/tg/Station 13

I've made some half jokes about running for headmin, but I've always been seriously considering it.

But I don't know if there's enough people of the classic tg mind set left to want someone like me as a headmin.
And depending on who else gets elected I don't even know if I'll be able to do what I want should I win.

As for what I want to do, I want to:
Scrap the current rule set. It's three or four pages long, it's incredibly overwritten, especially silicon policy, and impedes the game
SS13 at its best is a freeform open sandbox game, 95% of things should be in character issues, about the only things that should be bannable are completely random murder and mass destruction.
Very little outright bans for breaking arbitrary rules should happen, instead case files of notes should be built against shitty players - and I mean proper notes that give context of the situation not useless one liners.
We shouldn't be banning people by asking the question "did they break the rules" but rather "is this person of the right quality to play here"

Admins should be held more accountable to the players, one thing I would do is bring back the peanut gallery, there would be a code of conduct but overall the fnr progress should be largely open to opinions from your peers. Especially admin complaints.

The separation of coderbus and server should be encouraged as much as possible. As in they should be encouraged to stay as far away from the server as much as possible.
Then we can create our own fork and finally readd some of the robustness we've lost over the years.

Yes please.
I'd vote for you.

You certainly wouldn't be the worst person running.

You seem pretty sane, with some good ideas. It's unfortunate we can only have one player-elected headmin.

Tell me briefly, what are your thoughts on roleplaying in SS13?

invisty wrote:It's unfortunate we can only have one player-elected headmin.

Unless something drastic has changed without my notice somehow, both slots currently available are going to the player vote. and the third has yet to be stated by MSO what his intentions are.

Edit:hmm, Dunno where I got that though, I know I laughed at niknak wanting seperate posts, and nobody disagreed with me or corrected him, so I dunno.

Oh, I must be having a bad case of the dumbs, then.

I dunno, asking for clarity, because now I'm confused. EDIT:Nope, I'm stupid not you.
but back on topic


I agree that coderbus needs to be brought back into the fold, been too much drama from the uhangi and paprikas of the world. If there is only one vote, of the people running I'd be giving you mine at least. Unless Kor rides back in on a white horse, or tsaricide gets off his ass.

Sorry to throw such a third in line position, but at least it's third after the guy who quit, and the guy who already said he won't run. that's like first right? bwahaha.

Malkevin wrote:The separation of coderbus and server should be encouraged as much as possible. As in they should be encouraged to stay as far away from the server as much as possible.
Then we can create our own fork and finally readd some of the robustness we've lost over the years.

Cool, this made it really easy to decide not to vote for you. Glad to know that a headmin candidate hates me simply because I associate myself with a certain group.

Malkevin hates my guts but he'd definitely be among my top picks, along with Ausops.

He's an experienced oldfag at heart and he wasn't afraid to call out my shitty decisions so I'd expect him to be able to keep the admins in line and without bullshit.

+1 Game Master support

you don't have the popularity or the mindshare to fork tgstation and not have the code die

invisty wrote:You seem pretty sane, with some good ideas. It's unfortunate we can only have one player-elected headmin.

Tell me briefly, what are your thoughts on roleplaying in SS13?

I think roleplaying should be more encouraged, which is to say people should attempt to play characters that have a mental age beyond 15.
But the setting of ss13 is something largely different to today, it really irks me when supposed 'roleplayers' (looking at you Bay) attempt to play by the rules and standards of present day, first world, Earth.

Roleplay in SS13 should as if your character grew up and lives in some crazy dystopia like Paranoia, with all the balls to the wall insanity and paranoia that implies.

Its how we used to RP in the oldy days, for example: people would try and avoid early shuttle calls because the general player made lore was that centcom had a death squad there to greet the crew of failures.
There was no death squad, and even if there was it would be completely irrelevant past 30 seconds, but players were using an RP reason to try and stay with the station.

duncathan wrote:

Malkevin wrote:The separation of coderbus and server should be encouraged as much as possible. As in they should be encouraged to stay as far away from the server as much as possible.
Then we can create our own fork and finally readd some of the robustness we've lost over the years.

