Addressing all authors
- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hi, I’m farottone and I’m one of the 4 guys who founded C3. I coded the control panel and the scheduler, I try to take care of most the mainstream content of the C3 admin group and I help with the sanity checks. I’m introducing myself because in the last weeks it became apparent to me that in all the efforts to keep the Rock Band franchise alive, we have recruited but we never really talked with any of the new authors about us. We’ll do that soon enough with a nice document outlining what we want to accomplish and how we want to do it, but for now I want to personally address a few issues that for me have become impossible to just ignore. I’m expressing personal thoughts so what I’m saying is not necessarily coming from C3, but then again I’m one of the guys here since the beginning, so I have a clear idea of where we want to go. Also, not every author has behaved in a way I want to address, but even if you haven’t I ask you to please read this to understand where I stand, and in part where C3 stands, on these issues.
First of all, let me tell you I never thought we would build such a solid group of authors. I appreciate all the efforts from all authors, from the guy who did 1 song and never submitted anything after that to those who release songs on a monthly basis and help with playtesting. We are the reason more than a few people are still playing the game and that is also because of all of you. People consider our releases on par if not better than Harmonix’s, all things considered (song choice, quality of work, etc.), and that is an amazing accomplishment. With that said (and it’s sincere, not something I’m saying just to balance what I’m about to tell you), there are some things that are not working and that we need to address.
I apologise for the length of this post but I want things to be laid out as clearly as possible. If you don’t want to take the time to read it, that’s fine, but it’s posted and I assume everybody reads an admin’s post, which means that if some of the behaviour outlined will be repeated in the future it’s gonna be treated as knowingly doing something an admin asked you not to do.
1) We keep seeing (fortunately not a weekly basis, but still frequent enough to warrant talking about it) negative public comments about issue with charts of songs we release. Let me get one thing clear: we are all part of a team, for better or worse. That means that we all act to support each other. That doesn’t mean ignoring issues, that means acting like people supporting each other: if you spot something that doesn’t work, PM the author and tell them what doesn’t work as soon as possible. I find it strange that I need to tell you this, because my first instinct since we started this has always been to support the people busting their asses doing this: whenever I found issues, I contacted privately the author and let him/her know there were issues, or, if the issue wasn’t problematic enough, I waited to see if we got any mention. I don’t know what it says about choosing to draw attention on an issue instead of immediately contacting the author, but it’s clear the former gives us a bad unwarranted name, the latter helps us better ourselves while looking out for each other. To be perfectly clear, if you prefer going on other forums and talk about how better you are than other authors or if you prefer to publicly point and laugh, it’s fine, but that means you have no interest in being part of a team. I personally have no interest in losing anyone of you, on the contrary: I want more and more authors to join us. And *I* am not C3. But I will also personally vote to make an author who publicly disses on what we do an external part of this project, if he’s ok with that, or no part of this project at all. We are a team, we are a team when we run and fix things for you on Thursday at 3 am in the morning so that your songs look the best they can, and we are a team when you publicly speak about all our releases. We are always a team or we never are one.
2) Not liking some stuff we do is perfectly fine. However, you have a direct channel with the people doing it, so use it. In public we support each other, in private we raise issues so we can do better. Every week I don’t release a song, I go on the forums or on the blog and I congratulate the people releasing songs even when I don’t care at all about some of the songs released. Do you need to do the same if you don’t feel like it? Of course not. Do you need to publicly give negative comments on the blog, the DB, pro upgrades, etc.? Again, no you don’t. We value criticism, I value criticism, but it must come for the right purposes and in the right way.
3) During these months I have seen an appalling amount of disrespect for other people’s work. And to me it’s a mystery how people who spend many hours on a song would not see how that kind of effort must be respected. Give feedback, it’s what we ask of you, but as another C3 admin said in private, you need to treat other people’s songs like babies. People have spent countless hours on those songs, don’t come in, work 30 minutes on a venue and think that NOW the song is a proper custom. There is NO amount of work you can do on a song that will match the effort of the author. What you do is great and very appreciated, but it’s a small fraction of what’s needed for a song, and as authors you know that better than anyone else. Mention every single issue you find in a song but respect the song and the author. And since I personally spotted a hint of self-righteousness, like some comments really, really, look like they’re made to make the commenter look good, and not to help the project, please don’t do that. When I take a look at a song, I have only one concern: is this good as it is when people will play the song at a party, by themselves, etc. or does it really need something else? I sometimes get the feeling some comments are instead born out of showing how good a playtester is at finding stuff that doesn’t work. For me, that is the opposite of what we need. I need and want to change as little as possible of the author’s work, because it’s his work and it deserves respect.
