Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 5:48:02 GMT
Although I find the moderation practice overall to be repellent I do think it's a bit misleading to post that post from Muir as it's quite old and could give people the mistaken impression he made those comments recently. I find Muir seems to go through bad periods. He is quite young and he probably just needs someone to mentor him. Oh dear. I hadn't noticed the 2014 tag. My mistake. From how Muir still moderates your statements continue to be correct even though the example was from a year ago. That suggests his abuse is habitual - I want to know if this is 22cans' company policy since it is allowed to be freely done over such a time. |
|
|
|
Post by hardly on May 26, 2015 6:28:51 GMT
Muir isn't a good pick unless you invest in mentoring him and they clearly haven't. It's been suggested Muir and Aynen were picked because of familial connections to 22cans but I have no idea of that is true or not. I can't think of any other reason, other than possibly sending in 12 empty crisp packets and you've got the job. That post was also to show how 22cans will allow Muir to make intimidating statements directed at their forum's users, that intimidation being more like bullying than what they claimed of others. The insecure comment above isn't an unfair attack on them in the least - it is a description of how they'll continue to delete posts that might be unflattering to Godus but attacks their Precious, then proceed to lie about the reasons behind the deletion to deliberately antagonise and abuse the ones they are lying about. They both have been caught at this, along with trying to pass off some deletions as being from "Steam Community Moderators" - failing to note that Steam Community Moderators DO NOT moderate according to the guide 22cans has been using to bully their own customers into not speaking about refunds and more. He is very loyal and willing to work for free. You can't put a price on that. Of course he zeal had probably cost 22cans a lot of goodwill but they could have addressed that by mentoring him properly. He's a young guy and the right leadership could set him on the right path. |
|
|
|
Post by mindless on May 26, 2015 7:30:05 GMT
The way i see it. Without the moderator being specficaly identified in the ban reason is a failing of the steam platform. It prevents acountability by alowing moderator begaviour to remain anonyous.
If nothing good comes out of this. I would at least hope the system be changed so that people can at least learn who their accusors are. I consider that a bare minium right that should extend to all users.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 7:31:15 GMT
He is very loyal and willing to work for free. You can't put a price on that. Of course he zeal had probably cost 22cans a lot of goodwill but they could have addressed that by mentoring him properly. He's a young guy and the right leadership could set him on the right path. I would argue that through happily enacting what is appearing to be company policy - and not just intern bumbling - both Muir and Aynen have been receiving leadership and mentoring. Undoing that damage would be required, especially after it has been taught to them to be business as usual for well over a year and being praised for it, trained dogs taught to snarl whenever "refunds" are mentioned, allowed to freely attack when someone slights their Precious. Worst. Masterclass. Ever. Edit: I also have to point out that Muir was a moderator for Train2Game* before becoming a moderator for 22cans, apparently picked for the qualities he exhibits in being a willing toady no matter how questionable the orders given. Edit 2: * - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... |
|
|
|
Post by Crumpy Six on May 26, 2015 10:23:58 GMT
I honestly don't understand Muir and Aynen's motives, or why they've stuck by this project. It's different for the 22Cans Community Managers, who are at least being paid. They also spend their days in the 22Cans offices so it's easier for them to sympathise with the dev team on a personal level, and to get frustrated by the negativity in the community levelled against their friends and colleagues. Quite frankly it's a pretty cushy job for an inexperienced grad, if you can handle the customer services type shit - basically being paid to go on Facebook all day. Muir and Aynen, on the other hand, are customers like anyone else. In the past they've expressed dissatisfaction and disappointment with the game. I don't think either of them are blind to the faults of the project, but they seem resolute in their commitment and loyalty to it also, so I really do wonder what's in it for them.
Muir once said that he believes his role as a forum mod for 22Cans is going to help him get his foot in the door of the gaming industry. His embarrassing naivety also came across a year or so ago, when 22Cans was advertising for play-testers and he claimed that such testing sessions were an excellent opportunity and would look good on your CV. If 22Cans has been encouraging him in this view, they are being enormously irresponsible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gmr Leon on May 26, 2015 12:05:10 GMT
If 22Cans has been encouraging him in this view, they are being enormously irresponsible. Well, that certainly wouldn't be a first on their part. |
|
|
|
Post by totallytim on May 26, 2015 15:21:59 GMT
Maybe they hope to get a more permanent job at 22Cans, or maybe they believe that an endorsement from PM will help them out when looking for a real job.
