This post outlines a suggestion for how CDI members could format their ‘Proposals’ in CDI topics. It also puts forward a suggestion for general discussion post word counts.
Suggested Proposal Format:
Proposal Overview
<A short description of the proposal that is being put forward>
Goal of Proposal
<What problem are you trying to solve with your proposal>
Proposal Functionality
<How does your proposal work in regard in relation to the current design of GW2>
Associated Risks
<What risks or problems can you foresee with this proposal which you would like to have assistance on from other members of the CDI>
Please try to be as concise as feasible with your proposal. This however no suggested word count for proposal posts.
Discussion Posts
No suggested format.
Suggested Post Word Count:
200
I wanted to post this first before putting up the new CDI topics to get a quick read on your thoughts.
This is a pretty good approach to making the proposals manageable and digestible to the casual (and more interested) reader. I think that a suggested word count of 150 may be unnecessarily limiting, but I agree that we don’t want things being so long that people approach it with a “tl;dr” mentality. Terseness is generally rewarded by being responded to. I also think there should be flexibility in case there are a lot of problems that can be addressed by a single proposal… It should really depend on what is being put forth. I think you could get rid of that part and play it by ear.
Also, for the record, I look forward to the next CDI topics with baited breath.
[VZ] Valor Zeal – Stormbluff Isle – Looking for steady, casual-friendly NA raiders!
This is a pretty good approach to making the proposals manageable and digestible to the casual (and more interested) reader. I think that a suggested word count of 150 may be unnecessarily limiting, but I agree that we don’t want things being so long that people approach it with a “tl;dr” mentality. Terseness is generally rewarded by being responded to. I also think there should be flexibility in case there are a lot of problems that can be addressed by a single proposal… It should really depend on what is being put forth. I think you could get rid of that part and play it by ear.
Also, for the record, I look forward to the next CDI topics with baited breath.
Thanks for the feedback Rising Dusk. I to am looking forward to starting them to.
We are currently running behind due to having a rather busy and exciting week (-: and I needed to get this up first before the topics.
Does this format apply to all CDI’s?
In my opionion it wont really fit to the ranger CDI for example.
If I look at the proposals that have been delivered so far, most of them can’t be displayed within a 150 word count.
The problem I see with this is, that many people have a very clear vision of what they want to have changed.
There are lots of detailed weaponskill suggestions or trait suggestions which are very nice.
I can understand that you don’t want to read through walls of text and I bet we will hit the 100 posts in the ranger CDI within the 1 hour ( ), but the word count cuts our ablility to outline our suggestions if we also have to mention pros, cons and the problems, which should be solved with our suggestions.
150 words is way too low to express all you’re talking about. Your first post, which contains almost nothing, is already at 129 words.
It’s impossible to express and give arguments about a problem, and then propose a solution, with such a short post.
Thanks Chris, I’m one of those that hasn’t contributed much to the CDI process because it all came across as ‘walls of text’ and a ‘bunch of links’.
I look forward to the evolving process.
A warrior, a guardian, and an elementalist walk into an open field…
The Warrior turns to the guardian and says, “Did you hear something?”
Guardian replies, “No, but how’d the elementalist die?”
150 words is way too low to express all you’re talking about. Your first post, which contains almost nothing, is already at 129 words.
It’s impossible to express and give arguments about a problem, and then propose a solution, with such a short post.
The problem I see with this is, that many people have a very clear vision of what they want to have changed.
There are lots of detailed weaponskill suggestions or trait suggestions which are very nice.
I can understand that you don’t want to read through walls of text and I bet we will hit the 100 posts in the ranger CDI within the 1 hour ( ), but the word count cuts our ablility to outline our suggestions if we also have to mention pros, cons and the problems, which should be solved with our suggestions.
Ah I see you. You were referring to word count.Yes I would still like to ‘Suggest’ we try to stay below 200 but I understand your comment better now (-:
150-200 words…..Darn,..no more walls of text….
…..Actually, I’m totally okay with that!
Me to. I believe it will lead to higher value discussions, problem solving and ideation.
Chris
Hmmm… limiting myself to 150 to 200 word? I don’t think it can be done, since I have this ridiculous need to overstate pretty much everything I say to make sure that the reader understand exactly what it is I’m saying/proposing. It’s very difficult for me to truncate what I have to say into such a limiting manner. It goes against my very nature as someone that is almost always passionate about the topics I feel I need to discuss.
