Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-28112409-20190123101502

Pretty commonly thrown around term, either done smoothly or miserably. In the context of ToS, it is found mostly revolving around what roles should be in the game and what roles in the game should be like since that area possesses the greatest potential for creativity and variety of perspectives. Along with it comes the greatest potential for constructive criticism.

Role ideas/reworks and criticism are the most physically intertwined, where making one often sparks conversation and discussion regarding the other. You propose a role idea and people just flow in with their opinions and ideas about it, commonly placing it next to the real game's state for comparison. In almost all the reviews I make, all I do is just point out how something won't and can't work in the game, but in the back of my mind I'm always thinking about whether the concept is there and purposeful or if it's just a bunch of mechanics lumped together for the sake of making the role look good.

It's why I greatly value the role creator taking the discussion further into the comments and actually showing the viewers why this role is there in addition to what they believe it can do for the game. Take it from me, if you created a role and you elaborated on its purpose beyond blabbering a bunch of text in the same rotten template, your role idea would already be a whole level above everyone else's. It greatly reflects your knowledge and understanding of the game, and I can respect whoever voluntarily opens up with it.

There's been somewhat of a recent outcry about "bad reviews", mainly by Retro and Pokechurin.

"But Unkel Vurt da Growth Spurt, y u complein too if it alredy cooverd?"

I'll be honest with you mate. I'm not a fan of Pokechurin jizzing all over his screen in pleasure every time someone responds while doing virtually nothing, nor am I fan of Retro's post structure and contention being fuzzier than a dog's butthole, and I am definitely not liking the spinelessly ineffective approach both of them have taken to bad reviews.

Their posts "criticizing" the "bad reviewers" was about as helpful as a Sheriff in a Ranked game saying "At least 3 out of the 14 others here are suspicious but I don't know who they are". When you vaguely state a group of people but you don't identify them at all, you diffuse the responsibility among them and give them room to throw the blame off themselves or allow them to not care about it. If you really want the "bad reviewers" to change, then how about you grow a pair and address them already? If you're going to select a methodology, at least do it right. This weak attempt at raising standards will not just lift itself.

My issue is this stupid mentality where people are like "Yeah beebol are mean and unhelpful, so they bad, git gud xDDDDD :crying emoji: :crying emoji: :crying emoji:" and people just follow in and they all cry an ocean together. Listen fucko, one does not have to agree with everything the critic says to put their trust in the critic's perspective, obviously. The power of a critic lies not in the number of insults they make or how entertaining their posts are, but it rather lies in the consistency of their voice and the sound of their reasoning.

I take no pride in the "roasts" as people would call it that I make, nor do I care about how entertaining someone finds them. What I value in my reviews is that the actual criticism is distinct from all the side content that no one cares about and that the point I make is very straightforward and clear enough for anyone reading, assuming they don't tunnel vision with the feelies. My reasoning for why Ret is OP has always been consistent, my reasoning for why Disg is not as bad as people make him out to be has been consistent, my reasons for why Forger is a terrible role have been consistent, my consistency has been enough for people to approach my message wall with their ideas all which suggest that they've viewed me at one point or another as a reliable enough source/critic to inquire at. And if you even think that my reviews are anywhere remotely decent, you need to take a look at Ulithemuli's ones. They make everyone else's look like kindergartners biting down on plastic toys.

There are users who have exhibited this level of principles and consistency already. I know that Dragonclaw finds Spy to be overpowered, and he's always had the same reasons for it. He's pretty consistent and he uses the same terminology in all posts about a role that involve said terminology. I know GamesManiac consistently asks for user opinions and places a priority on understanding the other perspective, accompanied by her solidified viewpoint on the purposes of a role alignment. I know Jally used to despise Crusader for a consistent number of reasons until a recent debate. There might be a few more users with similar consistency that I would applaud, but I don't scour the wiki all that much.

The common thing between the previous 3 users is that they all have a consistent view on the topics they discuss, and their reasoning in every post is essentially an extension of their last until people have gotten to understand where they come from and what issues they respond to and why they say what they say. I might disagree with them in some topics, they might not be right in absolutely everything but the important thing here is that their values make sense and discussion with them is pretty easy to maneuver through. In my view, they are all reliable critics for that sort of understanding they have built.

And consistency means that they effectively lead by example. I can personally attest to learning from Dragonclaw's perspectives and my recognition of his Framer rework that had the link for it disappear from his signature under his forum posts (Bring it back, you douchebag). They promote good reviewing while simultaneously undermining those that possess horrid quality, simply because the reputation they've built for themselves in the wiki's role reviewing section is a magnet for the watchful eyes and they act as a beacon for proper feedback.