Cool, this made it really easy to decide not to vote for you. Glad to know that a headmin candidate hates me simply because I associate myself with a certain group.

I have no problem with individual coders and would have absolutely no problem with any past or current coders coming to the new fork - in fact I doubt it would work if they didn't.
My problem is with the leadership and how the coding branch has been ran over the years and the direction they've taken the game, they've removed all the sharp edges and made the game incredibly boring, and they've made it clear they're not accountable to anyone but themselves - for a community project that's an absolutely disgusting attitude to have.

oranges wrote:you don't have the popularity or the mindshare to fork tgstation and not have the code die

If you build it they will come.
I started coding for the game because I enjoyed the game as it was and wanted to improve it, not because there was a code branch that existed.

And in all honesty, an active code branch is not needed for the continuation of the game.
We had a fully fledged and developed game five years ago, we have no major gaming stopping bugs (that weren't introduced recently anyway).
If the server suddenly stopped updating the game would continue as is and nobody would notice.

Coderbus seems to have this misconception that their existence is a requirement for the game to continue, and I'm sorry to say, but they aren't.


If you want to code for code's sake you still have your own separate code branch to push to, with the bonus of not having to worry about any player tears.
But if you want to code for the community and improve the game, not for yourself but for the community as a whole, and are willing to write up your ideas and are willing to put those ideas up to face public scrutiny and are willing to face the reality that sometimes stuff just doesn't work and may need to be further tweaked, changed massively, or even outright reverted - then you are the type of person that should be coding for TG-Station-13.

I'm a big fan of low rules but code forks are super dramatic and you'll probably need the approval of mso and the other headmins

Yeah, its a pipe dream.

Like I said it would depend on who I'd get elected with.
But so would changing the rules and giving the admin team a high colonic.

Learn from history, remember NTstation.

NT station failed because it was treat like the red headed step child by being dumped on a tertiary server.

Its main server or bust.

Yeah but who's going to continue to develop the "main fork"? The main fork is where the content is and for better or for worse, that comes from the coders.

The ones that want to make the game better would move to the new server branch.

The ones that are only interested in the codebase itself and/or 'downstreams' can stay with the old branch.

NT Station failed simply due to it having no real support aside from a token little server that only served to fracture the already small Basil population. Any code fork branch issues need to be all in, as in all servers must use one code fork, not two of them, or else it'll fail.

I would support Malk (also Ausops) in running for headmin, he's not only one of the few very old players who's still active on the server, but he retains a older style of thinking in regards to how the game should go, not to mention Malk has a good way of conveying his thoughts.

I think branching the code is, as noted above, a pipe dream. But that aside I concur with Malks points in his OP.

+1 because classic /tg/ mindset headmin. I'd vote for you, even if I harshly disagree with more seperation of code and server, unless that means we branch at some juncture, somehow.

-1 because gigantic opinionated asshole

+1 for classic style

-1 because classic style is "shit on everyone from the greatest heights, so they cannot climb high enough to shit on you"

Not sure if I would vote you or ausops but honestly you seem like you would do a good job

I should be an admin, loads of fun.

Malkevin wrote:Scrap the current rule set. It's three or four pages long, it's incredibly overwritten, especially silicon policy, and impedes the game
SS13 at its best is a freeform open sandbox game, 95% of things should be in character issues, about the only things that should be bannable are completely random murder and mass destruction.
Very little outright bans for breaking arbitrary rules should happen, instead case files of notes should be built against shitty players - and I mean proper notes that give context of the situation not useless one liners.
We shouldn't be banning people by asking the question "did they break the rules" but rather "is this person of the right quality to play here"

The ruleset didn't become the convoluted mess it is today overnight. I'd be surprised if it's still possible to go back with how big and complicated the community has gotten. You need a good definition of "the right quality to play here", and right now the ruleset is that definition. Good luck writing a new one.

