Lack of player input on changes

[paprika]

Bottom post of the previous page:

or we could not do that and you could deal with the fact that we like to discuss code with other coders and not uninformed fucktards

[MisterPerson]

I feel the fast-paced nature of IRC makes it the ideal place to ask for help. If you want to move design discussion off somewhere else, that's fine, but even then I think being able to talk in real-time is really helpful. It enables people to ask questions and get answers without having to wait a few days.

There's room for both, of course, but none of this has anything to do with "closeting".

[cedarbridge]

All you have done is help get most maintainers to step down reducing the quality we have.

"Mission Accomplished APC destroyed!!!!"

Seriously though this thread is a joke and destroyed what morale there was for most people to code.

Out the gate, the coder fetish with "muh quality code" isn't a player problem. Its really not. If you can't produce something the playerbase actually wants then there's no reason for the playerbase to care how "well-coded" it is or if you stay or go. That's the entire point. "Yeah well we'll just stop coding that'll show you!" is both childish and missing the point. If fact, if coders are regularly adding "features" or removing content that the playerbase doesn't want its in the best interest of the playerbase to not accept further code from those people. The game is already established. If your personal vision for the game doesn't actually fit with what the players want to play, then you can't act surprised that the players don't want you to code for them.

[MisterPerson]

That's not what this thread was about though, I thought.

[cedarbridge]

That's not what this thread was about though, I thought.

Its the natural extension of the same. Coder makes <thing>. Players don't want <thing>. Coder refuses to revert <thing>. Players refuse to further accept code from coder.

For this to be otherwise would assume that the players have some obligation to accept code from the coder, which is nonsense.

Its also the natural extension of the "coders don't have an obligation to take or act on player feedback" mantra. Kinkos doesn't have to take my feedback on how to do print work, but I also don't have any obligation to have them do any work for me if I don't like what they turn out.

[miggles]

I feel the fast-paced nature of IRC makes it the ideal place to ask for help. If you want to move design discussion off somewhere else, that's fine, but even then I think being able to talk in real-time is really helpful. It enables people to ask questions and get answers without having to wait a few days.

There's room for both, of course, but none of this has anything to do with "closeting".

asking for help isnt the topic at hand. the "closeted" nature of the irc channel comes from the fact that because it is so fast paced, in depth discussion can never really take place in a logical manner, and a vast majority of people are excluded from participating at all because it requires them to be there at the exact time the discussion is taking place.

[Jalleo]

The thing is sometimes changes go through teething problems when they occur other times people think that just getting in a new system thats better but a bit broken is better than the status quo. Everyone is defining coderbus a solid group in the sense of common will to code for SS13 yes. Any further ha.
We are the most unstable paranoid group that I know. Seriously no matter what people are saying here for effective change to occur it needs to be slowly done encouraging people. Its a shit idea but just forcing the forums down a persons throat will kill anyone who isnt already prepared.
When I can I try to communicate but I know I will fail a lot with it. Every step on this can easily be two steps back. The downward spiral of past was easier lets do that is always going to occur. So I am going to quote this from Abraham Lincoln:

If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee.

This is literally how our community is like no matter what you say this is what this and many other feedback threads have been. Many here tell someone to do something and of they do it then they say no d it this way. Take time to reflect now. How many times has this happened? How often have complaints occured before a system was properly used?
Apart from actual times when something is too buggy occur how often?

Actual balance issues should be discussed two or so weeks after asystem is in to let time for actual data and issues to go in not opinions.

You have a ability to state your opinions yes but when does that truly show a fact gets covered?

How abput the original mining overhaul last year that is when a coder did listen to only their opinion or how about the speed nerf did players let their opinion take over?

Both of those did have facts obscured by opinions.

Should we still complain about those now when the issies do get sorted over time when people are willing to do that for free?

What about IRC chats vs Roundtables thefirst actual log of a roundtable was the last one did that help to give usefull feedback to people who werent there or was the end result more important?