4) Finally, and we go back to the fact that we never welcomed you in, I never had the feeling that authors came in C3 understanding that we invited you in a project that has its own rules and has its own administrators. We have worked constantly, every single day, since March 1st when we first discussed the project, to create this. We worked out a structure, we planned releases, we developed tools, we set up blog, site and database, we create content so that we have at least 3 songs every given week and at least 2 mainstream releases per month, we have set up a forum that also serves as a collaboration hub and a playtesting resource… All of this means 2 things: that we know perfectly well what’s needed so that this project lives on better than anyone else, and that the amount of hours we spend each day on this makes what we say a guideline or a rule. When we say that we do something differently than what you’re used to, remember that we for the past 8 months have worked and discussed on every detail every day. So, try to understand why, ask if you don’t, but don’t assume things should be done the way you’re used to, because this is different. We set for ourselves 3 hard rules, which will be outlined in the document I told you about:
a) high quality customs
on a consistent weekly basisc) with at least once every 2 weeks mainstream content to keep the widest possible user base coming back
All we say and do go in that direction and toward those goals. We will be discussing why pursuing only one of those goals will break the project in the future (like pushing tons of famous stuff on the scheduler that is of sub par quality or wanting to devote to polishing an amount of time that would prevent sufficient authoring time for a constant stream of songs), but for now, please don’t assume we give you information made up on the spot: we worked hard and still do to make this work, understand what’s needed.
I’m gonna wrap up repeating the key point: I want (we want) to work with the widest array of authors as possible. I love the passion you all put in what you do with us. The content you provide, the playtesting you do, how you help out the community, this is all wonderful and I want to have even more of it. We’ve built a project that is seen as nothing short of amazing: take a look at forums around the Rock Band community to understand how people see us and how our work is admired. All of this is done because we, the C3 admins, know where to take this project, and you, the C3 authors, provide great content. This is team’s work. It can’t work any differently.
Thanks for reading through this, looking forward to answer any question, and again, thanks for all you do.
Farottone pretty much hit everything on the head, but I want to add a little more on the topic of interaction with others (both members of the ‘public’ and members of the ‘team’).
With regards to public interaction, the thing to remember is that anything you say can and will be taken to reflect on the project, whether you intend it to or not, and no matter how many “I do not speak for C3 when I say this” prefixes you add to it. Exercise discretion before deciding to flame someone or unload. Someone may not necessarily be being intentionally malicious, and could just be naive, and even if they’re doing something absolutely idiotic (there is a guy that has been PMing me on YouTube regarding playing customs that I hope never breeds), handle them with kid gloves. Things you say won’t necessarily just damage your e-reputation, but also those of the ‘group’ and of other authors, so please be cognisant of that before speaking.
That being said, if you feel the court of public opinion is going to support you on this, and if you have all your ducks in a row and can flawlessly eviscerate someone in the public eye, AND if you can argue it without coming across as a condescending smug douche, feel free to drop the iron fist on someone being deliberately antagonistic.
With respect to interaction with other authors in a public forum, ALL OVERT INTERACTION AND DISCUSSION OF ANOTHER C3 AUTHOR’S WORK SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTIVE (and maybe positive). You don’t have to champion their cause or defend mistakes in charting or whatever, but by the same token, don’t shit all over them for something to do. For better or worse, we are a ‘team’ (remember: anything another author says or does can reflect on you), so we should at the very least not tear each other down. Demeaning the work of others serves no benefit and does more harm than good. You are not going to get a promotion by smear campaigning the other guy.
Frankly, I don’t imagine you would appreciate it if a co-worker of yours went out and talked trash about your work to your clients, especially if he was doing it while pumping his own tires, so I have no idea why it seems to be so prevalent (then again, I work in IT, and I’ve seen how cutthroat that shit can get). There have been several examples of this to date, and it ABSOLUTELY has to stop. If you’re addressing feedback or criticism of another author’s work, use non-offensive verbiage like “I will talk to the author about that for you” or “good catch, I will see if that’s intended/can be fixed/is in error/whatever”. If it’s an issue that you, yourself, have noticed, take it up in the private board or in a PM to the author.