even if a new codebase was made nothing would change

everyone would just migrate over to the new one/stay at the old one and let the new one die

if you try the NT route of "muh votes and player decided codebase ;_;" then you'll realize that after the third or fourth time of voting on what color the captain's penis enlargement kit will be it's a fucking waste of time, nothing will get done, and you might as well have just run a server fork that never update

iamgoofball wrote: everyone would just migrate over to the new one/stay at the old one and let the new one die

And that's fine, maybe even Ideal, you might disagree, considering you are a part of the group in question, but you guys have had some major fuckups shitting on the playerbase over the years, and 90% of your drama would be solved if you stopped insisting on being a separate entity above and beyond reproach.

I think that would be the quickest cleanest way to bring you douchers back into the fold, fork, and allow coders who understand that they are in fact, beholden to the game they code for to migrate at will or threaten the same, and see if you guys stop touting that toxic crap yourselves.

Not really the spot to say it, but you guys had no problem airing your opinion on malkevins stance, so why should I?
That being said, I'd council malkevin to a more moderate approach, because just forking and starting over is throwing the baby out with the bathwater without a qualification behind it that's grounded in allowing our good honest coders to work under acceptable terms. Which is pretty much what he's said. so...?

Still gonna vote for you, because that's your only really contentious controversial point, and I'm in favor of something being done rather than nothing.

and 90% of your drama would be solved if you stopped insisting on being a separate entity above and beyond reproach.

we dont insist that anymore
if you ask anyone in coderbus right now if tg and the codebase are separate they'll tell you no and to fuck off
HG hasn't been a headcoder for ages

whenever we make jokes about "muh separation between codebase and server is absolute" it's just that: a joke.


I don't want malk to win because he's running on buzzwords at this point.

Falamazeer wrote:Not really the spot to say it, but you guys had no problem airing your opinion on malkevins stance, so why should I?
That being said, I'd council malkevin to a more moderate approach, because just forking and starting over is throwing the baby out with the bathwater without a qualification behind it that's grounded in allowing our good honest coders to work under acceptable terms. Which is pretty much what he's said. so...?

We've been trying for years to reign coderbus in, and time and again they've demonstrated they're beholden to no one but themselves.
The only logical conclusion is that its an exercise in futility and so the only solution is to split off and run our own fork - that is the beauty of open source coding.

The fact is it was only at the start of this year that you had both HG and Pap yelling from the rafters that coderbus was entirely a separate entity, and none of you lot stood up and told them to STFU, which tells me you were content with them saying that.

iamgoofball wrote: if you try the NT route of "muh votes and player decided codebase ;_;" then you'll realize that after the third or fourth time of voting on what color the captain's penis enlargement kit will be it's a fucking waste of time, nothing will get done, and you might as well have just run a server fork that never update

I agree that votes for every little tiny details is fucking dumb, I'm proposing a more peer reviewed system.

I will outline my idea for the news rules and how I think a game codebase should be ran when I get home tonight.

So here's how I'd run a codebase, with this dev process as standard:

An idea is fleshed out into a design doc, this is published on the forum and peer reviewed (by everyone)
If there are no major complaints after a week (or two for major changes) then it is greenlit and coding can start.
Coding is done over however long it takes
Testing is definitely expected, if big bugs crop in that would've been found after the bare minimum ten minutes of testing that coder is getting black listed
Code is then uploaded to github
Maintainers review the code for code quality only (they have no say in the design other than at point one)
Code is merged
Server updates (maybe server 2 is kept up to date whilst server 1 is deferred two weeks behind)
Live play testing happens
Feedback is collected
Adjustments are made if needed
Sometimes things just don't worked out in reality, revertions are a possibility.