I would continue but I am going to sleep (done on phone in annoyance that this still occuring both sides are shouting through a hole in a brick wall basically by what I see)

The issue of IRC and Forum relationship must be discussed at a lower level than one is a closet other is too slow.

[cedarbridge]

.

Sorry, given the bus's history for poorly thought out "balance" changes that get muscled in, I'm not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt that those changes should be forced in over protest and left to accrue dependencies with every other part of the code (thus producing the "its too hard to revert now" excuse.) Asking the playerbase to just wait out whatever change you want to make is asking a lot of a group you've trained not to trust you. Asking them to wait it out and then historically refusing to revert those changes even after several months of "waiting and seeing" has taught the players to know better.

[Bombadil]

No one bitched this much over the stun change or speed change(Save Mr Persons speed change to space). THIS ISNT A TEETHING PROBLEM. ITS BEEN A FUCKING MONTH

[dezzmont]

Sorry, given the bus's history for poorly thought out "balance" changes that get muscled in, I'm not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt that those changes should be forced in over protest and left to accrue dependencies with every other part of the code (thus producing the "its too hard to revert now" excuse.) Asking the playerbase to just wait out whatever change you want to make is asking a lot of a group you've trained not to trust you. Asking them to wait it out and then historically refusing to revert those changes even after several months of "waiting and seeing" has taught the players to know better.

Yep. You fundementally do not have the playerbase's trust anymore and are basically now being asked "Do you even care what we think on any level? Do you gave any responsibiltiy to our enjoyment of the game?"

The answer has been a pretty resounding "Fuck no."

No one bitched this much over the stun change or speed change(Save Mr Persons speed change to space). THIS ISNT A TEETHING PROBLEM. ITS BEEN A FUCKING MONTH

It isn't even just that.

Look at Paprika's blood change. It has pretty much every element of goonchem that you would think would case a "Nerf teathing problem." It makes medical work harder, more involved, and makes damage worse to get, just like goonchem.

The only difference is that it has been well recieved, because it doesn't fucking suck and serve no purpose that could not be better done otherwise. Oh sure, there is some negative feedback, but it is mostly in the form of questioning how it interacts with other stuff and recomendations to make it better. Because the system is not flawed at its core and does something that only it could do people tollerate it.

Paprika didn't just change the entire damage code at random because they felt like it. They changed just as much as they needed in order to affect the change they want. Goonchem was sloppy, lazy, and the purpose it served was, and still is, unclear, the main two I hear are "We wanted to nerf tricord" and "We wanted to make chemistry more complicated." The first raises the obvious question of "Why didn't you just nerf tricord?" and if that was the main goal a revert to just do that should have been the go to option once this blew, and the second doesn't actually add anything to the game, it is needless complexity that An0n3 disected very well in the goonchem review. It is apparent that goonchem was a really scatterbrained change done just for its own sake and people are refusing to do so for the same reason, because goonchem doesn't really have any sort of consistent direction or vision behind it considering it was literally a copy paste job.

Please stop acting like the playerbase are infants who complain about everything, actually looking through feedback shows that it is demonstrably untrue. Yes, often nerfs have a negative reaction but goonchem is an amazing shitstorm that has caused multiple threads to sit at the top of feedback for over a month, caused a feedback banner, a town meeting where coders and players agreed the situation is completely moronic and can't stand, and caused the headcoder to tell the playerbase that he has no interest in making a game they actually want to play.

We are beyond a teething problem. I am going to flip the script again and say coderbus as a group has a fumdenetal problem with how it conducts itself in relationship to the players and the server that they are refusing to adress or even recognize. This is on you. This is your problem that we have to deal with the fallout over.

Don't tell me that I could become a coder to change things, that is demonstrably untrue, everyone knows that PRs to revert this are being denied, so you are either lying or implying I should just subvert some other part of the game to feel better.