"They shot multiple puppies with real bullets on our command without hesitation." (Kingsman reference)
Or maybe they both threw their life savings at the Kickstarter and can't come to terms with the idea, that their money went down the drain. It is however most likely that they just like the feeling of power.
Whatever the case, I really hope they're getting something substantial in return, because almost fanatically defending the already underwater Titanic doesn't seem very healthy.
|
|
stuhacking
Master
Posts: 170 
Pledge level: Partner
|
Post by stuhacking on May 26, 2015 16:08:03 GMT
because almost fanatically defending the already underwater Titanic doesn't seem very healthy. pfffft... The Belfast tourist board do that every day and they're still in business!  |
|
|
|
Post by Aynen on May 26, 2015 21:02:31 GMT
I honestly don't understand Muir and Aynen's motives,... (snip) In it's most basic form, it boils down to this for me: If you believe that a solution to a problem doesn't exist, you're not likely to really look for it. Believing in a posibility is a prerequisit for pursuing it. So, when I choose to believe that Godus can work, I don't do it because I consider it likely that it will work. I do it because I want to maximize the chances of it working. In other words, I'm not an optimist because I consider optimistic views to carry more truth. I am an optimist in order to increase my chances of finding a way to make things work. The strength of my convictions, or anyone else's, don't affect their accuracy; being convinced of something doesn't make it true. So I use my convictions entirely based on their function, not their truthfulness. Beyond that, I find that giving up on things is like a muscle: do it more often and the muscle gets stronger. Do it less and it grows weaker. It's that old Native American saying of 2 wolves fighting, a good one and a bad one. The one you feed wins. What those wolves are a metaphor for is entirely interchangable. Of course, I'm not inhuman and there have been moments of dispair for me too. Like when Peter announced the trail, entirely counter productive to what I was trying to do at the time, I got dishearted. But in spite of the odds, being dishearted wasn't a wolf I wanted to feed. So I stopped feeding it. If, worst case scenario, Godus fails completely, I'll hopefully still keep an attitude I can use constructively. Comparatively, Godus' success is just a cherry on top. Besides, being a part of making something possible that everyone thought was impossible seems like a possibility too appealing not to pursue. People saying 'it can't be done' actually makes me want to try harder. And that attitude is something I felt Molyneux has too. So it's also perhaps a bit self-serving to want to see him try. It gives me the conviction to keep trying too. I'm not happy with the suggestion that Molyneux may have become too focussed on profits for Fabs' tastes, but I don't think profit and a drive to do the impossible are mutually exclusive. And rather than disapproving of a profit-oriented approach, I'd prefer to look for a 'have your cake and eat it too' solution. So I choose to assume that such a solution exists. |
|
|
|
Post by hardly on May 26, 2015 21:41:02 GMT
I honestly don't understand Muir and Aynen's motives,... (snip) In it's most basic form, it boils down to this for me: If you believe that a solution to a problem doesn't exist, you're not likely to really look for it. Believing in a posibility is a prerequisit for pursuing it. So, when I choose to believe that Godus can work, I don't do it because I consider it likely that it will work. I do it because I want to maximize the chances of it working. In other words, I'm not an optimist because I consider optimistic views to carry more truth. I am an optimist in order to increase my chances of finding a way to make things work. The strength of my convictions, or anyone else's, don't affect their accuracy; being convinced of something doesn't make it true. So I use my convictions entirely based on their function, not their truthfulness. Beyond that, I find that giving up on things is like a muscle: do it more often and the muscle gets stronger. Do it less and it grows weaker. It's that old Native American saying of 2 wolves fighting, a good one and a bad one. The one you feed wins. What those wolves are a metaphor for is entirely interchangable. Of course, I'm not inhuman and there have been moments of dispair for me too. Like when Peter announced the trail, entirely counter productive to what I was trying to do at the time, I got dishearted. But in spite of the odds, being dishearted wasn't a wolf I wanted to feed. So I stopped feeding it. If, worst case scenario, Godus fails completely, I'll hopefully still keep an attitude I can use constructively. Comparatively, Godus' success is just a cherry on top. Besides, being a part of making something possible that everyone thought was impossible seems like a possibility too appealing not to pursue. People saying 'it can't be done' actually makes me want to try harder. And that attitude is something I felt Molyneux has too. So it's also perhaps a bit self-serving to want to see him try. It gives me the conviction to keep trying too. I'm not happy with the suggestion that Molyneux may have become too focussed on profits for Fabs' tastes, but I don't think profit and a drive to do the impossible are mutually exclusive. And rather than disapproving of a profit-oriented approach, I'd prefer to look for a 'have your cake and eat it too' solution. So I choose to assume that such a solution exists. Inspite of everything else that is well said. |
|
|
|
Post by totallytim on May 26, 2015 21:59:20 GMT
What are you smoking, because I want some of that stuff.
