Often someone will put forward an idea that has an obvious flaw, but the flaw can't be explained on the GDB because it involves revealing IC information.
It might be useful to allow the writers of replies to flag their posts as being for the eyes of the staff only, so that others don't see the reply. That way, they can put in all the IC information they want in demonstrating their points.
There's this new shit called "e-mail" that's supposedly all the rage these days.
Check it out.
:P
Quote from: Synthesis on February 22, 2008, 12:39:35 PM
There's this new shit called "e-mail" that's supposedly all the rage these days.
Check it out.
:P
Yes, but it's a poor substitute. A staff-only reply would stay on the board and in the context of the original post and other replies, rather than being read and deleted by whatever staff member happened to be assigned to going through the account mail at that point in time (and who might not be aware of the original thread or interested in it).
If the answer to a question reveals IC info, emailing staff is not going to get you that info, and staff members aren't going to post that info, even if it's only for one person's eyes. In fact, the only good reply would be "Find out IC" which players can tell one another without staff intervention.
You misunderstand, Vanth.
He's saying that if someone posts an idea, or whatever, and you have an example that refutes that idea, or shows it is already in game, or whatever, and you want the staff to take that into account but you cannot post it because it reveals IC information there should be a way for the PLAYERS to post a reply that is seen only by staff.
I don't know if that was any more clear. Heh.
Quote from: Vanth on February 22, 2008, 03:14:37 PM
If the answer to a question reveals IC info, emailing staff is not going to get you that info, and staff members aren't going to post that info, even if it's only for one person's eyes. In fact, the only good reply would be "Find out IC" which players can tell one another without staff intervention.
I don't see this being about
asking for IC information. It's about having IC information that refutes a point someone is trying to make or invalidates an idea. It can be frustrating at times to watch a thread go on while not being able to reply properly and wondering how much influence it's having on staff. The recent thread on invisibility comes to mind as an example of this.
Quote from: psionic fungus on February 22, 2008, 03:41:38 PM
You misunderstand, Vanth.
He's saying that if someone posts an idea, or whatever, and you have an example that refutes that idea, or shows it is already in game, or whatever, and you want the staff to take that into account but you cannot post it because it reveals IC information there should be a way for the PLAYERS to post a reply that is seen only by staff.
I don't know if that was any more clear. Heh.
What use would replying to staff be, when we already know the answer?
Uh... Not for replying to staff, necessarily.
I think he's just trying to make sure that all aspects of discussion are covered when looking at these topics, since some of those aspects are IC information, players can't discuss them... Unless there was a way for a post to be read by only the staff. He just wants to make sure the staff take all the information into account when reviewing these ideas.
But since you're all omniscient, I agree it's rather silly to worry about...
:P
Quote from: Vanth on February 22, 2008, 03:47:50 PM
What use would replying to staff be, when we already know the answer?
You do a great job, but you're human beings, after all. You're not necessarily omniscent, especially about specific game events, nor even about the mechanics of the game.
Quote from: Salt Merchant on February 22, 2008, 03:46:00 PM
Quote from: Vanth on February 22, 2008, 03:14:37 PM
If the answer to a question reveals IC info, emailing staff is not going to get you that info, and staff members aren't going to post that info, even if it's only for one person's eyes. In fact, the only good reply would be "Find out IC" which players can tell one another without staff intervention.
I don't see this being about asking for IC information. It's about having IC information that refutes a point someone is trying to make or invalidates an idea. It can be frustrating at times to watch a thread go on while not being able to reply properly and wondering how much influence it's having on staff. The recent thread on invisibility comes to mind.
Then you simply say,
"That doesn't work the way you think it does, find out IC."
"That's not possible for IC reasons."
"That would really screw up some IC situations."
Or don't reply at all. Don't worry that staff won't realize what the counterarguments are that can't be mentioned.
Ok then.
Quote from: Salt Merchant on February 22, 2008, 03:51:05 PM
Quote from: Vanth on February 22, 2008, 03:47:50 PM
What use would replying to staff be, when we already know the answer?
You do a great job, but you're human beings, after all. You're not necessarily omniscent, especially about specific game events, nor even about the mechanics of the game.
Individual staff members are not omniscient, I agree. But pretty much everything comes up for discussion amongst us, and I'm confident that the combined knowledge of the whole staff is greater than any single player.
How about a special code that marks the text as IC only and players will just 'skip' over all that text. Honor system FTW!
Several forums I've seen have a "spoiler" system that blacks over the text, so you have to run your mouse over it to reveal the secret message. That way you could post about mechanics and things that are well known, but not universally known, without spoiling it for people who want to be surprised. Still the honour system.
Quote from: Angela Christine on February 22, 2008, 09:31:10 PM
Several forums I've seen have a "spoiler" system that blacks over the text, so you have to run your mouse over it to reveal the secret message. That way you could post about mechanics and things that are well known, but not universally known, without spoiling it for people who want to be surprised. Still the honour system.
Yeah... that isn't going to lead to violent abuse or anything... no.
Tektolnes is a woman.
Muk Utep is a frog.
Steinal is underneath Globbulak's.
The beggar in front of the Trader's is Luir Dragonthrall.
You guys actually took my suggestion seriously?