Anyway, thats my last comment on the coding side of things seeing as its a change that will probably never happen seeing as it would require the support of the two other heads and probably MSO too

[reserved for rulez]

Malkevin wrote:An idea is fleshed out into a design doc, this is published on the forum and peer reviewed (by everyone)

Alright, time to wait a week for 100% approval on the color change of the captain's personal condom. Oh wait, turns out to be 3 weeks because half the players want the change and the other half don't.

Malkevin wrote:If there are no major complaints after a week (or two for major changes) then it is greenlit and coding can start.

Are you telling me I'm not allowed to start coding a pull request until after Shitdick McPerson says it'll improve his dragon dildo ERP?

If this went along with "and there will be code commissions involved for if you have an idea but don't know how to code", I'll be more approving.

Malkevin wrote:Coding is done over however long it takes

This is already done, how is this different from what we have?

Malkevin wrote:Testing is definitely expected, if big bugs crop in that would've been found after the bare minimum ten minutes of testing that coder is getting black listed

This is the dumbest part of this whole thing.

Sure, lets say I'm coding a gamemode. It needs about 10 people to function.
I set up 10 guest clients on my local machine to act as filler minds for the game to work. The game works, I can't find any bugs, and so I set it back to 30 people and put up the code. We load it onto the server.
We then find out there's a severe bug that occurs in R&D if exactly 42 players, no more no less, are playing that causes the mecha fabricator to explode at roundstart. This doesn't happen below 42 players. My code didn't touch the mecha fabricator at all.

Would I be blacklisted because a bug occured that is so goddamn oddball random as fuck and had very specific error requirements that I couldn't of possibly found locally testing unless I had exactly 42 players in the server I was testing with, when instead I could just make a hotfix?

Code has bugs. You can't avoid this. Every professional programmer, every person who's done any research on the topic, can confirm that no matter what you do, you can't get rid of all the big bugs in your code. If you give me 5 minutes I can probably go pull up quotes from big name industry professionals about this.

Malkevin wrote:Code is then uploaded to github

This is already done, how is this different from what we have?

Malkevin wrote:Maintainers review the code for code quality only (they have no say in the design other than at point one)

This is an NTstation thing that led to NTstation's collapse. What will happen is eventually people get promoted from the players to be maintainers to do design checking, and then they do code quality too, and then they become what we have now.

Malkevin wrote:Code is merged

This is already done, how is this different from what we have?

Malkevin wrote:Server updates (maybe server 2 is kept up to date whilst server 1 is deferred two weeks behind)

Yes, because the 15 players can totally do testing on something like a new gamemode. We don't code for 15 player rounds, we code for 60 player rounds. You'll get completely different feedback between Basil and Sybil. They have to both be updated. You can't just make "server 2 the test server", people still won't join unless you force them to.

Malkevin wrote:Live play testing happens

This is already done, how is this different from what we have?

Malkevin wrote:Feedback is collected

This is already done, how is this different from what we have?

Malkevin wrote:Adjustments are made if needed

This is already done, how is this different from what we have?

In short:
How does this system benefit the coder? Because to me it looks like it just makes life hell for the coder.

>bugs = coder is blacklisted

yeah because bugs are entirely the coder's fault for not testing properly right
its not like bugs can get past a coder who tests his code, ever
right

Bugs are a natural thing of coding, yes.
But there's plenty of times where a bug has cropped in because obviously the coder never bothered to test their code beyond "yurp, it compiles".
I mean like they hadn't even bothered to boot up a server and tested that each of their changes works as intended - thats the kind of shit I wouldn't tolerate.

So no, your bullshit ludicrous example wouldn't get someone black listed because who the fuck would've ever have guessed that would've happened?


Edit: By the way, you don't need 15 people to test a game mode. If you toggle Game_Debug on the round start prerequisites are bypassed., its one of the last things I coded.

Malkevin wrote:Bugs are a natural thing of coding, yes.

I'm glad we agree here.

Malkevin wrote:But there's plenty of times where a bug has cropped in because obviously the coder never bothered to test their code beyond "yurp, it compiles".

Mind giving some examples?