You're basically describing wishful thinking and that if we remain positive, everything is hopefully going to work out. Project Godus isn't some life or death situation or something on which my state of mind depends on. It's not a character building experience either. I'm a dissatisfied customer who bought the game based on a promise and got shit thrown in my direction in return. No matter how much I believe in the power friendship or what ever, at the end of the day I still lost my money and have to clean the shit off my boots.
There are only two acceptable options left for me: either return the money to everyone who asks for a refund or provide evidence that you're actually still working on the game and that you care about the people who backed the game on PC since 2012. (Hint: spinning the ban hammer like a toy isn't a step in the right direction)
There are no wolves or muscles involved and it's not a matter of conviction. There are only facts. And those are lies, deceit, censorship, periods of total radio silence and a total disregard for this community on your part and dissatisfaction on ours. And these don't feed our desire to play a good godgame.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 0:21:12 GMT
I honestly don't understand Muir and Aynen's motives,... (snip) In it's most basic form, it boils down to this for me: If you believe that a solution to a problem doesn't exist, you're not likely to really look for it. Believing in a posibility is a prerequisit for pursuing it. So, when I choose to believe that Godus can work, I don't do it because I consider it likely that it will work. I do it because I want to maximize the chances of it working. In other words, I'm not an optimist because I consider optimistic views to carry more truth. I am an optimist in order to increase my chances of finding a way to make things work. The strength of my convictions, or anyone else's, don't affect their accuracy; being convinced of something doesn't make it true. So I use my convictions entirely based on their function, not their truthfulness. Beyond that, I find that giving up on things is like a muscle: do it more often and the muscle gets stronger. Do it less and it grows weaker. It's that old Native American saying of 2 wolves fighting, a good one and a bad one. The one you feed wins. What those wolves are a metaphor for is entirely interchangable. Of course, I'm not inhuman and there have been moments of dispair for me too. Like when Peter announced the trail, entirely counter productive to what I was trying to do at the time, I got dishearted. But in spite of the odds, being dishearted wasn't a wolf I wanted to feed. So I stopped feeding it. If, worst case scenario, Godus fails completely, I'll hopefully still keep an attitude I can use constructively. Comparatively, Godus' success is just a cherry on top. Besides, being a part of making something possible that everyone thought was impossible seems like a possibility too appealing not to pursue. People saying 'it can't be done' actually makes me want to try harder. And that attitude is something I felt Molyneux has too. So it's also perhaps a bit self-serving to want to see him try. It gives me the conviction to keep trying too. I'm not happy with the suggestion that Molyneux may have become too focussed on profits for Fabs' tastes, but I don't think profit and a drive to do the impossible are mutually exclusive. And rather than disapproving of a profit-oriented approach, I'd prefer to look for a 'have your cake and eat it too' solution. So I choose to assume that such a solution exists. So how does that explain your deletions and lying about them, as detailed in this thread? The latest being Interceptor. You deleted a post* and then lied about it. Twice. godus.boards.net/post/19232Since they said something unkind about your Precious, you had to disagree with their opinion so much that you had to delete it to provoke an argument and what you could later cite for some rubbish reason.** You decided to antagonise Interceptor by deleting their opinion, lying about it (again, twice), and then after you've completely made a mess you continue to delete where they have noted your poor moderation (under one of the actual REAL rules), only serving to make them "rage post" by your standards for them to post a thread involving 22cans' insolvency. Yes, I have a copy of that thread before it was made to vanish. Don't worry, I will fully detail Interceptor's banning as well. If this is you "trying" then you need to gain some better perspective of how you're being more of a liability than anyone who speaks ill about Godus, simply by how you handle those who might not share your opinion. Your form of "damage control" is actually doing more harm than "bringing the community together". You'll use your moderator powers to bully out their opinion. This is evident in how you made a "lier" of yourself.Again, the evidence is right here. I do believe you said it well when you offered: "being convinced of something doesn't make it true." Take a look at your convictions, then look at the evidence, and see where you went clearly wrong. Now about your...rose-tinted glasses doesn't even begin to cover the half of it. The bit about Godus being in full development