Rather than locking the thread and in doing so suppressing this discussion, could you not hand out tempbans (And if necessary, delete offending posts so as to avoid diluting the actual discussion) instead?
While I don't disagree:
This is bait. I could retort by copy-pasting that same line in response and ignore the rest of the post; Dismissing an essay's worth of argumentation and opinion as objectively wrong so as to avoid having to address any other points, at which point you're well on your way down the slip-slide into shit-slinging.
Exaggerated but true; I agree that crowdfunded projects are inherently more exploitable because in paying towards them, you don't receive a complete product in return. However, crowdfunding is a means to the completion of a project, not an exchange of money for goods; any content offered as a reward is just that. You are not buying the game its self, you are donating to the people making it, for which many give you access to in-dev versions of that project in return. People's lack of understanding in this fact is a large part of what enables such exploitation. Again, the platforms could do better in protecting people against their own ignorance.
More hyperbole. "Worthwhile" is subjective. Go back to that scenario and imagine; You come across someone developing a game that's all about it. Are you going to ignore it because the developer's asking for money to help support them while they make it, or even better, hire some people so it's made to a higher standard, potentially finished quicker and/or with more content? I think I can answer that for you; no, you sit from afar checking its progress every now and then just like any other game in development, without spending a dollar yourself.
Moderation. In terms of how it affects the forum, a crowdfunded developer posting in their game's thread with an update of some kind is no different from someone going to a non-crowdfunded game-in-dev's thread and relaying an approximated translation of the dev's latest blog post.
The few CF threads I follow have only been bumped by the dev posting actual news about their games or the state of its development. Sometimes followed shortly by the odd question, suggestion or "Thumbs up good job sounds great" and it slides down until the next one. Can you point to any examples of behavior falling outside of that? Or do you see behavior that fits this pattern as problematic?
However, @Ninja_Named_Bob, you are the one of the people fostering the us vs them attitude. You've now stated your opinion is that you can dismiss the concerns of anyone directly impacted as baseless simply because they disagree with you. That is, in a nutshell, the very essence of the post-truth attitude. For reference, there are publicly viewable thread view counts. The data so far suggests that there is a negative impact on traffic, although it's too early to draw definitive conclusions (and my data is incomplete with regards to past traffic, obviously. If a mod wants to give me historical data I can do some proper analysis - right now I've got some good estimates which I would be amazed if they're wrong, as well as comparing aggregate stats on threads in both sections, but it is conceivably possible that there's something weird in the data which I haven't seen). The concerns of the people who rely on traffic from ULMF to (ultimately) fund adult games are grounded in reality.
I am not developing a game and do not run any form of crowdfunding campaign; nor am I associated with anyone who is or does.
I agree, but there is a third option I'd prefer.
For me, it's more that some participants in this thread seem to be so vocal because they dislike crowdfunding in principle.
As I've explained, in my opinion this is something of a gray area. I do realise the benefit - I also don't see that benefit as a good tradeoff against issue #1, especially when it wouldn't stop such people from exhibiting that behavior regardless. However, others - particularly people who have contributed to a campaign - may have legitimate concerns they wish to discuss in those threads. While rare, such discussions are equally prone to devolve into shit-slinging which is where moderation trumps segregation, which in this respect is a mechanical "solution" to a people problem.
Pending your reasoning as to how and why they wouldn't work (Other than the obvious effort to create/maintain the infrastructure), tags and filters are the ideal browsing experience in any catalog. Server browsers, online market-places, music libraries, etc
1) That could be adjusted. As it stands, I've seen few who oppose the change. HW was kind enough to post a screencap of the discord where it was discussed for a few moments before being put aside as a "let's see what happens" situation. Personally, "In Development" deserves its own place on the first subsection to increase exposure. Unfortunately, that's a can of worms I'm not capable of opening without spillage.