Malkevin wrote:I mean like they hadn't even bothered to boot up a server and tested that each of their changes works as intended - thats the kind of shit I wouldn't tolerate.

More often than not, bugs are caused by shit being used in unorthodox ways. There's 200 unorthodox ways to use something in SS13, and testing every single one of them is nigh impossible. It's quite possible they did extensive testing but forgot to test a few things and those few things are the killer points that get them blacklisted.

Malkevin wrote:So no, your bullshit ludicrous example wouldn't get someone black listed because who the fuck would've ever have guessed that would've happened?

Then you need to state that there is an exception for batshit off the wall "byond magic" bugs.

Malkevin wrote:Edit: By the way, you don't need 15 people to test a game mode. If you toggle Game_Debug on the round start prerequisites are bypassed., its one of the last things I coded.

Yes, you can do that, but if you're making sure new objectives assign properly and that the gamemode functions properly at the required player amounts, yes, you do need to load in 15 dummy clients to get generated and be picked for objectives and antag roles and shit.

Also, you once again ignored a core part of that post so I'm gonna make it bold and underlined and red this time:
How does this system benefit the coder? Because to me it looks like it just makes life hell for the coder.

Malkevin doesn't care about the coder. He cares about the /singulo/ audience who don't like how coderbus is run.

Also, saying "this is how coderbus would be run" as a headmin promise is iffy at best. Cheridan is joking when he talks about server/code seperation (I hope) but he won't be if you try and make this the standard.

iamgoofball wrote:Also, you once again ignored a core part of that post so I'm gonna make it bold and underlined and red this time:
How does this system benefit the coder? Because to me it looks like it just makes life hell for the coder.

Well this is the error in your thinking isn't it?
Its not about benefiting the coders, its about benefiting the community as a whole.

Its about not sneaking in major changes as 'trials' with no intention of ever reverting.
Its about not making fundamental changes to a game mode's objectives which then forces the admin team to make ad-hoc decisions on game rules.

But if you want to talk about how it benefits the coders, how's this?
People would stop crying "Wahhh, coders are dicks and never listen to us" if maybe, just maybe you actually started fucking listening to the people whose game you are altering.

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:Malkevin doesn't care about the coder. He cares about the /singulo/ audience who don't like how coderbus is run.

I'm not overly fond of singulo, full of trolls and memesters that are too chicken shit to put their name to things.

Malkevin wrote:

iamgoofball wrote:Also, you once again ignored a core part of that post so I'm gonna make it bold and underlined and red this time:
How does this system benefit the coder? Because to me it looks like it just makes life hell for the coder.

Well this is the error in your thinking isn't it?
Its not about benefiting the coders, its about benefiting the community as a whole.

Its about not sneaking in major changes as 'trials' with no intention of ever reverting.
Its about not making fundamental changes to a game mode's objectives which then forces the admin team to make ad-hoc decisions on game rules.

But if you want to talk about how it benefits the coders, how's this?
People would stop crying "Wahhh, coders are dicks and never listen to us" if maybe, just maybe you actually started fucking listening to the people whose game you are altering.

Do you think alienating 95% of the people who create content for us benefits the community? I'm with you that stuff like goofchem represents a significant problem in coderbus, and I do agree that some of the game mode changes could do with some admin input, but I'm unconvinced the solution to this is to slow the coding process to a quadriplegic crawl and cutting off relations with them.

Malkevin wrote:

iamgoofball wrote:Also, you once again ignored a core part of that post so I'm gonna make it bold and underlined and red this time:
How does this system benefit the coder? Because to me it looks like it just makes life hell for the coder.

Well this is the error in your thinking isn't it?
Its not about benefiting the coders, its about benefiting the community as a whole.

Why would any sane person code for a system that is designed to piss them off? Why can't we have a system that benefits both players AND coders?

Malkevin wrote:But there's plenty of times where a bug has cropped in because obviously the coder never bothered to test their code beyond "yurp, it compiles".