despite Peter's own words and articles detailing how the team was just cut down in size, along with everything else... That isn't wishful thinking - that is something far worse. Wishful thinking doesn't excuse half of the shit you've done to people on the Steam forums simply because they slighted your Precious. So that is why Peter bailed from Godus to run to The Trail, put an intern as lead designer after cutting down the team, while we're expected to believe that Godus' producer has no idea of what he or his team are doing, while again Peter has bailed from the title? He isn't trying when he's no longer really working upon the game anymore. All of this is well-documented, some parts from last year. But then again, it makes sense for you to hold onto hope if you're steadfastly refusing to look at much of the situation - remember when you tried to tell me that Godus was still in full development and you tried to spin Molyneux detailing how he cut down the dev team's size? It would take either someone who doesn't understand English or someone plugging their ears to chant for more Kool-Aid to believe that Godus was still in full development after that detail. Remember that video you tried to censor to fit your comfort zone? Would you like to take a look at it again and understand the reality of the situation as is obvious to those who do know the industry a wee bit better than clapping for Tinkerbell? Watch, with your eyes open and your ears turned on: Godus is in a post-release support development and it is fairly obvious to anyone who has been around the industry - you don't even need to have been a developer to see that, just have to know a bit about the development process. I would suggest that you ask Muir about this, but apparently they don't teach anything of that sort around Train2Blame. If 22cans wanted to offer hope, they could by actually doing so...but so far they've seemingly offered little of nothing while further antagonising those they have lied to repeatedly. Now they are libeling Steam users while misrepresenting their abuse as being from Steam itself. Which everyone has you to thank for your own part in that. Forum whitewashing isn't a good practise, which VALVe does know quite well since they mention this in the Steamworks documentation. You have been far more damaging and divisive of the community than you realise by antagonising people through various means (including guest trolls) as excuse for libeling and banning them*** - so your posted reasons have been made into utter bollocks by your actions not matching your words at all. You have been feeding your evil wolf while trying to convince yourself that it's the good wolf.**** * - Occam's Razor suggests that whichever mod comes up with an excuse based upon the rules YOU KNOW ARE NOT STEAM RULES is the likely one who made the deletion. Muir does it with a *snip* and libel, you'll just repeatedly libel. ** - Which makes the ban reasons given to others REALLY inconsequential by comparison. *** - Which has actually been making the community more...looking towards other games entirely, as that community is ready to abandon Godus for titles and developers who appear to actually be trying to deliver what they pitched. Except for the Steam community - you've successfully helped snuff that out. **** - I might as well also get this out of the way - you might want to look into how you're clearly wrong about the Cherokee Two Wolves' metaphors being "completely interchangeable" and how exactly you've been making your evil wolf fat with lies. I feed the wolf that seeks resolution for the people 22cans have abused, along with making sure that these incidents are documented well to display the further abuses this community has endured under your watch, because we shouldn't have to do this sort of thing but necessity dictates that it should be done to protect them from your evil wolf's abuse. How's that for a metaphor?  |
|
|
|
Post by hardly on May 27, 2015 1:06:50 GMT
I feel both sympathy for Aynen and that Mandrake has a point. In fact he makes a number of good points. If anything this discourse goes to show that banning, deleting and censoring through warnings has done significant damage to the community/22cans relationship and makes it impossible for moderators to moderate.
The crazy thing is that as recently as January we had a positive relationship with Furious Moo. He came here and was honest with us, he gave us opportunity to provide input while noting the realities and Aynen was able to contribute alongside the community. Some of Moo's honestly came back to bite Peter and the honesty and transparency stopped. The community got restless, the moderators deleted and banned people and here we are.
Now we know nothing about what is happening with GODUS beyond "we are working on combat". We have no ETAs, no milestones, no roadmap, no game description beyond "what's there right now." For a game that promised transparency and community involvement this falls very far short. When we have so little information we can only assume that what is being withheld is bad news, after all this is what has been the case every other time 22cans went dark. Constant sales show 22cans has exactly zero confidence in future desirability of their product.
