Denied Suggestions Suggestion - More Potential Back & Forth Before Conclusion

[Emilia Foddg]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:​

Spoiler: How Things Are (From A Community Perspective)

The current flow of how a suggestion typically goes right now, as it appears from the outside:

1. Suggestion is made by OP.
2. Community respond and discuss the suggestion among themselves.
3. At some point when/where/if possible, the relevant staff see it and start to discuss it to some degree, depending on the suggestion itself.
4. After some more time and discussion, staff then give a brief collective response when/where/if possible and close the suggestion with a '(Partially) Accepted' or 'Denied' response.

Spoiler: How This Suggestion Says Things Should Be

How I am suggesting it should work, ideally - This is not exact and is more intended as a guideline as to how suggestions should work; The aim here is to provide the community with the opportunity to hopefully catch and potentially rectify any errors on the part of staff, additionally I am also suggesting the potential addition of a 'Pending' tag to apply to posts that have received at least their first response:

1. Suggestion is made by OP.
2. Community respond and discuss the suggestion among themselves.
3. At some point when/where/if possible, the relevant staff see it and start to discuss it to some degree, depending on the suggestion itself.
   
   
4. After some more time and discussion, staff give a brief collective response (of no different length or complexity than normal) when/where/if possible and indication of whether it may be '(Partially) Accepted' or 'Denied' - They then mark it as pending and leave the suggestion open for further community discussion.
   • This should obviously not apply in cases where the suggestion is overtly inappropriate, mingey or otherwise breaks the rules. For example, if someone made a suggestion thread where literally the entire content of the title of body are something like 'lol give me a staff position' - Something like that should just be straight up deleted or otherwise dealt with as appropriate. Common sense applies, this suggestion is somewhat esoteric and about furthering constructive discussion regarding server alterations and not trying to establish some kind of rule or anything.
     
     
   • As far as suggestions that potentially involve things mentioned in the FAQ... I think that should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis? Like I think just a suggestion that's just 'Hey, increase Chef job slots' with no further nuance, then sure, yeet it. But if it's something that does merit further discussion, then it could reasonably continue as a suggestion. I think that's pretty much how things are handled anyway? Also, add more Chef slots and remove TeamSpeak please (I shouldn't have to clarify that this is not part of this suggestion, although I do genuinely feel this way).
5. Community respond to response and further discuss the suggestion among themselves, which also potentially allows the OP to edit the suggestion where necessary and appropriate, as a result of both community and staff response. If OP does make edits, they should make that clear by posting another reply saying that they did so. It is always OP's responsibility to ensure there is a sufficient amount of information for CT to understand their intentions.
   
   
6. Following a period of at least a couple of days, staff may return to the now-pending (but are not expected to keep track) suggestion when/where/if possible and see if anything meaningful has been contributed to the discussion in light of their first response, that may reasonably influence the decision regarding its potential implementation.
   • If so, then give another brief collective response (of no different length or complexity than normal).
   • If not, then close the suggestion with the current staff conclusion of '(Partially) Accepted' or 'Denied'.
7. Assuming meaningful discussion was had since initial staff response and the suggestion was kept open further, this is the final time in that thread that the community will have to discuss and give any further input as to their reasonings whether the suggestion should be accepted or denied. Ideally the suggestion would not need any more edits if they were necessary before, but the same thing applies here - It would be especially important for OP to make it clear if they edit it again at this point.
   
   
8. Following another period of at least a couple of days, staff may return to the now-pending (but are not expected to keep track) suggestion when/where/if possible and give a brief collective response and ultimate conclusion of '(Partially) Accepted' or 'Denied'.

And if accepted, then this would be the basic guideline for how a forum suggestion should be treated. This is not retroactive - But should also apply to any new threads that intend to re-discuss a previously closed suggestion.

It may potentially be wise, assuming this gets considered and accepted, to trial the new procedure with this suggestion, to accomplish the following:

• Getting into the habit of doing it this way.
• Seeing how well it works.
• Having an example of how it works.

