Transport Tycoon Forums

When posting a suggestion into e.g. OpenTTD Suggestions you are supposed to elaborate a bit on your suggestion, making clear what exactly you are suggesting, why you think it is needed, how it could be done, etc. Lately, I had the impression that the OpenTTD Suggestion forum is spammed with one-sentence suggestions that are hardly comprehensible and not seldom also instances of suggestions that are posted over and over again.

Would it be possible to enforce a lower limit of the size of the initial post of a suggestion topic? This would enforce that at least a minimal effort had been put into the suggestion.

I imagine a limit like about 300 characters, which still is quite a short text. Of course, this limit should only apply to the opening post of the topic, replies should be allowed to be shorter as they stand in the context of the topic.


Edit: My topic title was a bit ambiguous (well still is ). I hope it's more understandable now.

How would we define minimal effort? Minimum of 100 words, a loss/gain calculation, a presentation? I'm overexaggerating now but my point is that it's very hard to make a standard for communicating creative thoughts or craved things. And looking at it as a moderator I wouldn't be the one to judge what is a good suggestion and what isn't.

Also, assuming that we're thinking a software limit, i'm not sure that phpbb even has that function. I would doubt that you can set a number somewhere saying "Mandate that initial posts in forum A have at least X characters," and i doubt even more than owen wants to fiddle with phpbb's source code to do this >_>

Technically, there's no real way this can be done. This is why we have moderators, and a helpful user base who will explain to the offending user why their post should be better.

orudge wrote:Technically, there's no real way this can be done.

Okay, I already had the suspicion, that this was the case, but since I don't know anything about phpBB, I wanted to hear that from the experts. So there is really no point in discussing whether it would be good or bad to set such a limit

orudge wrote:This is why we have moderators, and a helpful user base who will explain to the offending user why their post should be better.

When I last saw the helpful user base doing just that (not in any offensive way IMHO) they were ranted at by a moderator.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read and comment on my suggestion.

And some may simply copy and paste the same phrase to reach the limit. Someone already did that. Now for the reason he did so, ask him, unless he is already banned.

PhilSophus wrote:

orudge wrote:This is why we have moderators, and a helpful user base who will explain to the offending user why their post should be better.

When I last saw the helpful user base doing just that (not in any offensive way IMHO) they were ranted at by a moderator.

Of course, no need for backseat moderation here!

I don't think your suggestion is implementable though - I just think it's a case of a moderator going in and locking up a topic if it is seen as un-necessary. If you want to stamp out the problem, get tough on it. If you're not willing to get tough on it, the problem will remain with 14 year olds going "can we have new graphics?" or "is there a way to make my bus crash?" or other ridiculous suggestions that should be locked on sight.

Does that mean you prefer to "go tough at it" too, Dave?

Imposing conditions for suggestions doesn't solve the underlying problem. Even if we have a "suggestions template" people will fail to use it, misunderstand it or fail (intentionally or not) to fulfill are conditions. And then it comes down to moderators the same way it already does now. So what's the difference?

I didn't intend to abolish moderation with this suggestion but take a in principle technically decidable task of the shoulders of moderators. It wasn't intended as solving everything but as reducing the work load. It turns out it is not implementable (at least the effort would much too high for the benefit), so that pretty much settles the matter as far as I'm concerned.

As for "going tough at it". If that means immediately closing incomprehensible one-sentence suggestions that have been suggested over and over again, I agree. If that means treating new users (of any age) tough, I disagree. Nobody deserves to get thrown at his face what was accumulated from other misbehaving users for a long time. However, of course people should be told (first in a nice and - most important - constructive way) that and how they are misbehaving.

orudge wrote:Technically, there's no real way this can be done. This is why we have moderators, and a helpful user base who will explain to the offending user why their post should be better.

And didn't we just have that whole issue of backseat moderating?

Im guessing there is no feasible way for this to work, guess its just for the mods to do?

jvassie wrote:And didn't we just have that whole issue of backseat moderating?

There's a difference between backseat moderating and being polite and helpful. We've nothing against users gently pointing somebody to the right place.

Hyronymus wrote:Imposing conditions for suggestions doesn't solve the underlying problem. Even if we have a "suggestions template" people will fail to use it, misunderstand it or fail (intentionally or not) to fulfill are conditions. And then it comes down to moderators the same way it already does now. So what's the difference?

Anything is surely better than nothing?

Some of the stuff suggested is either a) ridiculous, b) repetitive or c) a combination of both.

Please tell us what would be feasible then.

In the locomotion section we have these rules: http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=12106 to bad almost no-one is using them. Also the "I need and i want" parts are frowned upon by most of the users. (In that part of the forum that is.)

Hmmm... what if I can make a perfectly reasonable suggestion in 1 sentence? And yes that is possible.

I think that it just is the task of a moderator to evaluate a post. It's the human factor that is needed when judging a suggestion for improvement. Same factor that applies for innovation. Think of a software program or computer that can think like humans and the first post of this thread is feasable within software boundaries.

Mr. X wrote:Hmmm... what if I can make a perfectly reasonable suggestion in 1 sentence? And yes that is possible.

I contend that it is not. A reasonable suggestion must explain why that suggestion would improve the game. If it is so blindingly obviously an improvement that no explanation is needed, then it would already have been done.

DaleStan wrote:

Mr. X wrote:Hmmm... what if I can make a perfectly reasonable suggestion in 1 sentence? And yes that is possible.

I contend that it is not. A reasonable suggestion must explain why that suggestion would improve the game. If it is so blindingly obviously an improvement that no explanation is needed, then it would already have been done.

Not quite, there are suggestions/improvements/inventions where one might think: "Ohh! It's so simple, why isn't this ever invented before?"

It happend quite a few times in history in technology aswell.