As an aside, if anyone ever takes anything that was said to them in confidence by a member or admin about another member or admin, and plasters it on a public forum, I will personally end them. If you want to talk about each other behind each others’ backs, that’s a reality I acknowledge exists, but no dirty laundry should ever, EVER be aired publicly. If you really have beef with a member and it is impeding your ability to function as an author/tester/whatever, come to one of us. I very often will have no horse in the race and am certainly capable of making a coldly rational decision, so you can always talk to me.
Finally, when it comes to talking to other authors in a private forum, I feel there is a resounding lack of tact in conversations among authors.
Criticism is harsh and blunt, and a lot of the time anything that differs from how you would chart it is treated as “wrong” or a “mistake” automatically, even if it could be something subjective. There’s a lot of absolutes on things that aren’t absolute and not a lot of recommendations on things that should be recommendations. With the possible exceptions of pro keys and vocals, where pitches are pitches and the only real argument for debate on charting is slide authoring, a lot of the stuff we look at is a subjective abstraction, particularly when we get to anything with five buttons. If you feel something should be different, and it’s not objectively wrong (“this note is a G rather than a G#”), try to use constructive, diplomatic recommendation-geared verbiage (“I think”, “it looks to me like”, “this might be better as”) rather than absolutes (“the drum chart is wrong and should be”, “your guitar riff is wrong”, “you made a mistake in wrapping”). Most authors have poured many hours in and the last thing they need is some flippant comment that has a tone saying “your guitar chart is wrong, I would have charted it this way, which, by the way, is the RIGHT way”.
On the flip side, if you’re an author receiving criticism, justifications such as “this is my chart” or “I don’t like that” will be insufficient. Being a snarky dick regarding received criticism also doesn’t work. Explain your rationale in such a way that explains the decision you have made (“I have charted it this way for playability”, “this is actually a second guitar”, “I have wrapped this way for consistency with a later pattern”). Do not dismiss suggestions or recommendations with the same condescending tone in which you would hate receiving them. Other authors/testers are testing your song because they do care about the quality, and you should be capable of acknowledging that (a simple “thanks for looking at it” will do, even if you don’t agree with their feedback).
To me, much of this should be common sense. You shouldn’t treat co-workers like garbage in private or in public, you shouldn’t talk trash to your customers (unless they’re the guy that walks into Home Depot and takes a dump in the toilet), and you really should sit back and think about what you say before you say it. I have said this to the admins several times, especially as it relates to our dealings with authors and testers, but keep in mind that those groups are to be held to the same standard.
(I am paranoid so please excuse me if I come off as ego-tripping here) but if any of this talk is related to my tone when playtesting or when I accidentally upset people, I try my best to keep a RBN-like professional and neutral tone for the most part in playtesting and I am sorry if that come off as bitter sometimes, and I never try to make people upset or be snarky so I am terribly sorry if I come off as such too.
Let’s see if I can add my two cents.
Hi, I’m TrojanNemo. I’m one of the guys who started this thing. Honestly, I feel out of all the admins I have the least charting ability, but they thought I was putting out enough material and I was (and definitely am) very much devoted to keeping this game alive, so I was in. Yay.
You may also know me as “that annoying moderator who is always bitching and/or blowing up at us.” That is me. I’m Cuban, I’m hot-blooded, I live in a hot city, and I care about this project. I care way too much about this project. So when I have seen posts and actions from some people who, in my eyes, offend this project, it’s been hard to contain myself. But understand that my reactions are always in the interest of the project, even if perhaps they could be worded in a nicer way.
I’m not going to go over what farottone and espher said, read that, digest it. But I wanted to bring up something else.
When C3 started, we doubted we’d get many or any authors joining. So “we” (the admins) were the authors. Then we saw some influx of authors, so we thought, “great”, and it became “authors” (admins) and “contributing authors” (the ones coming in). But you guys starting doing such a great job, and putting out way more stuff than we anticipated, so we changed C3 to make it more inclusive, since after all, we see ourselves as a team, and we welcomed you into the team. Now, we were all “authors.” For my part, this is when I shared the admin password for Visualizer.
