:o Hybrids?!? /cries/ there goes all hope of saving any GB...

You have liked this post!

Ahh thats wonderful!!!!

You have liked this post!

that leopon looks so beautiful!!

You have liked this post!

that leopon looks so beautiful!!

You have liked this post!

Guys, it's just like ANY OTHER mutation :) It's all written in the news ;A;

You have liked this post!

huh... leopon. Interesting!

You have liked this post!

I think the no support button was a very bad idea. There will now be absolutely no communication between the author of the idea and the people who dont support it, either because they dont agree or misunderstand or dont understand the idea and so they dont like it.

The author should be given the chance to explain in a case by case manner why they think the idea will benefit the game. While the first post should be enough in general, but one cannot think of every scenario and include it.

I have a lot of suggestions and I would love to know why someone does not support my idea. More so than wanting the reason why someone supports it. While it is clear, why someone supports an idea (agrees with first post obviously and the idea), on the other hand people could dislike the idea for various reasons, so this wont help the author to fine-tune the idea or make changes that could make it more acceptable or even explain and convince the people who didnt like it initially.

And now this communication is cut entirely.

Well, I will continue posting my reasons for not supporting but we will see a lot of threads where people wont bother and the author will be lost, confused why people dislike the idea.

You have liked this post!

I find the no support button a fairness thing. So far supporters could just click and anonymously say yes to something while opponents had to be put in the spotlight, often meeting with very mean, aggressive response from some of the said supporters.

Many people wouldn't speak up against an idea, especially if it had a lot of supporters because of it, I know because I felt it and I was subject to being hounded down for saying a valid no with a reason attached. You might say it's because they didn't dislike the idea enough - I say it's because not everyone wants their name attached to it and be open to attack - not every person suggesting ideas does it but many supporters do.

Also what about people that don't want to be 'convinced' and/or do not want the idea in any shape and form? They understand the first post, still do not want it in game? How come some anonymous supporters can just as well make an idea show up high listed and highlighted because they click and yet opponents have to comment, be subject to critiques themselves, subject to 'convincing' or explaining things to them like they are children?

Opposition to an idea was always drowned in the influx of comments and the more controversial the idea or the more aggressive the support the more often opponent's comments were just shouted down in a flood or people telling them they are idiots for 'not understanding', 'not getting how it will improve things', 'being stupid' (because that's valid right?) etc. I'm glad that the statistics of votes are no longer one-sided.

If someone wants to explain their vote, yes or no they can still put it in the comments - but unfortunately as it is on Lioden and why there are constant reminders - the forums are often a mean, aggressive place and when you put your name to your opinion and it isn't liked you will even get threats and vile things through messages.

You have liked this post!

@Siliandra
"So far supporters could just click and anonymously say yes to something while opponents had to be put in the spotlight..."
But dont you see the logic? If someone agrees to a post, they dont need to put any additional detail. But if you dont support, it means you dont agree to the first post and there is addition detail to that. Supporters would just repeat what is in the first post. Non-supporters however have different information to add.

"Many people wouldn't speak up against an idea, especially if it had a lot of supporters because of it, I know because I felt it and I was subject to being hounded down for saying a valid no with a reason attached."
In that case, it means you dont find it important to open the eyes of the people towards your perspective. The main idea behind commenting is, that you share your view, which others can read and it might give them a wider perspective.
Currently, your button click of 'no support' will only add a number to the scarce no-support, without you being able to share your view and convince people and the developers why you think it is bad. See the problem? Numbers -in this case- will mean nothing. It will tell the developers, that x number of people didnt like it but wont tell them why. Eg.: people might not like and mass-no support a thread, which would give a limiting feature towards their gameplay. This doesnt mean the idea is bad.

"Also what about people that don't want to be 'convinced' and/or do not want the idea in any shape and form? They understand the first post, still do not want it in game?"
How do you know they cannot be convinced and dont want it in the game if they were explained? How do you know some people might not actually understand the first post? I had a ton of people misunderstand it, even if I thought it was as clear as day. You seem to concentrate a lot about the judger audience but forget about the suggesting party. The author has the right to know what is wrong with their idea.

"How come some anonymous supporters can just as well make an idea show up high listed and highlighted because they click and yet opponents have to comment, be subject to critiques themselves, subject to 'convincing' or explaining things to them like they are children?"
-see above for explanation why negative critique is important-. As for the last bit, it is EXTREMELY offensive. Just because someone needs to explain to you, doesnt mean they see you as a child. I myself sometimes need to see the base of an idea and need to be explained. This doesnt make me a child. Adults need also need explanation, convincing, persuasion and a calm debate. Nothing childish is in that.