When I see Dragonclaw or Maniac or Rubik posting something, I don't go "Who's this random dingus?". Instead, all I can think about is "Oh yeah, it's this guy/gal, their feedback should be insightful and worthy". I'm pretty sure a solid bunch of role makers who come here, regardless of whether it is consistently or only recently, can feel the same way when they observe the detail and the method of their writing. This is essentially what I believe to be the most suitable method of approaching "bad reviews". You just need to outshine them, as terrible feedback is meaningless when a reliable source is consistently there. Don't  waste time moaning about the bad reviewers, it does nothing. Your refuting and your arguments that eclipse the bad reviews are what really count here, not the sound of soiling your own diaper from the other side of the website.

If people want to outright criticize the bad reviewers anyway, be my guest. It's just not the methodology I find to be the best. With all that said and done, that's only half the issue I have with bad reviews and the approach to them. I'll go ahead and address the fatass of an elephant in the room.

This page.

This shitshow that has been around for about a couple of years now. This is where a solid deal of your bad reviewers are coming from.

Let me assist you in visualizing how rubbish this page's state is right now. Imagine Consort was not a role, but a role idea. What do you think would the response be? Don't deny it, almost everyone will scream rehash and that the role won't work because everyone and their adopting father can really feel it in their dangling scrotums. The role would never make it into the game. Yet we have already seen how Consort works in practice, and it is actually considered a decent if not a good Mafia role.

There are ignorant noobs and there are players who possess a better awareness of the game's balance state, along with the capabilities of the roles within the game. The difference between them in a review is clear. The ignorant one would defend the Consort because it's already in the game and it is an exception to the rules, while the experienced one would defend the Consort because it provides a real utility to the Mafia and more importantly, prevents Escort from being an autoconfirmed role. Vast difference between the two here and their game knowledge.

I'm not a saint in all this by any means, I'm just as guilty as the next guy for having followed these crappy set of guidelines at one point. It didn't hit me how worthless they were until I saw the absolutely superior state of balance SC2: Mafia has achieved compared to ToS, and the Coven expansion with a bunch of roles breaking the supposed "rules."

The knowledge gap is driven to a bad sink for a crappy resolution. People who are ignorant in regards to the game wouldn't know what to do criticizing a role idea, they have no legitimate values, no proper principles, barely any knowledge, they might be unable to articulate their thoughts correctly, all of that leads to them looking for a higher and a more reliable source of information. Where would they get directed other than the Making New Roles page?

It's a source worked on by multiple users and staff over a long period of time, it is promoted whenever it is asked for or relevant, and it looks well developed. They don't have the necessary skill to take an objective look at the page and actually find something wrong with it in a suitable manner, so they adopt the rules and values put out by the page, meaning their standards are defined by whatever guidelines the page has rather than actual experience of the game.

The page spends too much of the text talking about what not to do, but does fuck all to tell you about the other side of it. The reasoning for most of the rules is either nonexistent or reeking of bullshit. Instead of addressing the concepts from a neutral standpoint and thoroughly discussing the pros and cons of it, the page just gives the reader a middle finger to the creative potential for role ideas and reworks with no good explanation as to why.

Take a Mafia Transporter for example. Don't touch your greasy keyboard with your sweaty fingers yet, because what you think about the Mafia Transporter in the game is completely irrelevant. The issue is that the explanation of the concept is terribly omitting and vague. It says the concept is usually overpowered but doesn't bother exploring how it is actually overpowered. It says it is a rehash, but the fact that it would solve the issue of Transporter being a self-confirmed Town role like Consort has done to Escort is completely concealed with no mention of it whatsoever. SC2: Mafia managed to make the fucking Jailor of all roles balanced by making a Mafia Jailor for crying out loud. If they managed to accomplish that despite the ToS guidelines opposing such a design choice, then what is stopping us from being less anal about the rules?

All those rules listed one after the other completely rejecting concepts and what is the counterweight? A little scrap of a note saying that the role is fine if you manage to make it balanced. How fucking insightful, I would've never knew what to do if it wasn't for that sentence yeah? People following these rules will just wreck your role and despise the hell out of it because it broke a rule but when it turns out to be balanced or when it makes it to the game, everyone will line up to give you a blowie for it. I think that's about enough of the sheep mentality in this wiki.

I am willing to overhaul the whole damn thing, and I will do it one edit at a time if I have to. I believe I speak for a solid majority of people here when I say we've gotten tired and sick of blind judgment being promoted and encouraged instead of appropriate reasoning. The page needs to be food for thought and must contain actual experience shared by users from before, not a bunch of foot-licking rules that do no good for the game.

Basically guys... what I'm trying to say with this post...

...is that Framer sucks dick!

More videogamedunkey 