WarbossLincoln wrote:In any kind of software development environment someone at the end of the day has to be in charge of accepting code changes. It's nice to imagine everyone having a say but it's not going to work out well. IRL I talk about my code and implementation with my co workers, get their ideas, and work with them to come up with the best way we can think of to solve a problem or add a feature. But our boss is the one who decides if that's going to fly or not.
In a business you would have stakeholders and POs who the head coder answers to because there's money on the line. Here where there isn't a product or profit it's just the head coder.
tldr; you're not going to get democracy in a codebase. Someone has to be in charge or you just have chaos.
The best way for you, the player, to have an impact on the code is to either A: start coding yourself, talk about your ideas and features with oranges to get his input, submit a PR. Or B: submit coherent, detailed, and specific ideas on features and changes you would like to see. With specific details about mechanics, reasons why it's good(or bad for removal), and be prepared have some back and forth with a developer if they like your idea to refine it.
Your boss has accountability to their boss, who has accountability up the line until the process hits deployment or some level of end user. If your code ends up being garbage and your boss green lights it, there's a chance he'll get in trouble before you (though you will likely also get in trouble).
We have nothing like that in the current system. As long as maintainers break no obvious massive rules, they can do whatever they want, how they want, with no repercussions. Sure, the server will suffer as people leave, but the maintainers can and will deflect that immediately (and have) and blame someone else. Eventually, the situation breaks apart and the server collapses. We absolutely have the power of popularity and continuity, but that's not an absolute.
Denton wrote:
You severely underestimate the condensed autism of this community and the r*ddit shaped tumors attached to it. Just look at the the recent pronouns PR for an example, people came flocking from every single community to post 300 shitposts and personal attacks.
Most players are cool and provide valuable feedback, but that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be constant brigading.
So here's the thing, if you look at the vast majority of the pulls, most of the ones that do get merged do so with little to no comments or issue. You absolutely should bring up the pronoun PR because here's how it would likely play out:
1) Headmins are called on the fact that this has reached critical mass.
2) Headmins evaluate it. They realize that this is both a policy problem and a simple rules acknowledgement of the code being used to augment it. Maybe they don't.
3) New Headmin policy to stop being a mouth breathing assclown against LGBT people is brought in and the code is merged.
3a) Headmins are divided and brought to a poll. There is now an intense policy discussion between people who want equality and those who don't. This may ruin a Headmin's tenure or may cause people to leave. The poll gives us the result of what the community wants.
Both of those situations create conversation and help establish culture. It's often said that racism is part of TG. Now, discrimination is front and center and the headmins must take a stance. This creates precedent and causes ACTUAL REPERCUSSIONS to further shape the culture. I don't know about you, but I feel like this is an important process.
Denton wrote:
Nobody is going to willingly give up their fun toys. Look at techwebs, RnD mains HATED it because it no longer made them the gatekeeper of eguns and BoHs.
Similarly, botany players hated the removal of separated chemicals and cargo players hated the removal of null crates.
If a feature is fun for a subset of players but awful for the game overall, they still won't want to see it gone.
False equivalence. Techwebs was a redistribution of wealth not a stark removal. Objects were placed into proper departments. On top of it, the omnilathe still exists (and has multiple sources and locations including a guarantee). Meanwhile, looking at separated chemicals removal, there was clear conversation and discourse about it, including bringing in someone who was versed in botany enough to explore it. If your argument is that one department and one set of mains hates removal, that's not big enough of a playing group to merit a blip. It wouldn't even get on the radar with this policy. I'll give you the counterpoint I used earlier: Xeno players were mad at losing headslugs, xenos, and nurse spiders.
The rest of the community wanted it gone. It's easy to cherry pick situations that people got upset singularly, but most of the community got incredibly upset over the loss of sleepers, not just medbay. I'd argue more than a few people were upset over the loss of Null Crates, too.
Even better, let's talk about something that just went through of "players losing their toys" that everyone wanted rebalanced: Mechs and rocket launchers. By the logic presented here, the entire community would be against this. Spoiler alert: They're not.
And you know what? Knowing how to code doesn't matter when a maintainer can flat out block you because they feel like it. Alternatively, asking someone to make a change massively out of scope for it. This policy would not address this, as it is outside the realm of community pushing PRs through, and is instead trying to address maintainers/coders having no repercussion and pushing what they want.