Aynen your explanation of why you are positive is well written and makes sense but I think it is also apprent from your words that you can see we have very good reasons to be pessimistic based on the same facts. If 22cans want some optimism maybe they should start earning it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 1:51:25 GMT
I feel both sympathy for Aynen and that Mandrake has a point. In fact he makes a number of good points. If anything this discourse goes to show that banning, deleting and censoring through warnings has done significant damage to the community/22cans relationship and makes it impossible for moderators to moderate. The crazy thing is that as recently as January we had a positive relationship with Furious Moo. He came here and was honest with us, he gave us opportunity to provide input while noting the realities and Aynen was able to contribute alongside the community. Some of Moo's honestly came back to bite Peter and the honesty and transparency stopped. The community got restless, the moderators deleted and banned people and here we are. This is an extremely important point. The community very much DID appreciate - despite how dismal it looked - the honesty and transparency about what was going on as per what both Kickstarter and Early Access require. For a moment there, Godus almost resembled a proper Early Access/Kickstarter title. With the speed the insolvency thread vanished from the Steam forums, there might be something to that. That last bit is crucial - if 22cans wishes for people to be speaking good about the game and them...meet us halfway and give us some reason to? Quid pro quo, and 22cans already has taken a lot of quid and hasn't offered much pro quo in exchange .Doing this sort of cataloging is a real pain in the arse, I'd rather be doing other things, but there is a part of me that cannot abide with abusive developers doing what wouldn't be excused in other industries - they'd be prosecuted, and some at 22cans might still be. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 comes readily to mind, particularly the bit about bait and switch. Customers expected to receive something that would give them joy, but instead were given F2P mobile shovelware. So if 22cans doesn't want to appear that way, especially through how they manage their community's dissatisfaction and grievances, then they probably should be working upon that in ways that don't make the situation worse. Except, as noted, it looks like there's going to be more bad news as with every time the communication from 22cans dries up almost entirely while they enact a libelous forum whitewashing campaign to hide anything unfavourable despite how VALVe has expressed that users have the right to discuss their opinion about the game without being censored. That is what people have come to expect, and it looks like 22cans is trying to hold off on the inevitable resurgence of a media shitstorm, which will be made far more worse when it's clearly evidenced that 22cans didn't give a damn about the last time the media had to take them to task. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 2:22:47 GMT
I honestly don't understand Muir and Aynen's motives,... (snip) <snip> I admire you for your resolve to stay positive, but I'm not quite sure turning a blind eye to the goings on of the Cans is nearly so admirable. You walk a fine line as an anonymous internet persona where you possibly have much to gain in various aspects if Godus is a success.. but very little to lose if it fails. There's not much to admire about someone who takes a stance in this sense, and it makes me wonder if you would continue to starve the wolf turn a blind eye to the various grievances our community has with 22Cans, Godus, and the moderators if your actual name/reputation was at stake. (let me make it clear that I'm not in anyway asking you to "reveal" yourself to back up your words or any such nonsense) I've had many a Godus discussions with my acquaintances, friends, and co-workers within the gaming industry, from various studios and countries around the world, and the common theme in regards to Peter is that he is, in fact, a liar, and that he has done the industry a disservice with his over-promising, over-hyping, blame-passing ways... especially where the development of Godus is concerned. None of them want to work for him, none of them trust him, and much of what he says at conferences gets a polite nod and then a solemn shake of the head. Hoping beyond hope that a certain person of questionable business morals will pull a rabbit out of his hat to somehow appease the customers he's led on over the course of these years isn't admirable. It's complacency, safety, and riding a bet where you have nothing to lose. Considering your knowledge of the development of Godus, I consider you fully complicit with Peter and the Cans, and truly hope that you at the very least have been honest with us, in word and intention. It would be very disappointing to eventually come to find that you hadn't been. That said... I don't actually expect you to be worried about what one anonymous internet persona feels about the other, but you strike me as a thoughtful fellow who at least attempts to consider other viewpoints. If I haven't made it clear in the past... I still hope that somehow Godus lives up to its promises... but I don't see how that's possible with Peter's current focus. Cheers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 3:07:40 GMT