For this purpose, I have deliberately included things in this post that don't make sense, to be later removed via edits. We've basically done this already, so I'm just going to strike this out - But my point being here is that this should possibly be triaged in some manner before going with it fully, in order to work out what is ideal for staff. As with any new thing, especially of this nature, there are going to be teething problems and things to potentially sort out - I'm of the belief that the subforum will come out of this better.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:

Spoiler: Relevant Past Suggestions To This Suggestion #1

It's hard to search for any kind of suggestion of this nature, as this is about suggestions themselves - Closest thing I could find was this suggestion by Pyro from September, about placing massively supported suggestions that would otherwise be denied, into the change-voting Discord channel for further community consideration (which was denied because the tickets system exists); While it does also suggest a change in the workflow of how suggestions are handled, it is completely different to what I am suggesting in this thread - I am suggesting what is essentially an alteration and extension to the existing suggestions procedure. This is an idea I thought of in another suggestion, in response to OP's apparent grievances regarding the lack of communication from Content Team.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):​

Spoiler: Benefits of the Suggestion (4 points listed)

• A full suggestion discussion becomes more nuanced and more of a constructive back-and-forth between community and staff without being unnecessarily demanding of staff's time - Information which is also visible after the fact when searching the suggestion - Where a potentially more complex informative and easier to understand discussion about why something may be denied or (ended up being) accepted can be easily reviewable, making researching & thinking about suggestions/suggestion creation potentially easier, rather than going to create a suggestion. And as opposed to just the community only receiving a binary Yes/No, with optional additional statement of varying ambiguity in response to a given suggestion - Which may leave the community feeling frustrated.
  
  
• Prevents things like this and its follow-up from ever happening again. It did not need to be like that - And it's clear to everyone that staff are not perfect. The fact that this happened implies that it could (and probably has already, even if in part) do so again.
  
  
• Improved intuitiveness and accessibility of the suggestion process.
  
  
• Improves communication in general between staff and community, showing us that we matter.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:​

Spoiler: Drawbacks of the Suggestion (5 points listed)

• Suggestions will take longer to resolve (and subsequently, implement). This point is basically moot because threads last an arbitrary amount of time, anyway? Like, there's some suggestions from a while back that have been discussed, but have not been resolved in any way. And even then, when a suggestion is accepted, it just ends up in the (already extremely extensive) backlog for a long time before eventual implementation, so really all the time issue is going to be on the forum-side.
  
  As-is, the suggestions sub-forum is just an infinite well. As far as time-constraints go, suggestions were already a thing that take place over the course of multiple days and get resolved whenever they get resolved, so the only real downside time-wise is that it will take up more staff time with a 2 or 3 response minimum which would take place over the course of multiple days or even potentially weeks to each suggestion, rather than just the 1, with threads remaining open longer.
  
  
• Suggestions may be more frustrating to deal with, especially from a staff perspective. I completely understand how hard it is to communicate that certain things are just simply not possible or otherwise reasonably feasible to implement. The big main reason why Content Team are the be-all, end-all, final say on things like this are because some things are simply beyond understanding. I am by no means attempting to subvert that with this, I just want improved communication between the community and staff to some degree, so that we can both make the server better.
  
  
• Suggestions backlog will grow more, as threads will be allowed to remain open past an initial response, and staff are unable to process as many suggestions at once. This is just something we'll have to accept - Ideally, the suggestions (and pending suggestions) that have been around longer should be prioritised, but it's unreasonable to expect staff to keep track of that. As things currently are, the community just see (the already long backlog of) suggestions lasting for some length of time (sometimes even for months) without communication, before some are seemingly picked at random and addressed (and sometimes denied with reasons that are just more complex ways of saying what amounts to "we decided not to").
  
  
• CT Meetings would take longer: This is not an intended effect of the suggestion and there are a few ways of interpreting this point, as there are a few ways in which this would possible (If one is missing, please detail it in a reply) -
  
  • Literally every suggestion presently on the subforum gets reviewed with every meeting - Which I hope is not the case and if it is... Please don't do that? I don't think anyone should be expected to sift through an entire, ever-growing subforum of threads at a time.
    
    
  • There is a goal to address X amount of suggestions. My suggestion in this circumstance is to either greatly reduce this amount or entirely discard the suggestion amount goal (constrain meetings by time, rather than getting X things done - since if there will always be a given amount of suggestions in the subforum and they're going to be left alone for arbitrary amounts of time anyway, it makes no sense to try and force yourself to endlessly roll this boulder up the hill (I thought I finished this sentence,, seems I accidentally left it unfinished)) , as and where needed in order to make it more reasonable for staff. Yes, this will reduce the rate at which suggestions are processed. This suggestion is about prioritising quality of resolution over quantity of resolution.
    