Sadly he's not wrong

oranges wrote:

Malkevin wrote:But there's plenty of times where a bug has cropped in because obviously the coder never bothered to test their code beyond "yurp, it compiles".

Sadly he's not wrong

That happens at Triple A game studios with developers that have decades of experience. And yet, the world keeps on spinning, and they still have their jobs. Of course they should test their shit, but shit happens, people make mistakes.

iamgoofball wrote:Why would any sane person code for a system that is designed to piss them off? Why can't we have a system that benefits both players AND coders?

But thats the system I'm trying to do?

You've even said yourself above that the system I'm proposing isn't all that different to the current one aside from the first point.

Do you realise that professional coders don't code for themselves but for their client?
And before you go "But we're not professionals, we're just amateurs", well amateurs don't have a near autistic obsession with coding standards either - you try to maintain some semblance of professionalism, a design and review process is part of that.

Edit: Is it really asking that much that you put your idea out there, outlined fully, and ask people "Hey, what do you guys think of this?"

Isn't that basically what github is?

Malkevin wrote:Do you realise that professional coders don't code for themselves but for their client?

Yes, and what does the client provide the professional coder in exchange for their services?
Money.
I don't see any money coming in to coders or spriters for their work if we're "professionals". If you're our clients, then we need detailed design documents written up, and money or objects/items worth monetary value given in exchange for us producing your design document into real tangible code.

And before you say "well what if we pay you and you dont do it?" well thats why you pay for the work after they've produced the code, like any other sane client.

Here's an example of how this would work if we were professionals.
https://scriptfodder.com/jobs/

A player would put up a job offering on the boards, with a listed funding amount. They'd outline exactly what they want with the coder to take up the job, and the coder would produce a product to those specifications. If the coder doesn't make it how it's wanted, then he makes changes to make it how it was wanted. If the client is satisfied with the work, then the coder would put up the Pull Request, and the client would pay the coder the requested amount.

what if the coder refuses to do the work
Then don't pay him.

what if the client refuses to pay
Then don't do the work/take down the pull request.

what if the client does a paypal chargeback or something like that
Dispute it with paypal, or get paid in things other than paypal like Steam games. You can't chargeback steam, they instantly ban your account if you do that.

Malkevin wrote:And before you go "But we're not professionals, we're just amateurs", well amateurs don't have a near autistic obsession with coding standards either

So in order to give a fuck about how bad the code is and whether it's going to be a pain in the ass to improve in the future we have to be professionals?

Malkevin wrote:you try to maintain some semblance of professionalism, a design and review process is part of that.

A design and review process would be good. You willing to front some cash to hire some professional game design people to come check out SS13 and tell us where to improve?

I agree with your stance on the rules wholeheartedly.

As for your somewhat controversial opinions on coderbus, I honestly couldn't give a damn. Every single cockmongling change that caused mass player outcry has done fuckall to my overall play experience, because SS13 quality is almost wholly a function of the players, not the codebase.

Would we lose much if goofball stopped coding?

Coding for the game is something you do to want to improve the game on your own time, just as I made changes to the game that I think would benefit it as you would do the same. It is essentially community service as your helping to improve the game in your own way.

I did not go up to my local school's principle and demand that I should start being payed for doing voluntary community assistance because I had to go through a lengthy review process to ensure I'm not a unsavoury individual. That's the same here.

Irrespective of the coding guidelines there will always be people willing to code for /tg/station, outside of the code being utterly shut down forever nothing else will stop 100% of people from contributing, and again the game will survive for a very long time without any coders.

If the codebase is player driven, and everything requires player approval, how would you handle exploits or obviously unbalanced features?
For example, how the crusher used to make infinite diamonds.
I'm pretty sure that if someone made a pr to fix that, then there would be a bunch of players that would complain that they cant do R&d without mining anymore.
Under your proposed system, wouldn't that pr be closed and rejected?