Yet some of the actions we’ve seen online do not reflect this. It feels as if you (non-admins) see yourselves as separate from the project. You are an integral part, and therefore you should be as invested as we are. Obviously we can’t ask you to dedicate every hour of every day, like we do, but things like talking crap on release posts, talking smack on the youtube pages, taking things said in confidence and smearing them online, etc, are NOT things that makes us see you as “part of a team.” So consider whether you want to be part of this team or not, and act accordingly please. I don’t believe you’re here simply because you’re bored. I think you are here because you care about this game, and you want it to last a little bit longer. So do we.
We are not supposed to air dirty laundry, but here is some clean laundry for you.
Just how much work do the C3 admins do to keep this running?
We don’t communicate via random private messages. We have an ongoing Skype conversation, and EVERYDAY, at EVERY HOUR, we have something going on. We have Skype open on mobile devices, laptops, and work and home desktops were possible. When one of us isn’t around for a few hours, they don’t come back and ignore what was said. That’s not what a team does. He catches up, and then opines on whatever was being discussed, because we all have an equal say and we all must participate in the administration of C3.
As farottone said, he created a bunch of our web tools. He doesn’t need them, he has direct FTP access and we just KNOW what’s coming up. The scheduler, the uploader, all of those tools were created to make things easier for you and to make the project successful.
It’s been a few months since I stopped charting new songs. I’m only doing FtV of my old songs. Why? Because I simply did not have enough time between creating tools for C3, doing this admin thing, AND creating new songs. So I chose to continue creating tools for you, that I won’t be using most of the time, rather than continue creating new songs. So if I post an update to Magma or Le Fluffie, with a new feature that you won’t use or think is useless to you, and you post something like “ehhhh this is stupid, why x and y”? I will go over the internet and slap you. This is how it must have felt to pksage with the recent comments on the new and much improved database.
I am the youngest of the group, and I’m still over 25. That’s just to make sure you understand we’re not underage kids in our summer break running this. We all have jobs, careers, wives, homes, real lives and obligations, and variations of the above. Yet here we are, dedicating ourselves completely.
And just like farottone and I, every other admin is constantly working towards a successful C3 future. And I stress, working. We all take this like if it was a job. We care for it like our livelihood depends on it. So we lose sleep over it, we get headaches over it, we even get into disagreements like every good family does because we care so much.
The funny thing is, we make no money from this. No money at all. We don’t accept donations. We don’t put pesky ads in our forums or website to make ad revenue. We don’t put ads in our videos. We don’t charge you per song or to have an account here. We have literally netted $0 since we started.
But make no mistake, we have actually spent A LOT of money to make it work. For you. The files are hosted in my server, KeepItFishy.com. This has been running for many many years. But it wasn’t until this year that it was upgraded to the best my host offers. Why? Because C3 requires it. We had too many people downloading, you guys wanted more speed and more stability. So we spent the money, for you and our downloaders.
We have three different domain names that we pay for that are in some way associated with C3. We have hosting space. We have had to purchase software and assets to bring you something seemingly as simple as that 3d animation at the end of our videos. Hell, I even upgraded my computer into a monster powerhouse ONLY because I wanted to be able to continue doing the weekly preview videos for you.
Why am I telling you all this? Because I want it to be very clear. We make the rules. We enforce the rules. You follow the rules. I personally prefer a lot stronger and more of an “iron-fist” approach, but I follow what my co-admins say, and they are very lenient. So we have very lax rules. Follow them. You are allowed to discuss them with us, but do NOT assume you know better, do NOT think you can blow them off, do NOT think you are above them.
I see no difference between some of you and some of us as far as authoring ability. Hell, many of you are far superior authors than I am. That’s why I take every single feedback and implement it and thank you for your help. But when it comes to running this project, please trust that we know what we need to do and we have the utmost interest in running it as long as we can.
I’ll close by saying that if you’ve bothered to read all these three monster posts, you’re well ahead of the curve. Thank you. Make sure you follow what has been said.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The same will be applied here, so those that don’t read…well, you know.
I try my best to keep a RBN-like professional and neutral tone for the most part in playtesting.We are not *professionals* nor neutral people.
” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_smile.gif”> We are all people who put an insane amount of hours into a game we love. The less cold and bitter we are when we address each other, the better. On our motto there’s a word singled out, written in yellow. It’s “fun”. If all of this is not fun for us and for the players, it’s all for nothing. ” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_smile.gif”> This is one of the things I mean when I talk about understanding that this is a different environment for which you haven’t set or in some cases you can’t know the rules. You’re not talking to a guy/girl who’s charting a song for a group he/she has stakes in. You’re addressing someone who is here purely out of his passion. This is not RBN, this is different. ” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_smile.gif”> But that will be addressed in the document I was talking about. For now, yes, it’s also about that tone, I think me and espher clearly pointed it out. But it’s not really the tone, as you just noted. It’s about the way you think. Don’t think you need to be professional. Think you need to point out what makes the song better while respecting the amount of work done. That’s all. ” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_smile.gif”>I try my best to keep a RBN-like professional and neutral tone for the most part in playtesting.We are not *professionals* nor neutral people.
” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_smile.gif” /> We are all people who put an insane amount of hours into a game we love. The less cold and bitter we are when we address each other, the better. On our motto there’s a word singled out, written in yellow. It’s “fun”. If all of this is not fun for us and for the players, it’s all for nothing. ” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_smile.gif” /> This is one of the things I mean when I talk about understanding that this is a different environment for which you haven’t set or in some cases you can’t know the rules. You’re not talking to a guy/girl who’s charting a song for a group he/she has stakes in. You’re addressing someone who is here purely out of his passion. This is not RBN, this is different. ” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_smile.gif” /> But that will be addressed in the document I was talking about. For now, yes, it’s also about that tone, I think me and espher clearly pointed it out. But it’s not really the tone, as you just noted. It’s about the way you think. Don’t think you need to be professional. Think you need to point out what makes the song better while respecting the amount of work done. That’s all. ” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_smile.gif” />I see, though there is a bit of a problem here in that I think I manage to get across my points in playtesting easier by keeping a proffesional tone, but I will try and be a bit nicer then. Sorry
[…] if any of this talk is related to my tone when playtesting or when I accidentally upset people […]We’re not singling people out because it’s not prompted by a single person, per se, but tone in playtests in general is one example where this occurs.
To me it almost feels like there’s a little cloud of malaise or something lingering because, frankly, people are getting a little catty with each other, so I personally just want to stress that people just need to, well, not be dicks when dealing with each other (or talking about each other).
Note that you can still be ‘professional’ while using friendly language.
I see, though there is a bit of a problem here in that I think I manage to get across my points in playtesting easier by keeping a proffesional tone, but I will try and be a bit nicer then. Sorry
I don’t really think tone is the point. Now, I have no idea who said this (because I really am not trying to single out anybody, otherwise I would send a PM), but the other day I read something like “Vocals chart is good enough but here are some fixes because you can never have a perfect enough vocals chart” or something like that. The tone was perfect, I think it was very polite and probably with smileys too.. Problem is, that is not what we need.
” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_smile.gif”> Yes, you CAN have too perfect vocals chart if that time spent polishing is not spent authoring a sufficient number of songs per week (something, again, we’ll address later on). In your replies today I think you’re defending yourself or the people that we might be addressing, while there’s no need to.
” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_smile.gif”> I personally don’t need to hear “sorry” or reasons why you did some of the things we’re addressing today. I just need you to understand why we need something different, that’s it, no need to justify or explain anything, not for me at least. You don’t need to promise to write nicer things. ” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_smile.gif”> I need you to approach playtesting as a help for the project, not as a game of identifying the most issues in a song. And I think you’re doing that because you haven’t switched gears: this is how you would approach a RBN style environment. But this is not a RBN style environment, we have other concerns too and resources need to be directed to those too. 
” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_wink.gif”> That’s what I’m (we’re) trying to say.Hello, I am Gigakoops. As I’ve been authoring here for the past several weeks, I’ve noticed my fair share of positive and negative behavior. I’m not afraid to admit sometimes I have made less-than-positive comments about certain things. I would also like to explain that sometimes things I say may be taken the wrong way. While I can’t say I’m new to the internet or anything, I sometimes still struggle with tone. Sometimes I attempt to make a lighthearted comment about something to hopefully say something that could be changed nicely, but sometimes the reactions throws me off guard. I will not point to any examples, but I do try to apologize if I accidentally set someone off.
This isn’t necessarily an apologetic post, but rather sort of an explanation as to what I’ve experienced, and what my intentions are most of the time, even if I don’t seem to come off this way to some folk around here.
Please note that my response is not necessarily a direct response to Farottone’s comments (whom I have great respect for,) but is a general statement of what I have been thinking over the last few months.