I'm gonna counter this point. While there are some who will go out of their way to shitpost the problems with crowdfunding, I haven't seen them in this thread. There are those with practical, even reasonable concerns about the concept as a whole, and we've discussed to death the issues it presents. Part of the reorganization was to acknowledge those concerns and figure out a means to alleviate them somewhat. I'll reiterate, I've posited a few suggestions to punish some of the less-savvy "projects" and have faced rejection on the principles of fairness and equality. I would hardly rush, then, to accuse darkfire or anyone else of trying to undermine those principles with this change.
Similarly, too many campaigns that don't deserve funding receive it from people who probably have too much money to know what to do with it. It's a grey area that has no easy answer, and the more we discuss it, the closer we get to a satisfying resolution. Unfortunately, seldom do both sides care about the outcome and more about shit-slinging. I'll admit to my part on that.
Obvious issues aside, it doesn't alleviate the issue of sifting through content that's incomplete vs content that is. Granted, people can use their own discretion at that point, but I digress. A combined tagging/sorting system would be optimized and work to alleviate concerns over devs or non-users dropping a bare-bones alpha or no-content crowdfunding page and then vanishing. Part of the hate crowdfunding gets is those people alone.
A couple contradictions, there. First, you imply I'm opposed to truth. The opposite is the truth, actually. I'm open to it; but, I also look gift horse in the mouth. I know from experience not to assume something is because someone says so. It's the height of arrogance to suggest I'm wrong and opposed to fact-finding when my position has been, from the very start, let time tell its tale.
Arguable, at best. You have to first substantiate that there is a correlation between historical data and current data, then present an irrefutable position that concludes the concerns are indeed legitimate. However, historical data is either irretrievable, or blended with current data. Let's assume 10 people viewed a patreon thread before the change. A sudden drop to 5 views could be attributed to the change.
At the very best, you've demonstrated a tenuous grasp of how statistics works. There are two testable hypotheses, and one untestable without historical data. The untestable one is that traffic on ULMF is somehow different to every other forum on the Internet. I can't rule this out, but it does seem unlikely, and the fact that there is a contingent of people complaining about Patreon threads in the main section does suggest they had visibility there at least equivalent to other threads. The testable hypotheses are on currently observed data, and are that a) if there is a drop in thread traffic relative to the main forum and b) the quantity of the drop in thread traffic relative to the main forums. The data suggests, with pretty high confidence (about the probability of flipping a coin 4 times and getting all heads) that there is indeed a drop in traffic in all the sub-forums that were created relative to the main forum. However, the confidence on this measure isn't yet high enough to accept it as truth, it could be a fluke, although it is unlikely. I'll need a couple more days of observations to say for certain. The second hypothesis is the magnitude of the drop in traffic, and my margin for error on this is quite high so I'll wait until I have more data.
Had to reply to this, because this is a really good point; the only problem with it is that the Games Under Construction forum is still a sub-forum and thus much less likely to get noticed, but I figure in a few weeks we can see what the viewcount/reply count is on threads there vs when they were in the main forum. Would be good if Darkfire could post some example topic's viewcounts on average before the change and after the change a month later or something like that.
Even as a sub forum it's content is largely middling or better English. That content also doesn't require applying a translation patch. These two factors alone should drive browsers in that direction.
There is a statistical probability you're right as much as there is one you're wrong. It's subjective at this point, given we're the only relevant parties. It's also highly improbable that conclusive data can correlate a certainty on either probability, given that the two opposing views are equal to each other. Therefore, your assumption is a hypothesis to which the data cannot validate. It's a flimsy theory if we're going by statistics. It cannot be debated, since neither side can come to an agreement based on the data presented which side is more correct.
Incorrect. I'm establishing a counter-hypothesis that states not only is your presumption of only three options existing preposterous, but wholly inaccurate with respect to the data presented. Please provide further data so we can arrive at the proper conclusion.
Facetious at best for 3 reasons:
Again, you contradict yourself. You say that it is observable (and it is, to a degree), and then posit a probability with no certain outcome. It's possible to flip a coin 20 times and never have it land on heads, inasmuch as it's possible to get the same result all the time. That doesn't mean the coin is in some way responsible for the outcome. It's random happenstance that it landed that way. Attributing statistical probability to something uncontrollable is unscientific, don't you think?