Steelpoint wrote:Would we lose much if goofball stopped coding?

I'm irrelevent here. Don't try to derail, please.

Steelpoint wrote:Coding for the game is something you do to want to improve the game on your own time, just as I made changes to the game that I think would benefit it as you would do the same. It is essentially community service as your helping to improve the game in your own way.

Yes. Right now, it literally is just doing it 4 free 4 fun. if you do something shit you pay the price of everyone and their mom telling you you're a shitler and that you fucked up.
We're volunteer coders. Malk is trying to call us professional coders, not volunteer coders.

Steelpoint wrote:I did not go up to my local school's principle and demand that I should start being payed for doing voluntary community assistance because I had to go through a lengthy review process to ensure I'm not a unsavoury individual. That's the same here.

Then why is he using the term "professional coders" and not volunteer coders?

Steelpoint wrote:Irrespective of the coding guidelines there will always be people willing to code for /tg/station, outside of the code being utterly shut down forever nothing else will stop 100% of people from contributing, and again the game will survive for a very long time without any coders.

This is true except for the bolded part. Who's gonna fix all the bugs?

Bugs caused be newer features you mean?

The game is not in a state where if coders disappeared that the game will crash with no survivors. Any bugs that currently exsit in game are not sufficiently game breaking, because if they were they would have been fixed/reverted in short order.

palpatine213 wrote:If the codebase is player driven, and everything requires player approval, how would you handle exploits or obviously unbalanced features?
For example, how the crusher used to make infinite diamonds.
I'm pretty sure that if someone made a pr to fix that, then there would be a bunch of players that would complain that they cant do R&d without mining anymore.
Under your proposed system, wouldn't that pr be closed and rejected?

I'm thinking there should be some kind of design team of four-five people that are elected by the players to go "yeah that shits dumb"

Of course dumb shit like that hopefully wouldn't implemented anyway because of the review stage prior to coding it.


@goofball - okay you're just being stupid now, I'm done debating with you, and massively you're derailing my thread so either stfu or gtfo - vote for me or don't vote for me, thats your choice.

Malkevin wrote:

palpatine213 wrote:If the codebase is player driven, and everything requires player approval, how would you handle exploits or obviously unbalanced features?
For example, how the crusher used to make infinite diamonds.
I'm pretty sure that if someone made a pr to fix that, then there would be a bunch of players that would complain that they cant do R&d without mining anymore.
Under your proposed system, wouldn't that pr be closed and rejected?

I'm thinking there should be some kind of design team of four-five people that are elected by the players to go "yeah that shits dumb"

Of course dumb shit like that hopefully wouldn't implemented anyway because of the review stage prior to coding it.


@goofball - okay you're just being stupid now, I'm done debating with you, and massively you're derailing my thread so either stfu or gtfo - vote for me or don't vote for me, thats your choice.

He's not being stupid.

You say "You must be professional coders because you care about code standards" (Even though the literal definition of "professional" is "gets paid to do it"), and he says "Then pay us"

And you never said anything about a player-elected "design team" (And we all know how well player-elections turn out *cough* STP memed his way to headminship then promptly fucked off *cough*) before.

And if every single change, no matter how small, considering that coderbus has an "atomic PR" rule meaning that you should only change one area per PR, requires a week's waiting time, then people won't code full bugfixes. Phil will take up as much slack as he can, because he's a superstar, but I don't imagine he'll be into fixing little bugs if he has to argue with exploiters for a week or two on the forums for each one.

In response to "There wont be any bugs because bugs are only caused by new features": There's a critical-priority server-crashing bug that has existed in open sight in the game for years, and nobody has ever gotten around to fixing it because they don't want to. At any time, you can crash the server with one simple bug executable by almost anyone. And it's still here.

I was saying you TRY to act like professionals, stop being silly and nit picky.

Obviously bug fixes wouldn't have to go through the week waiting period.
And by that I mean actual bug fixes, not changing the game or removing features because its easier than actually fixing whats there.