I made the mistake once of clicking in the “Private C3 Forums” and commenting on someone’s work. I thought anything I post in an area called “Private C3 Forums” would be kept in the private realm between authors. But it wasn’t. There is no way I would have knowingly said anything negative in a public space. That was partly my mistake and partly a site design issue with having public links in private areas. Even though I won’t make that mistake again, I’m sure someone else will at some point which is why I think those links should be moved out of the private area. Labeling them “Global Announcements” is ok but I don’t think is enough.
I have to disagree a little about the rightness or wrongness of how to chart 5-lane instruments. The spirit of what you are saying is true that there is room for a lot of flexibility and interpretation, but there are many things that are right and wrong about the process too: (Missing notes are usually wrong. Adding extra notes that are not there is wrong. The exact same note(s) or chord(s) charted to different lanes is often wrong, especially within the same section or repeating sections of songs. Not having enough overdrive in a song to Gold Star it is wrong. Adding a solo marker when there is no solo or not adding the solo marker when there is one is often right or wrong.) Most of these things are annoyingly frustrating to a player like me who primarily plays 5-lane guitar. Of course, we don’t need to be dogmatic about it when commenting on someone’s chart.
I will often spend 2 hours play-testing just one instrument so as to give useful feedback on a song that I care about, (and also knowing that we are light on play-testers.) Do you know how frustrating it is to do that and then have it mostly ignored or to be told in so many words to go away? (Yes, you probably do.) The result is that people (meaning “I”) will lose interest in helping in this way.
I am probably going to ruffle some feathers now: There is definitely a “this is my sandbox” mentality to this site that could eventually bring it down, or at least keep it from growing. And I don’t want to see that happen. The statement that “We make the rules” etc. (even using a scolding tone of all caps) might be true but it is not helpful if the goal is to get people like me to stick around and do this along with you. The truth of the matter is that out of necessity a few people are administering the site and providing the tools and infrastructure, at a cost, and that should be respected (and certainly is by me.) But that administration is not an end unto itself. It is there for a bigger purpose, right? If the goal is to get people like me to come in and willingly carry some of the load then you may need to bend (I didn’t say break) to the will of the very community that you are inviting in.
I am at a tipping point as to whether I will continue doing this for C3 or how much I will. I want to. But, I too have a family, a job, and other responsibilities that could use more attention. I’m telling you plainly that having what I perceive to be a”sandbox” mentality extend beyond the basic administration of the site is what will tip me to one direction or the other. Remember, perception is reality. And, it has to be fun.
I should probably not have said anything. I really don’t want to get into any kind of back and forth. But I feel that you would want to know what others are really thinking so as to find ways to improve the site or the process and make this more fun for everyone involved. Despite the issues, it has been rewarding. And I definitely thank you all for putting this together.
Very good points and well written. I will let the others expand, as I expect they will. I just have two things to respond to:
I will often spend 2 hours play-testing just one instrument so as to give useful feedback on a song that I care about, (and also knowing that we are light on play-testers.) Do you know how frustrating it is to do that and then have it mostly ignored or to be told in so many words to go away? (Yes, you probably do.)
That’s the problem though. Most of the time we don’t WANT you to spend 2 hours playtesting one instrument. I would much rather get 30 minutes worth of playtesting (say, on Expert only) on four instruments, than 2 hours of playtesting (down to the minutiae of how Easy “feels”) on one instrument. Specially, if I ask for eyes on Pro Keys and I get two hours’ worth of feedback on Guitar.
No doubt your effort is appreciated, but it’s not the optimal way to spend your time or the time of the author. For my part, I strongly feel that most of you are way above me in charting ability, so I don’t interpret feedback, I trust playtesters and I integrate feedback 100% of what I’m given.
So I am thankful for what I get. Just pointing out one of the things I know is annoying.
There is definitely a “this is my sandbox” mentality to this site that could eventually bring it down, or at least keep it from growing. And I don’t want to see that happen. The statement that “We make the rules” etc. (even using a scolding tone of all caps) might be true but it is not helpful if the goal is to get people like me to stick around and do this along with you.
I’m probably to blame the most here. I know my co-admins are most interested in maintaining this. As we said, we don’t make any money or plan to at any point. So the end goal is THIS. To keep it running, to keep creating songs for this game, so it doesn’t die.
That being said, it’s gotten to the point of “we make the rules” because just being nice, being polite, hinting, nudging and then saying it nicely, has not yielded results. After enough politeness it has to come to a point where you make the point. There are rules. They need to be followed. This is the same everywhere you go online. Only difference is, most other places the people who create the rules are not the ones who enforce them, whereas we have no choice but to enforce them ourselves.
