suddenly walked onto the scene and discovered that we do not have a paid QA staff.

I would argue that if no one has the time, inclination to research something then people really dont want it expanded that badly, and shouldn't be done without the proper information. Access goes through one person, we all know that. its not that we can't get the info, its that nobody wants to spend the time. So again, imo just justifies that the suggestion can't be all that important if nobodys willing to put additoinal time into it.

It wouldn't take suspending anything, it really wouldn't take that long at all. Regardless of who is supporting it. You seem to be making this pretty personal towards me, about me having an axe to grind, about me having new ideas for the site, about me this me that me me me. I'm talking about the suggestion about expanding this. Making up shit about a QA staff is just more smoke screen BS arguments that really have no meaning here.

[DoomYoshi]

I have no idea what's going on here. I think it's time for everyone to take a breather.

[Metsfanmax]

Thats something when expanding a suggestion, one would expect the suggestions team to look at before implimenting.

I want to let you in on something that you apparently have not realized. There is no suggestions team. There is no features team. There hasn't been one for many years. There is exactly one person and one person only whose job it is to figure out what to do with this site, and his name is bigWham. Myself and the other people whose "job" it was to provide feature ideas and suggestions to bigWham (including JamesKer1 and agentcom), we couldn't work with him because he didn't listen to us. (Other people have resigned for the same reason that weren't on the suggestions/features team -- I'll leave their names out of it.) That's why all three of us resigned and/or gave up. My big break was the resign suggestion I mentioned (bigWham said he was going to do it, and then reneged), along with the fact that when I brought him the evidence that the dice were flawed that degaston and others had collected, he didn't give a shit and said people would complain either way, so he wasn't going to fix it. There was hard data right there in front of him, and he couldn't be bothered to do anything about it because he didn't seem to care much about the quality of the site's features. The others had similar types of interactions with him. None of us have control over this process so none of us bother anymore. There's no point in spending time collecting data that is going to be ignored. bigWham goes with his instincts, and there's not a damn thing any of us can do about it. So why would I go to the trouble of getting "access" from him when he's going to ignore whatever I find? It's not worth my time. The only thing I'm reduced to is the same thing everyone else on CC does -- whining about it on the forums, because there's nothing else I can do.

[IcePack]

Thats something when expanding a suggestion, one would expect the suggestions team to look at before implimenting.

I want to let you in on something that you apparently have not realized. There is no suggestions team. There is no features team. There hasn't been one for many years. There is exactly one person and one person only whose job it is to figure out what to do with this site, and his name is bigWham. Myself and the other people whose "job" it was to provide feature ideas and suggestions to bigWham (including JamesKer1 and agentcom), we couldn't work with him because he didn't listen to us. (Other people have resigned for the same reason that weren't on the suggestions/features team -- I'll leave their names out of it.) That's why all three of us resigned and/or gave up. My big break was the resign suggestion I mentioned (bigWham said he was going to do it, and then reneged), along with the fact that when I brought him the evidence that the dice were flawed that degaston and others had collected, he didn't give a shit and said people would complain either way, so he wasn't going to fix it. The others had similar types of interactions with him. None of us have control over this process so none of us bother anymore. There's no point in spending time collecting data that is going to be ignored. bigWham goes with his instincts, and there's not a damn thing any of us can do about it. So why would I go to the trouble of getting "access" from him when he's going to ignore whatever I find? It's not worth my time. The only thing I'm reduced to is the same thing everyone else on CC does -- whining about it on the forums, because there's nothing else I can do.

Well until today you were actively "acting" like a suggs person (even one other mod said they were suprised because they included you in some semi recent suggestions thing and there was nothing mentioned about you not being in suggs) so... sounds like its convenient time for you to "leave".
Apparently you were the last one there, and by your own admission did nothing. So if thats your attitude now and while you were a volunteer on the team, why should anyone take what you have to say seriously either? You were there and did nothing! I'm not on the suggestions team and I've gotten a lot of things implimented. Hell, I've helped do 2-3 things in the last couple of months let alone the last years. So dont tell me it can't be done, maybe you should look inwardly on why you were so ineffective instead of blaming everyone else.

[Metsfanmax]

Well until today you were actively "acting" like a suggs person (even one other mod said they were suprised because they included you in some semi recent suggestions thing and there was nothing mentioned about you not being in suggs) so... sounds like its convenient time for you to "leave".

How fucking ignorant are you about Team CC? There hasn't even been a Suggestions team for like the last four years. Reassuring to know that bigWham is not the only Team CC member who is not paying attention.

Apparently you were the last one there, and by your own admission did nothing. So if thats your attitude now and while you were a volunteer on the team, why should anyone take what you have to say seriously either?

No one should take anything I say seriously. I'm shocked that anyone would bother to spend multiple pages arguing with me.

maybe you should look inwardly on why you were so ineffective instead of blaming everyone else.

*shrug* Yes, I was ineffective with bigWham. I admit that. Is part of that my own personality? Probably, although as I mentioned multiple other people resigned because they couldn't deal with him too (including rds, who is one of the nicest people I know). Anyway, if you really think that the guy who sees a problem with the dice mechanism and just shrugs it off and says I'm not wasting time fixing that, is the one who you trust with running this ship, all the more power to you.