I think it speaks a lot when folks can still be a bit forgiving in spite of all of this. I have to note from what I've seen Aynen post, I think he does have the ability to empathise with others if he's made aware of what he's doing - I can only hope that I have shown him clearly how appalling his actions have come across to others, and to help him realise how badly it looks, so that he may in turn improve. I can have respect for someone trying to do better, as I have with Keen Software House and those who have proactively contacted me about advice for their own games. If so desired, I can offer Aynen contact with some community managers on Steam - some doing this role for multiple games and developers - for advice on how to better steer discussions than simply "make the bad posts go away" that result in better feedback for the developers. Because if Aynen does truly believe as he has explained...then he can be guided towards a much better effect. |
|
|
|
Post by earlparvisjam on May 27, 2015 4:56:06 GMT
I honestly don't understand Muir and Aynen's motives,... (snip) In it's most basic form, it boils down to this for me: If you believe that a solution to a problem doesn't exist, you're not likely to really look for it. Believing in a posibility is a prerequisit for pursuing it. So, when I choose to believe that Godus can work, I don't do it because I consider it likely that it will work. I do it because I want to maximize the chances of it working. In other words, I'm not an optimist because I consider optimistic views to carry more truth. I am an optimist in order to increase my chances of finding a way to make things work. The strength of my convictions, or anyone else's, don't affect their accuracy; being convinced of something doesn't make it true. So I use my convictions entirely based on their function, not their truthfulness. Beyond that, I find that giving up on things is like a muscle: do it more often and the muscle gets stronger. Do it less and it grows weaker. It's that old Native American saying of 2 wolves fighting, a good one and a bad one. The one you feed wins. What those wolves are a metaphor for is entirely interchangable. Of course, I'm not inhuman and there have been moments of dispair for me too. Like when Peter announced the trail, entirely counter productive to what I was trying to do at the time, I got dishearted. But in spite of the odds, being dishearted wasn't a wolf I wanted to feed. So I stopped feeding it. If, worst case scenario, Godus fails completely, I'll hopefully still keep an attitude I can use constructively. Comparatively, Godus' success is just a cherry on top. Besides, being a part of making something possible that everyone thought was impossible seems like a possibility too appealing not to pursue. People saying 'it can't be done' actually makes me want to try harder. And that attitude is something I felt Molyneux has too. So it's also perhaps a bit self-serving to want to see him try. It gives me the conviction to keep trying too. I'm not happy with the suggestion that Molyneux may have become too focussed on profits for Fabs' tastes, but I don't think profit and a drive to do the impossible are mutually exclusive. And rather than disapproving of a profit-oriented approach, I'd prefer to look for a 'have your cake and eat it too' solution. So I choose to assume that such a solution exists. I think the worst issue here is how harshly you've made assumptions about people's motivations toward being negative. We aren't feeding a wolf, we're pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes. Just because you've convinced yourself that we're wrong doesn't make you right. At some point, the evidence is going to reach such a level that even you won't be able to pretend that things are fine. To illustrate this point, I challenge you to provide one bit of evidence that this project has actually made any significant progress in the last 6 months. Nothing that's happened since November points to anything but a company trying to pretend it's still working on a dead project. In fact, the last 6 months have repeatedly shown instances where 22Cans and its employees have made the success of this project less likely to succeed. Here, I'll just point out a few: *The creative source for this project left the project. The names on the Kickstarter have largely left. *A new hire with no experience, and little more than an intern, was placed in charge. *Most of the project's expertise was removed in December, and wasn't replaced. *Turnover is at an all time high and the remaining staff has few/if any veterans to prevent mistake repeats *Nothing promised since Moo came on board has been completed after 6 months Pointing all of this isn't giving in to my darker side. It's recognizing the reality of the situation. I've been highly critical of this project for a year now. Rather than prove me wrong, they've done nothing but reinforce my skepticism at every turn. Every month has been a series of broken promises, accomplishments only through technicalities, or repeated silence when asked about progress. We've been repeatedly told to be patient for a host of reasons (new CM, pc focus, new Lead, etc..) and the community has mostly backed off to give the company chance after chance. At this point, it really doesn't matter what PM's motivation was. He has repeatedly insulted, belittled, and marginalized the community throughout this project's history. As I've said in previous posts, I don't know him. I really don't want to know him, and I don't need to know him in order to see what's been going on. If someone walks up and kicks me in the crotch, I'm not particularly concerned if it was a really nice, but misguided, person that did the deed. His name is on the Kickstarter for this game. He doesn't just get the luxury of walking off without taking accountability for the situation. As for 22Cans as a whole, I am so frustrated with the excuses. The company is too small to accomplish the work it signed on to do, but too big for anyone to take accountability for the state it's in. At the rate it's going, the Godus project will fold about the time the last original employee has left. Any day, I expect to hear that PM's name was added to Jack's new project. |
