You know the only other female member of the review team is Ether and she rarely reviews any more, right?In post 66, Apple Jack wrote:Especially one reviewer who I won't name by name, she approves way to many unbalanced games imo
Can vouch for this; when we have someone we think has the skills, we're more than happy to scout them out.In post 74, callforjudgement wrote:I was invited to the NRG. I didn't apply. I'm not the only person who was invited to the NRG, either.
Admittedly though, I've slacked off on suggestions, though that's been in part thanks to these changes being upcoming for quite some time and knowing that a new reviewer might not be accepted given that. (Otherwise I would have suggested both nsg and Mathdino among others.)
With respect, Nexus, and this is a problem with mafiascum as a whole that applies to every aspect of it: WeIn post 57, Nexus wrote:Why don’t we see how it goes rather than tearing it down before it starts?
say
this ("give it a chance"), and then later down the road when it's shown that the people who were raising concerns raised valid points (we give it a chance and it doesn't work)...nothing is done to change the system for various reasons and then nothing gets done.This is a source of great discontent; I know for a fact this sentiment exists in a great number of active users because they've literally told me exactly this much before. They are upset, upset at essentially not being listened to and yes this is one of the reasons why there is an INCREDIBLE sentiment that there is a fundamental divide between mafiascum administration (the skittles team) and mafiascum users; they don't feel like their feedback is actually being welcomed. And I can understand why they feel that way.
A good way to address flaws in the system is to when we can see the flaws in the system immediately provide feedback (preferably in the form of constructive criticism with healthy dosages of positive reinforcement of the good while acknowledging the needs-work/not-so-good). There's a reason we have the saying "strike while the iron is hot" and slothfulness is considered a sin.
Just pushing the points aside on "let's give it a chance" has, time and time again, on site been shown to produce an environment where...
...It then never gets revisited in spite of everyone knowing on some level it needs to be. Why it doesn't get revisited, I wouldn't be able to tell you precisely, but the fact is it's undeniable that by and large it DOESN'T get revisited.
As an example of what I feel is good to do instead, there was a new Newbie setup proposed. "Why don't we see how it goes" would have led to hundreds of games using that setup in spite of people raising valid concerns about the setup in question. Instead, the newbie setup design team listened to the feedback and made a newer setup which by and large people
are
happy with. And NOW, with that
, we're in the "why don't we see how it goes" phase. (I mean, you can't please everyone, but the newer newbie setup pleases more people than the originally proposed one would have.)I do agree with the sentiment; we can't dismiss ideas without trying them first. But we shouldn't refuse to make changes off of valid feedback because we're set on trying out a new system. Quite the opposite. When we are trying out a new system is
precisely
the time to receive and implement that feedback.This is actually something the new system is fairly conductive for and something to this nature would be a good way to get new blood in.In post 69, AnonymousGhost wrote:Would you consider the idea of taking "students" - people who want to become a normal reviewer or just get the experience of how to mod a balanced game without having to mod many game - who'd "job shadow" normal reviewers?
Maybe after a certain period of time has passed, the "students" could graduate into the position of a normal reviewer? Or maybe "graduate" into a "back up" reviewer and then graduate to "normal reviewer"?
Were we to implement it, I imagine though that it'd be idea for the primary reviewer if they just instantly /pass the setup to have a rundown of the entire setup/game and explain it in detail and why they are passing it, so that the students can actually get a sense of the reasoning and logic behind the process. (Just an instant naked /pass doesn't tell the student anything other than "well guess the reviewer thought this setup was balanced, wonder why though?".)