    
  • Time devoted to improving staff response per-suggestion compounds, and results in increased meeting durations. There is a misunderstanding regarding this. The suggestion only encourages improved response complexity for every suggestion when/where/if possible, but does not outright demand it. The primary aim of allowing suggestions to occur in distinct phases, rather than the present vacuum-like state of just "suggestion is made, discussion is had, time passes, is closed," is to give the community the opportunity to catch a staff error when interpreting the suggestion - Let us have the opportunity to say "Hey, I don't think this is right and here's why?" It also does not expect the same suggestion to absolutely have to be brought up in the immediate next meeting, only asking to be able to get around to it where/when/if possible. If that's next week, fine. If that's next month, fine. If that's next year, fine. If that's next decade, fine. Please just give us the opportunity to point out that something may not be correct - As it stands, we just remake the thread (as recommended) and you end up discussing it again anyway, only accomplishing the result of cluttering up the forum unnecessarily.
  
  
• Scenario: CT are working on something they can't tell the community about. A suggestion is made that is related to said thing and it can't be addressed in a way that either spoils what they can't discuss, or would otherwise ruin it in some manner.
  
  There is no good way to resolve this, if I were CT and I was in this position... Honestly, I think the best solution in this case would be to leave it alone (until closer to implementation of the thing that the community can't be told about, like say, until it's less than a day away). I know this is a very cloak-and-dagger response that is completely counterintuitive and in total contrast to what I am saying about improving communication, but if good communication is literally not an option in this case, then I would rather have none at all, than a poor and potentially confusing attempt to dismiss the issue entirely, with a potentially frustrating result. Would that potentially leave a suggestion open for literal years? ...Unfortunately, yes.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:​

We are constantly refining the way we do things on the server (What's that? There's other servers on CN? Nooooo) to improve the experience for players. It's about time we made a much-needed change to the way we make changes, so that we can make changes while we make changes better. It may be a little more arduous and time-consuming, especially on staff's part as mentioned, but I for one, believe that the benefits in this circumstance far outweigh the deficits.

Again, I get that staff have the ultimate final say on whether a suggestion is accepted or denied. I just want to improve communication. Sometimes it's difficult for staff to get something across, sometimes it's difficult for the community to get something across. This method may seem like weighting to fix one over the other, but this does effectively increase the total amount of information surrounding pretty much every issue that would come up in a suggestion - Which I mentioned would be useful to have when creating similar suggestions.

 

[Luft]

Content Team isn't built off of full slave labor my good friend, that's an incredible amount of effort to put in place for something that's worked for years at this point. CTs main priority isnt suggestions, its long from it. Doubt any future responses will lead to any changes to a system that's worked perfectly fine.

Afaik they already have that "backlog" system that you're speaking of just without responses such as the "pending/under review".

Bundle up everything CT does, and you'd very very quickly notice that suggestions isn't even within the top 3 category of priority that they have

 

[Emilia Foddg]

Content Team isn't built off of full slave labor my good friend, that's an incredible amount of effort to put in place for something that's worked for years at this point. CTs main priority isnt suggestions, its long from it. Doubt any future responses will lead to any changes to a system that's worked perfectly fine.

Afaik they already have that "backlog" system that you're speaking of just without responses such as the "pending/under review".

Bundle up everything CT does, and you'd very very quickly notice that suggestions isn't even within the top 3 category of priority that they have

...With all due respect. This reply is completely ignorant of all evidence given to the contrary, everyone else's experience with their frustrations regarding staff responses and completely fails to comprehend the suggestion on a fundamental level. A lot of what you're talking about is not or has very little relevance to what is being asked for. Please re-read the suggestion.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

Based on community and staff responses, I've been ideating an edit to the OP where I basically just knock down everything I've written and rewrite the entire suggestion from scratch. I don't think what I've put clearly communicates my idea.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

I've gone back over this again - As per my previous post and after some thought, I don't think I'm going to be making an edit to the OP now, I've instead tried to elucidate my thinking by making some flowcharts.

So these first two basically are an attempt to represent the current state of affairs, first how I've gathered that suggestions work right now, from a community perspective:

And here's what I think currently happens from a CT perspective, based on what I understand so far:

I know that one's a bit condensed, but that's basically supposed to represent everything I understand so far. Like, the majority of the time in this segment is like, the time spent on the second task in the diagram, compounded by however long the loop goes for. With zero understanding of the goal here besides the given "reduce the amount of suggestions in the subforum, which is a lot and a rate that is increasing by a significant degree," this is probably as accurate as I can get.