How can I, as someone that might have an idea that would benefit the game as a whole, possibly give enough detail to back up my thoughts or suggestions in a mere 150 to 200 words? It doesn’t seem plausible without removing so much that the point becomes unclear to its true purpose? My ideas are usually so complex that it would take 150 to 200 words just for the title of the suggestion idea.
TL;DR… 150 to 200 word limit is fine with me. Just pulling your chain.
Well, I’m not complaining, but I paly ranger since first beta week-end….and I had quite a lot of thoughts about the class (and I’m one of the “wall of text” guys).
150 words for proposal is more than enough, but may we merge more than one suggestion in one post? Just to avoid creating a new post for everything!!!
Associated Risks
<What risks or problems can you foresee with this proposal which you would like to have assistance on from other members of the CDI>
This portion is mostly useless without Peer-Review. I’d request 1-post response allowances for Peer review, otherwise there’s no real discussion taking place. Just a popularity contest for bad ideas from WoW/EQ that don’t fit EITHER of the main themes of Guildwars2 or Guildwars1. In nearly all cases back in the Wiki/Guru days, the community self-moderated itself in this regard and prevented discussion with Gw1 developers from being an endless war. The community should continue to be trusted to maintain that status quo until proven it cannot.
150-200 words…..Darn,..no more walls of text….
…..Actually, I’m totally okay with that!
I can remember you where one of these guys posting walls of text.
I totally was, and still am in many places! But since the Devs have spoken, I will keep my epic "walls of text’ no larger than, perhaps a ‘brick of text’, atleast in these CDI threads.
I wouldn’t worry about the word count guys as long as you are shot and precise and do not ramble into multiple topics.
For example, if you have many suggestions on the ranger make separate posts 1 for reach point you are trying to get across.
Something such as Buff Pet damage is a complete different topic than Buff Long Bow.
Each proposal should have why the topic needs to be addressed and clear bullet points.
You won’t be able to address multiple topics so easily without rambling which is what the Dev’s want to avoid. They need to read this two and be able to read this to and Wall of Text is the ULTIMATE EVIL
If you can address a topic in 4-5 bullet points. Each bullet point being a sentence or two and not a paragraph, you’ll be OK. You don’t need to readdress why you think these changes will be good in this discussion, that is what the Goal of proposal is for if I read this correctly.
I sure hope this isn’t directed towards the Ranger CDI. I don’t even know how I or anyone else is supposed to even hit the tip of the iceberg with 150 words. All this does is support the “band-aids only” design philosophy so many Rangers are worried you guys have seemingly adopted so vehemently. Do we really believe we’re going fix any real issues with a bunch of single, unfocused suggestions(or actual fixes)? We need to sit down and discuss what we all want the Ranger to be (or at the very least what ANet wants it to be) and then how we’re going to get there and that’s going to take more than 150 words. Sorry.
are detailed, exact, comprehensive suggestions what the devs are looking to get out of the CDI? i cant imagine yall need us to tell you more than “xxxx sucks because of ____” with maybe some kind of general suggestion for direction.
I sure hope this isn’t directed towards the Ranger CDI. I don’t even know how I or anyone else is supposed to even hit the tip of the iceberg with 150 words. All this does is support the “band-aids only” design philosophy so many Rangers are worried you guys have seemingly adopted so vehemently. Do we really believe we’re going fix any real issues with a bunch of single, unfocused, suggestions(or actual fixes)? We need to sit down and discuss what we all want the Ranger to be (or at the very least what ANet wants it to be) and then how we’re going to get there and that’s going to take more than 150 words. Sorry.
Before proposing and explaining a solution, we should also talk about what we feel is the problem. Making clear to everyone what we think is the problem and why, with arguments, then propose and explain with detail a solution, need some words.
Proposing solutions without first explaining what is the problem and why, is just completely useless.
are detailed, exact, comprehensive suggestions what the devs are looking to get out of the CDI? i cant imagine yall need us to tell you more than “xxxx sucks because of ____” with maybe some kind of general suggestion for direction.
My honest opinion on this is probably not something that will be taken on board, but in the interests of feedback, I’ll give it anyway. We are running the risk of going overboard with the analysing and bureaucracy of these CDI’s now, with more threads for disssecting and now formatting than the CDI’s.