Don't say that the coders are seperate and above the players, that is untrue. You service us and would not exist without us, where as we would exist without you. You are owed nothing. That is the long and short of it. You earn respect, trust, and responsibility by providing a service, and right now many players do not see you as a service, they see you as a problem. You do not get to be righteously indignant when coders leave because the managers of the project do not understand or care that players more and more see you as a detrement to the game and are acting upon these feelings. If you don't care about PR? Fine. But then you don't get to complain about people thinking poorly about you, saying mean things to you, or trying to remove you, because you are essentially saying you don't care about the repercussions your actions and dialogue causes for you and your team.

[Jalleo]

I do not object to that we have infact been on a IamGoofball freeze until this is sorted some of these issues have even been due to how Byond needs to be reworked itself. Almost all of those issues are now solved. The majority are now feature requests about 6 pages into the issue list.

If there are new bugs though people need to report them I dont agree that we had a broken system ingame is good or bad its shit to of occured but once wecan all agree the issies are sorted it should be properly tried out again.

I do apologise to anyone if it sounds like I was treating them like a child. If thischat isgoing to be more of the how bad chem change was though would it not be better to talk about how the community wants to manage goofball?

[paprika]

We really just need better maintainers

The only reason goonchem got merged in the first place was because TKDRG pretty much merged anything without consequence. TKDRG is a fantastic coder and at least he was merging things that otherwise would never have been merged, but come on now

[Malkevin]

No one bitched this much over the stun change or speed change(Save Mr Persons speed change to space). THIS ISNT A TEETHING PROBLEM. ITS BEEN A FUCKING MONTH

Difference with that is that a lot of people for a long time wanted run speeds lowered
And a lot of people also wanted us to move away from stun based combat (which we haven't because non-stun combat is still shit)

[Incomptinence]

I do think of coderbus as a grouping but not a harmonious one.

Sort of like gladiators were a group of people but their job was fighting and sometimes killing each other.

Guess in this set up the headcoder is the roman emperor.

[Jalleo]

I do think of coderbus as a grouping as a grouping but not a harmonious one.

Sort of like gladiators were a group of people but their job was fighting and sometimes killing each other.

Guess in this set up SoS is the roman emperor. And the head coders/admins are the generals

Fixed.

[dezzmont]

Doublepost.

[dezzmont]

We really just need better maintainers

The only reason goonchem got merged in the first place was because TKDRG pretty much merged anything without consequence. TKDRG is a fantastic coder and at least he was merging things that otherwise would never have been merged, but come on now

That would be another way to handle it. Right now much of the community basically doesn't believe the code project can manage itself in a way that benefits the playerbase. That means there are really two options to earn back the trust and any goodwill from these people. Manage yourselves better and from a community oriented perspective or lose any ability to manage without community oversight.

The reason everyone stopped talking about the first option was because of HG's post on page one. He made it extremely clear that he didn't feel the project really owed the community anything, which is why things have gotten bad enough for some coders to quit, which again is a shame but in this current climate is not really the playerbase's fault. If you believe that this really isn't a mutually beneficial relationship where you have certain responsibilities to other people, other people have no obligation to even tollerate you and what you do, you become solely judged on how people feel about your work and if they dislike it then you just open yourself up to their wrath in this system.

No one should want it to be this way mind, but that is how it currently is.

If thischat isgoing to be more of the how bad chem change was though would it not be better to talk about how the community wants to manage goofball?

This isn't really goofball's fault. Not entirely. From what I have heard he isn't the most experienced coder and really shouldn't have the ability to do what he did. The fact he was allowed to play about with such a large system, and the fact that the leadership is the primary obstacle in removing it, says more about the coding team's policies than goofball. If goofball was the only guy trying to keep goonchem in that would be unfortunate and I would be more critical and say that someone should swoop in and undo it, but this is stuck in because the leadership is trying to force it to work and is forcing an inexperienced coder to make it work.

Frankly at this point I feel sorry for Goofball, either someone should undo it because it is causing him strife while he fixes it live, or a more experienced coder should take this change away from him.

[iamgoofball]

i wish more people would help port goonchems and shit but unfortunately as quiltyquilty/allura/pudl showed that went badly

i don't think we've ever had a feature be added that someone other then the guy who started it worked on in unison with the original author ever that didn't result in problems

[Alex Crimson]

That is just how things go. Everyone has their own style and methods for doing things. Ask two different artists to draw a scene and the results will be different.