And here's what the suggestion intends, first from a community perspective:

Note that as depicted, CT don't have to reach a decision on every single suggestion they see. At least, I don't think so. Again, this is based off of the little information I know. It's vague because there's just a vague understanding of what's happening in the first place. Of course we can't expect CT to go over every suggestion each meeting (...I hope?), but as it is now, in every case, any of the following seems to be happening each time:

• A suggestion is brought up and discussed, verdict is given and thread closed. CT move on.
• A suggestion is brought up and discussed, discussion goes nowhere and CT move on.
• A suggestion is brought up, but CT decide not to discuss it, potentially leaving it for another time. CT move on.
• A suggestion is not brought up.

To be clear, I'm not saying any of these things are good or bad - I'm trying to get a bead on what's happening. Because of the lack of information about this, I have to assume that everything I have said is happening in some form. What I'm getting at with this, is that from the way this diagram looks - It might seem like I am trying to suggest that, if they aren't already, CT would be required to come to a conclusion for every suggestion. This is not what I am trying to suggest. I am making assumptions based on incomplete information and working with the most workable outcome. The diagram assumes a verdict was determined instead of going down every possibility, for both brevity and cutting down on redundancy - Obviously if CT can't come to a conclusion, then nothing can happen, right?

Okay. Here's what the suggestion intends from a CT perspective, based on what I understand so far:

Yes, I realise at this point I forgot the 'Mark as Pending' after leaving the suggestion open. That's not intentional, it should be there. And of course, everything I said about assumptions with the previous chart still applies here.

So far the argument is that the highlighted part would add more time to each individual meeting:

...I don't see it. Over the course of multiple meetings since you would end up discussing the same suggestion again in a different one, sure. But that would just take up the time you'd normally spend discussing another suggestion? Which is why I'm saying it would hurt the suggestions backlog, as it would grow more - Since less suggestions are ultimately being discussed and closed as a result.

I am failing to understand the logic by which this process would create any timesink. So far the reasoning has been regarding coming up with a response, but you... Do that anyway, for each suggestion you deny. If anything, this might save you time down the road as it might prevent an improperly dealt with suggestion from being re-opened, as covered previously. Please elaborate to me why this would be the case.

The only other thing I can think of, is that you put effort into a response to make the suggestion pending, which in itself is analogous to the current denial reasoning, but not every suggestion that gets looked at warrants a response, right? And then the subsequent response at another time, is analogous to like... Denying a re-opening of the suggestion? I just don't understand, I'm really struggling to see what's different.

So far, all I've been able to the determine is that I believe the problem to be here:

Every time I think about it, I find myself asking the same question:

Twice a week the Content Team will meet to go through the suggestions to prevent a massive back log (we get numerous suggestions a day),

When I used to be on Content Lead, we used to get on average 3-5 suggestions a day, which was already too much considering we also had to go through other content stuff. However, this number has increased and we are getting 8-10 suggestions a day which simply leaves no time for them to do other stuff, which will obviously cause some various issues, such as:
In the same time frame, Content Team has to go through an increasingly amount of suggestion, which makes so that there's less time for other stuff.

Why?
I've iterated this several times already, but this feels to me like the main factor that is contributing to the majority of problems. And the scope here is weird, because this isn't really in the purview of the suggestion, as the suggestion pertains more to improving communication between the community and Content Team, in a way that's intended to be the most convenient for all involved parties - As opposed to anything to do with improving the rate at which suggestions are resolved; But it's a byproduct of the suggestion's outcome, that the backlog will grow. And CT seems to respond to backlog growth by increasing the amount of suggestions they want to get to, for the purpose of reducing the suggestion backlog.

This has me confused. All that's been said on the matter, is that the rate at which suggestions have been coming in has increased and as a result, CT have had to go over more suggestions, as to prevent a massive backlog.

I've said before that this needs re-evaluating internally and I'll say it again. The way this practice is right now, does not seem conducive to the long-term operation of CT. We have forum sort tools, you can change what you prioritise and focus on that when you get through suggestions. Maybe some day, you will have points where there are just no suggestions. Or at least, any meaningful ones that require in-depth discussion. But for the time being, trying to push back against a growing suggestions rate by increasing the amount of suggestions you respond to, just doesn't look like a good idea at all. You're basically fighting this strengthening river current that is unknown/unclear when it will stop or slow back down, to what effect? It's not worth it, I don't think.

And you know what, I'm going to give that other community response a proper rebuttal, because I look back at it every so often and it annoys me. I don't like my previous response to it.