The CDI’s are really useful things, but this isn’t a corporate boardroom or an English essay exam where we need to go overboard on the red tape. This is a community forum, where anyone should be encouraged to post constructive and concise feedback in a way that they feel comfortable doing so. After a hard day’s work, many are just going to be put off by these new rules and either ignore them or just not post.
The CDI’s are fantastic things, lets get back to them – they worked pretty well as they were imo. Lets let the discussion flow freely with less restraints (albeit with the odd direction as they were before).
So…will someone be removing posts that are just fleshing out the poster’s main idea? I can see many ways to get around the 150-200 word post limit. Just like people do with the forum’s 5000 word limit, or whatever it is. ‘Continued in next post’ or ‘reserved for most posting’ or whatever. Plus, I can’t see many people taking the effort to count the words in their post. (I didn’t, though I did count some others.) =)
It is fine to make rules, but if they aren’t enforced (and CDIs are pretty lax) it really makes no difference.
For the Ranger, at least, it probably might make for greater focus and easy collation to add a Category section. What the proposal is generally trying to apply to; Traits, Utilities, Pets, Weapons. That sort of thing.
Also, how could you handle more core conceptual feedback?
I would want to say something like traits should be rewarding active play more directly, and I can certainly pop off an example. But I don’t necessarily have a play-by-play of what each trait should be transformed into. Much less their functionality. Much less their risks.
While I think the format works overall, I’m not sure what kind of feedback you’re hoping to get for the Ranger CDI?
This kind of format is great for suggesting ideas about for the class like “Class should get Kill Shot because it needs burst because” but is that all you want people to provide in the CDI thread?
I figured it was supposed to be a place for Rangers to debate the numerous issues with the class and not necessarily ideas on how to fix them? Especially since we don’t know how feasible our solutions may be or if ANet is even receptive to the solutions we come up with or if you even agree with the problem to begin with…
My honest opinion on this is probably not something that will be taken on board, but in the interests of feedback, I’ll give it anyway. We are running the risk of going overboard with the analysing and bureaucracy of these CDI’s now, with more threads for disssecting and now formatting than the CDI’s.
The CDI’s are really useful things, but this isn’t a corporate boardroom or an English essay exam where we need to go overboard on the red tape. This is a community forum, where anyone should be encouraged to post constructive and concise feedback in a way that they feel comfortable doing so. After a hard day’s work, many are just going to be put off by these new rules and either ignore them or just not post.
The CDI’s are fantastic things, lets get back to them – they worked pretty well as they were imo. Lets let the discussion flow freely with less restraints (albeit with the odd direction as they were before).
p.s Great job on Battle for LA btw
Hi Randulf,
Please understand i am not trying to add more hoops to jump through. By being more succinct through spending more time thinking about proposals and reducing them to their core we gain higher accessibility for those that do not have the time to read a wide variety of different formats of lengthy posts. It also allows the developers more time to be able to engage and collaborate and in turn increases the quality proposition of the CDI in general.
Proposal Functionality
<How does your proposal work in regard in relation to the current design of GW2>
Could you clarify this part of the format please?
Hi Xaylin,
This means that when you are thinking about your proposal that you consider how it will work with the other modular systems, content or functionality of the game.
So…will someone be removing posts that are just fleshing out the poster’s main idea? I can see many ways to get around the 150-200 word post limit. Just like people do with the forum’s 5000 word limit, or whatever it is. ‘Continued in next post’ or ‘reserved for most posting’ or whatever. Plus, I can’t see many people taking the effort to count the words in their post. (I didn’t, though I did count some others.) =)
It is fine to make rules, but if they aren’t enforced (and CDIs are pretty lax) it really makes no difference.
Hi Inculpatus,
No in regard to:
So…will someone be removing posts that are just fleshing out the poster’s main idea?
The 200 work count ‘Suggestion’ applies to the original proposal not the discussion but I would hope that we try to keep the word counts down in general so we all have more time to discuss and formulate ideas and opinions.
This word limit stuff is the absolute wrong direction…
If some people really want this, they should go to Twitter >.>
Its exactly the same and way too limiting.
The 5000 Word Limit of the Forum is absolutely fine.
Just do whatever is needed, to prevent peopel from circumventing thie 5000 Word Limit by making Double/Triple Postings, or what I personally would find better is, settign up in the Threads some kind od specific Flood Control, so that you can post in these Threads only every like 5 Minutres or so..