I will often spend 2 hours play-testing just one instrument so as to give useful feedback on a song that I care about, (and also knowing that we are light on play-testers.) Do you know how frustrating it is to do that and then have it mostly ignored or to be told in so many words to go away? (Yes, you probably do.) The result is that people (meaning “I”) will lose interest in helping in this way.
I don’t know why you get the idea that playtest is ignored or that you’re being told to go away, honestly. I have made more than a few comments on songs that have not been implemented (if that has happened to you too), I can’t see how that would be a problem: ultimately I spent 20 minutes on a song, the author spent hours on that, if an issue is not a deal breaker, let the authors choose what’s right for them.
But that administration is not an end unto itself. It is there for a bigger purpose, right? If the goal is to get people like me to come in and willingly carry some of the load then you may need to bend (I didn’t say break) to the will of the very community that you are inviting in.
That’s the point I was making. In example, when I say “the best way to get feedback is to have the issues you found divided in errors and suggestions, so authors can quickly parse through those”, NOBODY ever follows that. Why? As I said, I think almost all the authors that have joined have come in with a pre-conceived notions on how things should be done. That’s ok, we all have our own ideas on how things should be done and run. However, we (C3 admins) have spent many days discussing this project, so we know where to take it and what’s needed. You, meaning you the authors, can’t possibly know that because, fortunatetely, you didn’t have to put in all that time. What I’m saying though is that, while you can’t know that, some act like they do. I’m sorry if reading that is a put off for them but it had to be addressed.
” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_smile.gif”> “We make the rules, you follow them” is not an approach I subscribe to, and it definitely has never been the way I felt about this. However, after seeing that anything I said (again, remember this is MY position, I’m not necessarily expressing C3 thoughts ) was ignored or discussed as if it was a simple opinion, and that was going to the detriment of the project, I had to address the situation. When you read “We make the rules, you follow them” you should read, as I hoped I articulated enough in my post, “When have spent days and money to come up with the perfect plan, please before thinking you know best, try to follow our guidelines and ask why, if you don’t understand why we decided to go in a certain direction”.
A very simple example of how we have the project’s goal in sight and you understandably don’t? Many authors have spent a lot of time discussing the small details of playtesting: we have devolved some playtesting threads to discuss a repeating pattern or chords. However, I haven’t read a single post about the fact that from here to November we have ONE non-C3 admin produced song on the scheduler and that a single author had to put in songs enough to fill an entire month of releases. No song = no project, in short. But not a single word was written on that. By anybody.
I get it, doing this, any part of this, is hard, I don’t think that even needs to be said. And I also get that since this is hard, people tend to do what they like and prefer to do and in a way that satisfies them. Almost all authors get a kick out of discussing minutias of authoring, not planning what should be released on October, week 3, if the content is mainstream enough, if FtV release for that week counterbalance that week’s release genre so that everybody has something to download, etc. I understand that and I don’t blame anyone for doing that nor I’m saying they should do any different. However, that’s an essential part of the project. When I, and I repeat I (because on the matter of how deep playtesting should be my opinions are even more personal than on anything else and not those of C3 as a whole), say that too much work polishing a release means less time to work on new releases, I would expect at least a simple nod, a simple “Right, of course, you also have to worry about putting out enough content”. Instead, the discussion goes on about how important it is to have perfect songs and nothing less. Just as if, again, what I say was a simple opinion and not a guideline for the project.
I’m sorry if anybody feels discouraged about doing this. I personally have done a lot to keep morale up: I congratulate people on release day, I point out all the sources where people talk so highly about us, I give feedback when needed, I keep on saying how much I appreciate everybody’s efforts, I contribute to community’s projects. But *for me*, there comes a point where what we need to keep this project alive comes before any personal interest. And anybody who understands what’s needed is an integral part of the team and the project, regardless of the amount of hours they are willing to put in, and when we celebrate our first year of operations it will be my privilege to thank them for what they helped us build. For those who don’t, I’m afraid I don’t have much to add: it’s great having them here, it’s great having their feedback, their content, etc., but if they operate outside our scope, personally I can’t devolve any more energy on explaining why they’re not instrumental to the project as they could be, and if they operate in a way that harms the project, I will vote to not keep them in.