[Jalleo]

I agree pretty much with what you said dezzmont the reality though is we dont really have anyone suited to manage it. The artist issue is how all coding is. We cant manage it like we do with admins what must be done to do it better?
Some coders infact need almost zero management and are more self helpers to others by being pure focus on fixing than anything else.
All I can say is at least we have a system that is open to anyone for commiting to. SVN was good for a small codebase. Iamgoofball would you be willing to discuss with people on the forums for when you want to make your big new thing?

[dezzmont]

Real artists compromise on their art when they work on collaborations, especially when they are part of a larger project. I think the real issue is that coders have almost total freedom to do what they want, which can be great in some ways, but there are no real systems in place to allow them to be reigned in without going to the nuclear option. I often hear the argument that coders are volunteers so that there can't really be any sort of system in place that dictates what they can't do or must do, but admins are also volunteers yet function fine under the system. You don't need to chain coders to projects all the time in order to have systems in place where the project leadership can force compromise or require someone aid on some large project.

Something this large scale, both the project and changes like goonchem get really shaky when the only way to motivate and direct people is independent motivation. You get people screwing with things on a scale too large for that to really work and systems wallowing in despair because no one cares about. That doesn't mean independent motivation can't be what most coders operate on most of the time, it is a really great way to get small fun updates, but from the outside it seems like coderbus has no way to really deny giving individual coders what they want when they want it. Being able to say "No, we really can't do this" or "We need to take this out, it didn't work" is really vital for a technical project like this, you can't just allow things to stand because someone just put in the effort to type out the code.

I also don't think that we should be forcing individual coders to be chained to the playerbase so much as just making the feedback process a more lauded part of how coders design, allowing more intervention, and forcing people to slow down. The cooking thread by Phil for example, and Paprika's stun threads are a really great example of what you should be doing. You want people to expose weaknesses in your design as a matter of course because it allows you to fix them before they cause damage. You don't want to plop in an entire untested system when you are only really sure that part of it works. And even if people spout complete BS reading detailed feedback gives you a lot of information on what people think is important and how well presented and unified your design is. If people routinely can't understand your design for example it means you need to make changes.

This probably is also why goonchem is such a huge debacle and controversy despite similarly large scale changes, even onse to the same system, didn't blow up like goonchem did. Not only did coderbus really make a lot of really basic failures in PR, seriously if people are criticising you never ever try to deny them the right to do so or you just make things worse even if you are completely right and people are being wacky, but the design of goonchem was confused from the start and even the people working on it can't seem to articulate what virtues it actually has consistently. It still looks like it is only in because a coder wanted to do it and the actual affect it would have on the game was always a really secondary consideration. It still looks like it is in because "Shut up we are the only ones with an opinion that matters. The people who play the game but don't code don't matter."

[paprika]

but admins are also volunteers yet function fine under the system.

[Incomptinence]

I think he means comparatively better than coders function under each other, by an enormous margin.

[paprika]

I really don't think coders are leaving /tg/ because of HG's post about seperation of church and state, I'm pretty sure it's because nobody gave a shit about MrPerson until he tried rebalancing sanic space movement to be less glitchy and inconsistent and suddenly he was l i t e r a l l y hitler. People turned on him really fast.

Yet oranges made a PR (oranges of all people) that removed a lot of the slowdown penalties mrperson added, and it was accepted because people wanted it so bad. Yes, things will get removed. Yes, things can be readded if people want them. Butthurt revert PRs are closed, but thoughtful changes based on evidenced community feedback won't be outright closed. IE: get someone to revert goonchem, properly, it will happen.

[callanrockslol]

No one bitched this much over the stun change or speed change(Save Mr Persons speed change to space). THIS ISNT A TEETHING PROBLEM. ITS BEEN A FUCKING MONTH

Yes, yes we did. They locked the thread for stun and space speed was fixed.

[paprika]

and space speed was fixed.