That will force peopel automatically to be more concise, because they will know, they can post the next thign just in 5 Minutes again so that people will want to be as consise and complex as possible, topackage everythign they want to say in just one posting, so that they don’t have to make follow up postings even at all 5 Minutes later.
Using also the Spoiler Function more and using more formating rules would also help to make the posts clearer and nicer to read.
The rest is the task of the moderators to keep the CDI clean from OT Posts ect..
Alone this posting are up to this point already 189 words >.>
Personally I like the idea behind sub classes ~ quoted from Chris Whiteside
My honest opinion on this is probably not something that will be taken on board, but in the interests of feedback, I’ll give it anyway. We are running the risk of going overboard with the analysing and bureaucracy of these CDI’s now, with more threads for disssecting and now formatting than the CDI’s.
The CDI’s are really useful things, but this isn’t a corporate boardroom or an English essay exam where we need to go overboard on the red tape. This is a community forum, where anyone should be encouraged to post constructive and concise feedback in a way that they feel comfortable doing so. After a hard day’s work, many are just going to be put off by these new rules and either ignore them or just not post.
The CDI’s are fantastic things, lets get back to them – they worked pretty well as they were imo. Lets let the discussion flow freely with less restraints (albeit with the odd direction as they were before).
p.s Great job on Battle for LA btw
Hi Randulf,
Please understand i am not trying to add more hoops to jump through. By being more succinct through spending more time thinking about proposals and reducing them to their core we gain higher accessibility for those that do not have the time to read a wide variety of different formats of lengthy posts. It also allows the developers more time to be able to engage and collaborate and in turn increases the quality proposition of the CDI in general.
Thanks for your feedback on LA (-:
Chris
I think it showed in the previous analysis threads where ppl thought they were the feedback threads and started posting feedback, that the process IS getting more confusing. Whether it is intended to make it more complex or add more hoops, the perception exists to some parts of the community.
And you are welcome…I eagerly await the final installment!
Oh! My bad. I thought ‘Proposal’ was just a fancy CDI-word for idea.
So…first post is limited (if it’s the first time the idea [Proposal] has been offered), and the other posts are not so strictly limited.
That’s cool, though I am not sure that helps the problem people find with trying to keep up with CDIs and the walls-o-text they seem to have.
Lol. Maybe I’m just not understanding your proposal for CDI proposals.
Wait…I just re-read the initial post. It says ‘Discussion posts’ encouraged to be 150 words. No real suggestion about the length of ‘Proposal’ posts. Now, I truly am confused.
My honest opinion on this is probably not something that will be taken on board, but in the interests of feedback, I’ll give it anyway. We are running the risk of going overboard with the analysing and bureaucracy of these CDI’s now, with more threads for disssecting and now formatting than the CDI’s.
The CDI’s are really useful things, but this isn’t a corporate boardroom or an English essay exam where we need to go overboard on the red tape. This is a community forum, where anyone should be encouraged to post constructive and concise feedback in a way that they feel comfortable doing so. After a hard day’s work, many are just going to be put off by these new rules and either ignore them or just not post.
The CDI’s are fantastic things, lets get back to them – they worked pretty well as they were imo. Lets let the discussion flow freely with less restraints (albeit with the odd direction as they were before).
p.s Great job on Battle for LA btw
Hi Randulf,
Please understand i am not trying to add more hoops to jump through. By being more succinct through spending more time thinking about proposals and reducing them to their core we gain higher accessibility for those that do not have the time to read a wide variety of different formats of lengthy posts. It also allows the developers more time to be able to engage and collaborate and in turn increases the quality proposition of the CDI in general.
Thanks for your feedback on LA (-:
Chris
I think it showed in the previous analysis threads where ppl thought they were the feedback threads and started posting feedback, that the process IS getting more confusing. Whether it is intended to make it more complex or add more hoops, the perception exists to some parts of the community.
And you are welcome…I eagerly await the final installment!
I think in practice it will be less confusing. If it doesn’t work we won’t use it.
The biggest issue we have is time, so if we can improve the balance of reading time vs. problem solving then we will be much more valuable to the game. This isn’t a subjective comment as I am talking from experience (-:
), but the word count cuts our ablility to outline our suggestions if we also have to mention pros, cons and the problems, which should be solved with our suggestions.