|
|
|
Post by mindless on May 27, 2015 7:33:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Crumpy Six on May 27, 2015 9:47:57 GMT
I honestly don't understand Muir and Aynen's motives,... (snip) In it's most basic form, it boils down to this for me: If you believe that a solution to a problem doesn't exist, you're not likely to really look for it. Believing in a posibility is a prerequisit for pursuing it. So, when I choose to believe that Godus can work, I don't do it because I consider it likely that it will work. I do it because I want to maximize the chances of it working. In other words, I'm not an optimist because I consider optimistic views to carry more truth. I am an optimist in order to increase my chances of finding a way to make things work. The strength of my convictions, or anyone else's, don't affect their accuracy; being convinced of something doesn't make it true. So I use my convictions entirely based on their function, not their truthfulness. Beyond that, I find that giving up on things is like a muscle: do it more often and the muscle gets stronger. Do it less and it grows weaker. It's that old Native American saying of 2 wolves fighting, a good one and a bad one. The one you feed wins. What those wolves are a metaphor for is entirely interchangable. Of course, I'm not inhuman and there have been moments of dispair for me too. Like when Peter announced the trail, entirely counter productive to what I was trying to do at the time, I got dishearted. But in spite of the odds, being dishearted wasn't a wolf I wanted to feed. So I stopped feeding it. If, worst case scenario, Godus fails completely, I'll hopefully still keep an attitude I can use constructively. Comparatively, Godus' success is just a cherry on top. Besides, being a part of making something possible that everyone thought was impossible seems like a possibility too appealing not to pursue. People saying 'it can't be done' actually makes me want to try harder. And that attitude is something I felt Molyneux has too. So it's also perhaps a bit self-serving to want to see him try. It gives me the conviction to keep trying too. I'm not happy with the suggestion that Molyneux may have become too focussed on profits for Fabs' tastes, but I don't think profit and a drive to do the impossible are mutually exclusive. And rather than disapproving of a profit-oriented approach, I'd prefer to look for a 'have your cake and eat it too' solution. So I choose to assume that such a solution exists. Thanks for the insight. I don't think i agree with your philosophy, but it's interesting to have your view on the matter. I think there's something to be said for the idea that being an optimist and having belief can increase the chance of "finding a way to make things work", simply because it means you don't give up on trying to achieve things. But I am curious to know: in your opinion, as a forum mod for Godus, what can you personally do in pursuit of "finding a way to make things work"? Beyond being an optimist that is (which is all well and good, but believing in possibilities doesn't go a long way to achieving things). It's not a loaded question. The Godus community team can probably do a lot, or at least a lot more than what they currently do. For example, I do not feel that the community team is presently doing much to encourage or facilitate positive discussion about Godus. Maybe it's because they can't, because there's simply no material that they work with and nothing they can offer. Accepting suggestions from the community is a dead-end because it's frustrating and disheartening to learn that the suggestions don't go anywhere. Defending the game from criticism is a huge challenge because like it or not, the defenses are increasingly flimsy and implausible. Maybe this is why the community team has resorted to pouncing on any remotely positive/neutral thread on the Steam forum and aggressively moderating it, but this (as you'll have noticed from the recent drama) only makes things worse because it tends to be the most engaged community members who get punished from this approach. I think you're in a really challenging position, hence my confusion over why you continue to do it - if it were me I'd resign in frustration and annoyance. You want Godus to be good and want the situation to change for the better, but you have no way of effecting a positive change. I have no doubt that you'll have approached 22Cans with various ideas during your time as a mod, and probably got the standard response (i.e. nothing). Ideas for positive/constructive stuff that 22Cans could be doing from a community perspective: - Competitions (I realise you already do these, unsure what level of engagement you get)
- Let's Play videos and streaming sessions
- Facilitating discussions on the forums, in a way that does not alienate those with negative views of Godus. Getting angry and frustrated is completely understandable, but without exception it makes the situation worse.
- Reporting on progress at the studio where development of Godus is concerned, in a way that is sensitive to the current feeling of the community (22Cans has historically been horrible at this).
- Arranging meetups between 22Cans staff and the community. This happened last year and although I didn't go and it was a low-key affair, I heard it was pretty good. What about a visit to the 22Cans studio? Just a handful of people to meet the team, go out for a drink at lunch, poke around a bit, look at what's being worked on. I realise this would be very intrusive and difficult to arrange, but I think it would go a long way. Just a thought.