My peers have addressed most of this, so I just want to touch on a couple of things.
I have to disagree a little about the rightness or wrongness of how to chart 5-lane instruments. The spirit of what you are saying is true that there is room for a lot of flexibility and interpretation, but there are many things that are right and wrong about the process too […] I will often spend 2 hours play-testing just one instrument so as to give useful feedback on a song that I care about, (and also knowing that we are light on play-testers.) Do you know how frustrating it is to do that and then have it mostly ignored or to be told in so many words to go away? (Yes, you probably do.) The result is that people (meaning “I”) will lose interest in helping in this way.This comes down to that whole “respecting your peers” thing. Yes, something may be objectively wrong, but if it is, there’s a chance the author is not aware as to why it is wrong or has made a knowing decision to author it differently. This is why you need to select the right tone to avoid a catfight. Similarly, the author receiving the feedback needs to respect their peers by addressing the feedback (in a courteous manner) and, if they refuse to implement it, providing a solid explanation as to why (that can’t be boiled down to “it’s this way just because”).
This doesn’t happen often enough, from both sides, and is one of the things I was addressing in my previous wall of text in this thread.
I am probably going to ruffle some feathers now: There is definitely a “this is my sandbox” mentality to this site that could eventually bring it down, or at least keep it from growing. And I don’t want to see that happen. The statement that “We make the rules” etc. (even using a scolding tone of all caps) might be true but it is not helpful if the goal is to get people like me to stick around and do this along with you. […] If the goal is to get people like me to come in and willingly carry some of the load then you may need to bend (I didn’t say break) to the will of the very community that you are inviting in.I’ll be a little blunt here — I haven’t been previously but I understand that people don’t see the ‘behind the scenes’ stuff or understand how/why we’re starting to get firmer and firmer with the rulebook.
The fact of the matter is that we’ve been extremely flexible and have “bent” to the will of the community on a number of things, and it hasn’t worked out in the long term. Being flexible and not being firm and adding a lot of ‘structure’ (something I wanted far more of) has led to songs being insufficiently tested, released with flaws, scheduled when they’re far from done, and issues like us putting out 14 and 15 song weeks and then having one author, as farottone mentions, fill the schedule for the foreseeable future. It has added stress to the people “running the show”, so to speak, because we’re the ones that have to roll up our sleeves and try to make sure everything is together on time.
Politely asking and hinting and nudging and trying to coax people into implementing the changes that would make this better hasn’t worked all that well, so sometimes we have to put our feet down and get heavy-handed. Even as a panel of administrators, we disagree on a lot of things, but when push comes to shove we make a democratic decision and everyone sticks to it. I would love to get more input from the authors on things but there have been several ‘feedback’ and ‘procedural’ threads that have gotten ignored, so that window for ‘flexibility’ and ‘bending’ is closing.
I don’t disagree with your cautionary tale, and while I would love to have this be a fully collaborative effort where everyone has a ton of time to sink in and is dedicated to pushing through tons of content, the reality is that we all (admins, authors, the rare active tester) have other shit to do. Some of us are putting far more time into this shit than into our other shit, and for our sanity, we need to add some structure (though, again, not as much as I’d like).
By the way, I sincerely appreciate the replies we had and the time you all set aside to read this thread.
Yes, something may be objectively wrong, but if it is, there’s a chance the author is not aware as to why it is wrong or has made a knowing decision to author it differently. This is why you need to select the right tone to avoid a catfight.This right here is the bulk of the message I’d like to convey. Thanks for typing stuff so I didn’t have to, espher!
The fact of the matter is that we’ve been extremely flexible and have “bent” to the will of the community on a number of things, and it hasn’t worked out in the long term. Being flexible and not being firm and adding a lot of ‘structure’ (something I wanted far more of) has led to songs being insufficiently tested, released with flaws, scheduled when they’re far from done, and issues like us putting out 14 and 15 song weeks and then having one author, as farottone mentions, fill the schedule for the foreseeable future. It has added stress to the people “running the show”, so to speak, because we’re the ones that have to roll up our sleeves and try to make sure everything is together on time.…and so is this. If we ever seem particularly harsh or iron-fisted, it’s because C3 is like herding cats, and sometimes you have to be strict to get anything done. We’re trying to walk this line very carefully, and as farottone said in the previous post, we really appreciate you guys taking the time to talk to us about it. We want what’s best for everyone, not just us.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.