Operative phrase here

Remove it if you don't want it and there's a majority of people who want it removed

Of course everyone wants stupid shit to not get merged in the first place, but due to how goofball and allura spammed J-JUST WAIT A MONTH GUYS! and made 50 commits that are hard to individually revert it's kind of a pain in the ass

No coder really wants to take the time to do this

Your best best is to ostracize goofball, head coders aren't going to tell him to fuck off just because some players don't like a feature. I mean, I'm still here after all

[dezzmont]

I think he means comparatively better than coders function under each other, by an enormous margin.

More that admins don't insist that they must have total and complete ability to do whatever they want with no one being able to shut them down. Admins somehow are able to derive enjoyment and value from being an admin while still having restrictions placed on their freedom.

Historically "They are volunteers, we can't tell them what to do or they wont do anything" has been the argument against trying to apply any authority to coders, despite the fact that to be a volunteer you need to be doing things for other people's benefit before your own and every other volunteer group, including adminbus, doesn't work that way because that logic is horrible. You don't get to decide what is on the menu if you are handing out food in a soup kitchen, and you don't get to go to habitat for humanity and start building goofy non-functional forts with their materials. If you want to do literally whatever you want, you got to work on your own project.

Adminbus may have its own problems, but there is a reason the player base is exploding at coderbus. The fact that adminbus at least tries to hold its members to some standards is apparent, be it from corrective action to may or may not agree with, and the fact that when adminbus talks about problems it has it does it from the perspective that they shouldn't be happening, unlike with how coderbus generally defaults to "We are entirely separate despite being obviously untrue, and thus we have no obligation to not be shitty to you." There may be outliers, some admins may be especially shitty and some coders may have a really great attitude about how they conduct their work, but the way the groups organize themselves and view their responsibilities are clear to the players.

[paprika]

I dunno about other coders but I code because coding is fun and I hate seeing the game miss things that I can easily add

Also because combat used to suck ass and now it doesn't as much

[Bombadil]

I dunno about other coders but I code because coding is fun and I hate seeing the game miss things that I can easily add

Also because combat used to suck ass and now it doesn't as much

The only major combat changedone is you can now shoot through walls to stun people. It's really fucking powerful because lel slowspace

[DemonFiren]

You managed to respond to an age-old thread. And Paprika.

[AnonymousNow]

Goonchem. Mad forever.

[Pennwick]

From the MEDBAY LAYOUT CHANGE: VOTE OR DIE EDITION thread.

Don't add an abstain option Jeb.

I'm not doing this poll to see "hey should we add it or not"

I'm doing it to see "which of these two would you prefer"

This. This is the kind of attitude thats rubbing all the non coders the wrong way. You'll take our code and you'll be happy with it. It doesn't matter if most people are against it. Its Goofs way or find a new server.

I personally started out supporting the new chem changes but they kept getting worse and worse as time went on with poorly planned additions, kneejerk revisions, and general lack of accountability. At this point I think the only truly good things we've gained from the whole mess is overdosing and Calomel. Everything else is just trash balance wise.

[Cheridan]

From the MEDBAY LAYOUT CHANGE: VOTE OR DIE EDITION thread.

Don't add an abstain option Jeb.

I'm not doing this poll to see "hey should we add it or not"

I'm doing it to see "which of these two would you prefer"

This. This is the kind of attitude thats rubbing all the non coders the wrong way. You'll take our code and you'll be happy with it. It doesn't matter if most people are against it. Its Goofs way or find a new server.

I personally started out supporting the new chem changes but they kept getting worse and worse as time went on with poorly planned additions, kneejerk revisions, and general lack of accountability. At this point I think the only truly good things we've gained from the whole mess is overdosing and Calomel. Everything else is just trash balance wise.

Please stop trying to make this into a big thing. He made a thread to get feedback on a change which is what everyone says they want in the first place and then they freak out about it because OMG THEY'RE MAKING US EAT SHIT when it's literally the fucking opposite
You know who told them to make a poll in the first place instead of just throwing a pull request up on github? Me.