I'm gonna get personal a moment and say just from experience of your own contradictions that you're probably not the body to measure this accurately. Not to say I won't accept the results if your accuracy is on-point, but I would also want that historical data to verify what you come up with further. If Darkfire or someone is willing to provide it, then we can debate the topic further. My issue is, as you've said, the limited timetable we're working from currently doesn't lend itself to accurately reporting the difference between now and then with respect to traffic. It's wholly reliant on presumption that there is a difference, and that the change is to blame rather than additional factors which the old system would have lent itself to.
Presupposition based on personal bias. If you're for legitimate debate, you'll permit my view regardless of whether I have a tenuous grasp or not. You presently aren't, which is why I'll reject your "evidence" on principle. You also falsely attribute qualities to my person to fit your narrative, a common behavior of persons who do not want to debate, but instead prefer dissenting views are squashed and denied a fair platform. "Post-truth" is your schtick, sir, and I'll not have any of it. You are permitted to meet me on equal terms, or do the reasonable thing and forfeit your position.
Your data then needs to give the new system a proper period of 2-3 weeks rather than a few days. A single week is highly inaccurate to determine the overall reception to something. Hell, a AAA developer would laugh you out of the room for trying to pass off week 1 as a completely accurate representation of consumer interest. Your grasp on how statistics are measured is appalling.
Mandatory tag(s) and a filter system would make it even easier to find such content, both known to you and new to you.
Titties without borders
A filtering system requires the average person to give enough damns to use it. The simplest choice (and the one that was accepted in the reorganization thread) was to separate content by its relative completion. I'm fine with tags and think it's an addition Darkfire should consider, even apply on top of the change. It's also a combined option I noticed HW conveniently forgot to add to their poll. Hm...
Isn't that the argument in favor of the change? I can see where your issue is, that being it segregates content and forces users to do some extra work to find that which is relevant to them. I think do think it's more legwork than the average person wants to do, though not as much as "everything in the same pile" and "sort through it with tags". As I've said, a combination segregation/tagging system is highly preferable. People who don't want to look or use the search function are SoL on principle, then.
It's easy to address something without being the body in charge of making it happen. I applaud your humility in admitting your perspective. Also, a moment of silence for tentacle-chan, whom was an unfortunate victim of the software change and will no longer honor our front page with her presence.
Meanwhile, hours ago...
When you stop presuming and attacking, you find that debates can be fruitful. In this case, you're so caught up in trying to discredit someone that you're disregarding their platform completely. This is why your position is neither reliable or valid. You don't want debate. You want people to agree on the basis that you say you know better without actually knowing better. As soon as I suggested your position contradicted itself, you want on the offensive with attacking me rather than my position. Now, you can cite kettles and pots all you want, but it doesn't actually help your case. It hurts it, that you're so content to lower yourself rather than rising above and establishing your position better.
There you go, once more presupposing you know better rather than admitting that your hypothesis is highly flawed. And, btw, statistics are generally simple and easy to understand so the average person can understand them. You've failed on recognizing that basic fact. So far, you're so far removed from reality it's painful to watch.
You actually can't observe the traffic ULMF sees on average. Here's an experiment: count hourly the amount of users that are online. Do that for a week, and then come back with an estimate based on the observable data. Couple that with unregistered visitors (you can't measure that accurately, don't even try to bullshit this) and then ask the staff to provide a record of the timeline. I'll wager your data is completely off-target. Hell, I'll eat a ban if I'm wrong. I'm that confident you're that full of shit.
Because it is. What's your evidence to suggest the contrary? Besides your own baseless suppositions that haven't actually established anything except an obvious bias? Also, gonna need you to cite your credentials and btw, argument from authority is a fallacy. Based on what you've posited here, you're either shit at your job, or lying. So, great job ousting yourself as an incompetent failure or a bad liar.