These things are not going to increase the rate of development of Godus, and they are not going to make the Kickstarter promises any more likely to be fulfilled, but it will improve the feeling of the community. And who knows, that in turn might increase morale at the studio and promote more enthusiasm and energy in the team? I'm clutching at straws here, but you want to do whatever you can to support the game and it seems to me that within your very limited remit, there is more that could be done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aynen on May 27, 2015 10:46:14 GMT
Thanks for the insight. I don't think i agree with your philosophy, but it's interesting to have your view on the matter. I think there's something to be said for the idea that being an optimist and having belief can increase the chance of "finding a way to make things work", simply because it means you don't give up on trying to achieve things. But I am curious to know: in your opinion, as a forum mod for Godus, what can you personally do in pursuit of "finding a way to make things work"? Beyond being an optimist that is (which is all well and good, but believing in possibilities doesn't go a long way to achieving things). It's not a loaded question. The Godus community team can probably do a lot, or at least a lot more than what they currently do. For example, I do not feel that the community team is presently doing much to encourage or facilitate positive discussion about Godus. Maybe it's because they can't, because there's simply no material that they work with and nothing they can offer. Accepting suggestions from the community is a dead-end because it's frustrating and disheartening to learn that the suggestions don't go anywhere. Defending the game from criticism is a huge challenge because like it or not, the defenses are increasingly flimsy and implausible. Maybe this is why the community team has resorted to pouncing on any remotely positive/neutral thread on the Steam forum and aggressively moderating it, but this (as you'll have noticed from the recent drama) only makes things worse because it tends to be the most engaged community members who get punished from this approach. I think you're in a really challenging position, hence my confusion over why you continue to do it - if it were me I'd resign in frustration and annoyance. You want Godus to be good and want the situation to change for the better, but you have no way of effecting a positive change. I have no doubt that you'll have approached 22Cans with various ideas during your time as a mod, and probably got the standard response (i.e. nothing). Ideas for positive/constructive stuff that 22Cans could be doing from a community perspective: - Competitions (I realise you already do these, unsure what level of engagement you get)
- Let's Play videos and streaming sessions
- Facilitating discussions on the forums, in a way that does not alienate those with negative views of Godus. Getting angry and frustrated is completely understandable, but without exception it makes the situation worse.
- Reporting on progress at the studio where development of Godus is concerned, in a way that is sensitive to the current feeling of the community (22Cans has historically been horrible at this).
- Arranging meetups between 22Cans staff and the community. This happened last year and although I didn't go and it was a low-key affair, I heard it was pretty good. What about a visit to the 22Cans studio? Just a handful of people to meet the team, go out for a drink at lunch, poke around a bit, look at what's being worked on. I realise this would be very intrusive and difficult to arrange, but I think it would go a long way. Just a thought.
These things are not going to increase the rate of development of Godus, and they are not going to make the Kickstarter promises any more likely to be fulfilled, but it will improve the feeling of the community. And who knows, that in turn might increase morale at the studio and promote more enthusiasm and energy in the team? I'm clutching at straws here, but you want to do whatever you can to support the game and it seems to me that within your very limited remit, there is more that could be done.
I'm very much in favor of community building events like those, and I believe Matthew Allen would also approve. He too has the philosophy that a dev team that 'you feel you could have a beer with' is one that you'll try to think along with, rather than to assume that they are some faceless evil corporation that's out for blood. I do continuously nag the team about competitions, streaming sessions, etc. And recently Spiderweb managed to get the ball roling, which I happily support. But I think it needs to be a two way street, and convincing the Steam community to keep trying, that I'm finding a little harder to do. After GMR Leon's last attempt at increasing communication didn't work, I think for many it was the proverbial breaking of the camel's back. And when people consign to the idea that a situation is hopeless, but they remain in that situation, they affect everyone else there, damaging the efforts of those who haven't given up. The problem escalates when people who are convinced of the situation's hopelessness become vengeful about it. Feeling slighted is, for many, a justification to do harm in return. I am not of this school of thought. To me, justice for the sake of justice is needlessly destructive. That's not to say I don't feel one has the right to be angry about things. But vindication isn't what I'd choose to do with that anger because then it would not just feed the anger, it would also decrease the odds of the game working in the end. But people expressing this anger and attempting to facilitate their sense of justice does take up space. Space that cannot then be occupied by people who want to try to make Godus work. This is what I see happening on the Steam forums. A new member would come along with hopes for the game, meet with expressions of anger by the existing community, and get the feeling that there is no place there for them there. And thus, they leave. While I cannot say anger has no right to exist, I can say that as a moderator, I'm trying to ensure that hopeful people still feel like they have a place on the Steam forums. And I can say that I've stopped believing that every individual has the intention of giving the hopeful people that place. As a forum member who may or may not be angry about 22Cans, you are not responsible for how another forum member might feel about their place on the forums. But as a moderator, I am responsible for that. So that is what I set out to do: Create and maintain a space on the forums where people who have hope for Godus can feel welcome to participate in, or help create, events like the competitions, streaming sessions, discussions and meetings, etc. that you're proposing. |
|