[Pennwick]

I don't remember hearing a lot about chem needing a huge workspace.

And I really fail to see the purpose of the poll. Either way Goof gets to change to change Chemstry and Medbay to suit his wants. He says that there will be a poll to to determine if there will be any change at all but considering the track record I have serious doubts that'll mean anything.

[iamgoofball]

He says that there will be a poll to to determine if there will be any change at all

pretty sure I never said this, keep in mind literally anyone can put in "Iamgoofball" as a name on singulo.io

i said there'd be a poll to determine the floor color

there might be a poll for the map changes, but considering you guys will just vote no on it because my name is involved I'm not gonna be surprised if it fails

[Alex Crimson]

I couldnt care less who makes the PR, but im pretty sure id vote no in a poll because there is no reason to redesign medical. Use whatever reasoning you want, but when you force a change down peoples throats, dont be surprised when they complain.

"no" would be winning by a landslide if you had actually included the option in the poll.

[Pennwick]

He says that there will be a poll to to determine if there will be any change at all

pretty sure I never said this, keep in mind literally anyone can put in "Iamgoofball" as a name on singulo.io

i said there'd be a poll to determine the floor color

there might be a poll for the map changes, but considering you guys will just vote no on it because my name is involved I'm not gonna be surprised if it fails

My error, it was Allura who suggested there would be a second poll afterward.

And yes people are going to judge your content partially on your previous record. Its human nature. However people have also brought up valid complaints and the only one you've addressed is possibly adding more trays to the morgue. Since you're making it quite clear that you intend on pushing one of these changes through regardless of opinion people are understandably upset.

[Saegrimr]

Steelpoint redesigns Robotics, gets a large amount of support because he took player input into consideration, changed up his design through multiple iterations, and the redesign actually looks good.

Goof proposes to change medbay, everybody says it looks like shit, because it looks like shit, and suddenly its a conspiracy.


Maybe, just maybe, it actually looks like shit to everybody else.

[Cheridan]

Steelpoint redesigns Robotics, gets a large amount of support because he took player input into consideration, changed up his design through multiple iterations, and the redesign actually looks good.

Goof proposes to change medbay, everybody says it looks like shit, because it looks like shit, and suddenly its a conspiracy.


Maybe, just maybe, it actually looks like shit to everybody else.

You and many others in the thread just directly told him to quit, though. If he followed your suggestion there would be no improvements at all. How do you think Steelpoint would have felt if everyone said that Robotics was perfectly fine and he should give up? The redesign you're talking about would never have gotten made.

[lumipharon]

I literally don't even look at who makes a change/proposed change. I read it, support it if it's good, or criticise it if I have issues with it.

It is a perfectly valid reponse to say 'don't change it at all' if there is no explaination of why the change is better then what we currently have.
Using the medbay change as an example, if goof said (just making this up here) 'the foyer is too crowded, by moving chem to it's own foyer, it will be less crowded and people won't spread AIDS as much', then people can argue for or against that.

Change needs a reason - it doesn't have to be some deep balance reason or some shit, but there needs to be something, otherwise it's literally change for the sake of change.
Other people shouldn't be finding reasons to say no to change, but reasons for or against the stated reason for change.

I'm struggling to word this in a way that doesn't sound autistic, but I hope you can see what I mean.

[Cheridan]

Fair enough. I'll concede that he did completely fail to give any reasoning behind his changes in the topic besides posting two screenshots.

If someone fails to give a reason for their change though, is it too hard to just ask for one?
There's no such thing as "change for the sake of change", nobody just wakes up and goes "hell yeah I'm gonna mess with stuff for no reason today"! They always have a purpose behind it, even if it's not stated or if people don't agree with it.

[Steelpoint]

Steelpoint redesigns Robotics, gets a large amount of support because he took player input into consideration, changed up his design through multiple iterations, and the redesign actually looks good.

Goof proposes to change medbay, everybody says it looks like shit, because it looks like shit, and suddenly its a conspiracy.


Maybe, just maybe, it actually looks like shit to everybody else.

