chipv wrote:I cannot remember a single suggestion where comprehensive statistical evidence was provided to support it.
I find it disturbing that a thoughtful poster has been called to task in this way when she should be encouraged to post more
suggestions - we don't often get well thought out suggestions like this. I don't agree with this particular suggestion, but appreciate the
effort and patience put into it , welcome more, and disagree even more with the non-constructive posts.
If you have a constructive post, by all means post it. If you have a valid counterargument post it,
but you don't have to keep hammering the point home just because your post isn't answered or agreed with, think of the
number of suggestions not implemented.
The poster is being actively discouraged to continue posting suggestions (this is not guesswork btw).
I can't see why - this is a suggestion, not a flame.
Nonsense.
Well, to some degree you are correct, but the reason why many of these replies are argumentative, is because the suggestion itself really is presented in an argument form. Its presented as this has to be done, the reasons why, the supposed evidence that it needs to be done, and even a list of credentials which are meant to suggest this post has more merit perhaps.
It is precisely because of all the work done, that there is so much opposition, in an ironic twist of fate. And the reason, I and many are posting against it, is because of the strength of how drastic and important the changes would be. Myself I agree with any of the ideas other than locking the games. I fully agree something has to be done about the maps.
I actually agree that no evidence needs to be presented, as it is a suggestion, though since the suggestion does list the reason it is needed as the fact that its absence is somehow costing players from staying with the site, than it does somewhat beg the question of how one came to that conclusion. It is actually prudent to ask, "is your supposition correct."
It might seem a little harsh, but the percentage of suggestions taken/ vs offered is as you say very low, and this one has met resistance, with what I think is sound judgment against its basic premise that really almost can't be argued, but yet it is being argued, which is why the evidence was asked for.
Also, some at this point, actually do question the motives of the poster, because there are so many valid reasons and arguments against the suggestion, and yet those really aren't addressed, with much more than a "Stop posting" in many cases.
In any case, I agree as Ive said, that its great to see someone put so much work into a suggestion, however, it is always possible that such work is put into a suggestion, not to make it work, or because they actually think it is a good idea, but for the mere fact of getting the suggestion put through for the sake of it. In this case, I honestly think that is the case. There have been plenty of suggestions along the same lines, that achieve the same objectives, without risking the very objective that the original suggestion was supposedly meant to achieve.
Its a complex suggestion, it was posted meaning to prove its necessity, and suggests it has proven just that. The suggestion is not just a suggestion. It states that players are leaving because this is not implemented, and that this will keep more players. It is that which is generating requests for evidence, not the suggestion itself. Its the premise of the suggestion that is being called into question, but only because it was provided in the first place.
It is a most complicated subject, and has probably taken more time than it needs to have, and its fairly obvious that I happen to think it would be a complete mistake, and that the very idea is based on false assumptions, and incorrect analogies, with a dash of just trying to get it done for the sake of getting it done.
Personally, I think anyone who did care about making CC better, would immediately see the risks of losing customers, after blocking them from maps that very well could make them stay....not even considering the fact that it just limits the biggest benefit CC has had from the beginning, which is that it offers more than any other site. It offers more maps, more games, more options to all its players including freemiums....but implementing such a system, would essentially make CC offer less than any other comparable site, which can't from any rational, considered position, be expected to gain market share.
Queen Herpes has every right to be frustrated if she really wants this proposal to be implemented, but not really any more than any poster that really doesn't want this proposal to be implemented, especially since the goals of each, are exactly the same, which is hopefully the betterment of CC.
I think what many are afraid of here, is that this proposal somehow gets legitimized, simply because a lot of work went into it, and not because it is actually a sound idea that should be implemented. It really is presented as an arguement for the suggestion, and not as just a suggestion. The first two times it was suggested it may have been a suggestion, but now its an argument and a presentation to have it installed. In my opinion, I think we are just lucky enough to have so many really point out the many ways, ...and again, just the one part of the suggestion is flawed...but flawed at is basic level. Most of the other suggestions are worthy of themselves, and including them in this only goes to show that it is another attempt to argue for the suggestion, rather than just make a suggestion. This is why evidence is being asked for, and why there are more arguments about it. Most importantly, anyone making such a sweeping, changing suggestion, should know upon posting, that this would be the case.
Except, that with really good suggestions, there often isnt quite this much discussion, or as serious debate over them.
that the users are already seeing is a little too complex; and you're suggesting they do some more design work on it, too. 
I wouldn't go for it, despite I already like the general idea. 
Think about it.. before Apple and Microsoft MADE personal computers work, no one wanted to by the idea. Once they made it work, EVERYONE wanted in!