All in all, communication is key. The author deserves to know why the idea is considered bad, has the right for information and if you see anyone being aggressive or calling you or someone else 'stupid' or an 'idiot', then please consult a mod or an admin because being rude to others is against ToS. people will always try to defend ideas that they consider good. This is nothing new.
Do not forget, that not only the voters have rights but also the authors of ideas.

You have liked this post!

Could Xylax please update the wiki, if they run it?

You have liked this post!

@Axel my post was not actually pointed at you and yet you found the need to explain it to me in detail how you feel - did I want that? No. Did I get it without asking for it? Yes. You simply proved the part where when you do speak up and deliver any criticism you will be confronted. Why should I face confrontation when I do not want it?

I know someone does not want to be convinced because they press a button instead of commenting. I know then they don't want an argument about it, they just don't want the idea. Better yet how come you do not address the unfairness of only having up votes? It is plainly unfair for supporters to be anonymous and the opposition to be named and shamed.

If someone has something constructive to say - positive or negative - they still can comment, allow me to use your phrase here 'if they find it important enough'. Being rude doesn't have to be aggressive enough to be deemed against the ToS, sometimes being shot down or 'convinced' forcibly when you didn't want it is just as bad.

You say there is nothing childish in having things explained to you - that depends on whom you deal with, I never asked you in person to explain things to me - yet you spoke up as if I attacked you. I did not refer to you in my first post so please simply accept my opinion, it will not change whatever you say, because I already went through the wringer with it before.

You speak a lot about the rights of the authors - how about the right to say 'no' without being pestered about it? How about the right to say 'no' as anonymously as saying 'yes'? Non-existent? Not relevant?

You have liked this post!

Awesome, I love the leopons:D

You have liked this post!

@Siliandra
...my post was not actually pointed at you and yet you found the need to explain it to me in detail how you feel - did I want that? No. Did I get it without asking for it? Yes. You simply proved the part where when you do speak up and deliver any criticism you will be confronted. Why should I face confrontation when I do not want it? [...]
I never asked you in person to explain things to me - yet you spoke up as if I attacked you. I did not refer to you in my first post so please simply accept my opinion...

And? So I dont have the right to answer to any comment that is posted on a PUBLIC thread?

This is the problem with your thought-process.

You are in public domain.

You cannot tell me to not answer, even if you did not want anyone to reply to your comment. If you are standing on the streets, you cannot scream at everyone who looks at you that you demand they dont do so. They can see you, they will look. I see a comment on a public thread, I have all the right to reply to it. With the person asking for it or not.

I know someone does not want to be convinced because they press a button instead of commenting. I know then they don't want an argument about it, they just don't want the idea.
You can still do so by commenting why you dont like the idea and you can choose to ignore the thread after it, not letting the author convince you. But also at the same time giving the author the right to say their part and explain. Balance.

Better yet how come you do not address the unfairness of only having up votes?
Already explain that in my previous comment but will do so here as well:
Supports = Agrees to first post, would only repeat it, offers no additional detail.
No Supports = Does not agree to first post for a reason, has additional detail and information to offer
The key is in 'repeating the first post'.

The button was added when they saw that people needed to keep saying 'support'. Notice how if someone does not support will reply and explain? If someone just comments 'no support', the author automatically will ask the person why. The additional information the no-supporters offer is important for the author.

You have liked this post!

I would love a hybrid. :3

You have liked this post!

@Axel

Again you simply confirm all that I wrote. You keep telling me what I should think and feel - well I feel you are treating me like a child when you keep explaining the same things over and over, even though I said I did not want that. What is really rude for me is when you deconstruct my posts when I never did it to yours - I simply answer you. You are also aggressive in your responses, in my opinion. You do not allow me to simply say my piece and leave it there.

Public domain? Just another reason for a person opposing the idea to be able to hide as much as supporters do. To say no you have to put a public post into a public forum and not just the author but also others are allowed to throw anything and everything at them.

Please don't tell me I have problems with my thought-processes because that is insulting.

If it is indeed important for you to get feedback, ask and you may just get answered. Many time I see posts that already explain why I wouldn't support the idea, I don't want to repeat that as much as I wouldn't want to repeat the first post of the idea's author. If I find an idea especially perfect than I post still in support of it, not just press the button so that I could add my view to it - the same should be optional for non-supporters.

All I wanted to say was my opinion, not to start an argument you seem so hell bent on getting into - let's part in peace with each of us having their own opinions, how is that?

You have liked this post!