You and many others in the thread just directly told him to quit, though. If he followed your suggestion there would be no improvements at all. How do you think Steelpoint would have felt if everyone said that Robotics was perfectly fine and he should give up? The redesign you're talking about would never have gotten made.

If everyone told me that Robotics is fine as is then I would never have presented my change. The only reason I've given my own attempt to redesign Robotics is because people asked for something better.

Also off topic but my Robotics overhaul was never merged, not because people were against it (everyone sans allure liked it) but because no one would merge it for weeks.

[Loonikus]

Fuckit. If it were up to most people, we'd still be running Uterus because WHY CHANGE THE MAP?! THIS ONE IS FINE JUST THE WAY IT IS!!!

[Saegrimr]

but because no one would merge it for weeks.

Now that's a damn shame.

[Cheridan]

Also off topic but my Robotics overhaul was never merged, not because people were against it (everyone sans allure liked it) but because no one would merge it for weeks.

Well I hope you don't take it too personally, we're at a point where the amount of PRs we're getting has been beyond the ability for the few people who still review and merge to keep up with, with 303 pull requests in the last month.
It's an issue and I've been looking for new maintainers, in the meantime I've been merging shit like crazy and doing manual merges of conflicted PRs to get them through, fighting to keep us down to just 2 pages instead of 3 (or god forbid 4, though we were close) because I know that shit tends to get ignored once it drops off the first page.

If you care to reopen it I'll check it out and get it in.

[Steelpoint]

I closed it because it was left open for too long and thus would have removed about a months worth of map changes if merged.

[Cik]

Fair enough. I'll concede that he did completely fail to give any reasoning behind his changes in the topic besides posting two screenshots.

If someone fails to give a reason for their change though, is it too hard to just ask for one?
There's no such thing as "change for the sake of change", nobody just wakes up and goes "hell yeah I'm gonna mess with stuff for no reason today"! They always have a purpose behind it, even if it's not stated or if people don't agree with it.

we would ask for one but come on, giving track record here is it even worth it?

like for instance was there even a reason for goonchem change? if i remember the reasons weren't even served by what eventually got changed. if he had a reason why didn't he offer one and why isn't there a "change isn't needed" option? that reeks of my way or the highway paprika style hubris.

also the kneejerk could have been entirely averted by a single sentence which goes something like "the medbay change will be voted on in the future, this is just a draft of a proposed change"

or something srsly

[Malkevin]

but because no one would merge it for weeks.

Now that's a damn shame.

Could be worse.

You could've stated an issue with the map
Proposed a change
Had most people agree with that change being a good idea
Spent a month tweaking the design based on feedback
Spend another few weeks conflict fixing as you wait for the pr to be merged
Finally get it merged see it live on server
...and then it gets reverted because a mapper throws a hissy fit at a head coder that came out the wood work after years of inactivity

Then they go on about how such and such a change should be done instead, two years later and that area of the map is still unchanged with the original issues present

[Steelpoint]

but because no one would merge it for weeks.

Now that's a damn shame.

Could be worse.

You could've stated an issue with the map
Proposed a change
Had most people agree with that change being a good idea
Spent a month tweaking the design based on feedback
Spend another few weeks conflict fixing as you wait for the pr to be merged
Finally get it merged see it live on server
...and then it gets reverted because a mapper throws a hissy fit at a head coder that came out the wood work after years of inactivity

Then they go on about how such and such a change should be done instead, two years later and that area of the map is still unchanged with the original issues present

That part of the map being?

[Miauw]

>forum rollback brings this thread up to first page
>drama reignites

the conspiracy deepens

BTW we could actually do with official mappers like we have spriters to handle sprite PRs. /tg/station is approaching the speed of light, seriously. 303 merged PRs in a single month is almost ten merged PRs per day, just to give you an example of how insane that number is, and the amount of maintainer activity is about the same as it was when I started coding.
Which is obviously a huge issue, because PRs get buried and accumulate conflicts, especially maps and sprites.

[Malkevin]

That part of the map being?

The HoP office