Content Team isn't built off of full slave labor my good friend, that's an incredible amount of effort to put in place

????????????
I would understand this if I basically just demanded that they have to give more detailed explanations, or something that seemingly and unreasonably demanded a significant amount more effort on CT's part, but what I am suggesting is, if taken barebones, asks for CT to basically do what they're doing already - Basically just asking for some kind of change to the way suggestions are resolved, that puts the onus on the community to, if they seriously believe a suggestion will improve the server, actually reinforce their side of the argument.

But as I keep saying, CT ultimately have the final say. If the suggestion can't prove to be a good, feasible and reasonable improvement, then it won't be accepted.

What you have stated, is simply attacking an argument that I am not making.

for something that's worked for years at this point.

Doubt any future responses will lead to any changes to a system that's worked perfectly fine.

The way things are now works... For who?

The community? The people receiving responses that, have even been stated by Rushi to be half-arsed/lazily done and will be evaluated - Some past suggestions having been poorly dealt with to the point where the community re-opened that suggestion asking for the same thing, outright stating that the prior denial was not what was asked for?

CT? I don't think having to up the ante, when it comes to responding to an ever-increasing amount of suggestions every meeting, works for them.

Yes, it functions by literal technical definition. But that's about it. But I'm fairly certain the way things are now, is dysfunctional.

CTs main priority isnt suggestions, its long from it.

Bundle up everything CT does, and you'd very very quickly notice that suggestions isn't even within the top 3 category of priority that they have

I would agree, but both a Community Supervisor and a Superadmin have basically said that CT are attempting to match the rate at which suggestions increase, with an increased rate at which they respond to suggestions - Which is something that is greatly alarming to me.

That should say that as things are, getting to suggestions is something priority enough that it has to actually start eating into the other parts of the meeting time that is not for suggestions. This is something I talked about earlier in this post.

Afaik they already have that "backlog" system that you're speaking of just without responses such as the "pending/under review".

I get what you mean. The community see an active suggestion and can discuss it. I understand that.

But thing is with CT responses, there are a few key differences:

• If CT give another response like this for example, then the community, instead of having to make yet another suggestion to reiterate, can immediately jump in and say "Hey, I don't think that is what was being asked for, and here's why." This can then rectify the situation - Especially without having to go through an entire previous suggestion for context, although I guess that is what's happening if the entire 'previous suggestion' is already in the thread.
  
  Yeke did say that CT are not going to try and guess what we want if it's unclear - And while I did disagree with that, with explanation of why I think CT have been doing so, I do actually agree with the idea in principle. It's not fair to expect CT to have to spend time poring over each suggestion. So don't. Let us be the check. This way, if CT get something wrong, we can say as much.
  
  
• A simple and curt explanation of why a suggestion may not be accepted, could reasonably be overturned with sufficient reasoning (And conversely, a suggestion that might have been overlooked by CT and would potentially prove harmful to server health, could be proven as such - And may end up being denied because of it? I don't know how likely it is, but I think the distinct possibility is there). I don't have any examples on hand of this, I'd have to go digging, but to my recollection, it has happened with previous suggestions & subsequent re-openings of said suggestion (in some form). I guess when you boil everything down, this is basically a sort of 'forced re-opening' of every subsequent suggestion, just all in the same thread. Which leads nicely into my final difference, but it's more about resolved suggestions,
  
  
• This would ultimately just make it not only cleaner, but easier to consume and more informative, in the context of going through any resolved suggestions when creating a new suggestion, to see if a suggestion idea has been denied/accepted before and why (Which really, everyone should be doing. I have unfortunately seen just carbon-copy re-openings of prior suggestions, with no additional input on the subject matter, which were rightfully denied). Because of the increased nuance in this circumstance, it may even entirely prevent a re-opening of a given suggestion, depending on how thoroughly the community explored that particular suggestion topic, if and where applicable.

I maintain the stance overall that this should at least be explored, but I'll have to accept it if it ultimately turns out that this is not feasible for whatever reason. I do have planned, what I hope is an extremely beneficial suggestion aimed at CT, but that's for another time. Turns out they already did that, so w/e ?

 

[Bill Nye The Guy]

the ENTIRE point of a flowchart is to be simple to read, concise, and short yet you SOMEHOW managed to break all three of those unbreakable rules (partly because you've made SIX of them)

i think it'd be best for you to SUMMARISE WHAT YOU CURRENTLY WANT IN ONE OR TWO PARAGRAPHS!
maybe ask chatGPT to do it

 

[Emilia Foddg]

the ENTIRE point of a flowchart is to be simple to read, concise, and short yet you SOMEHOW managed to break all three of those unbreakable rules (partly because you've made SIX of them)

i think it'd be best for you to SUMMARISE WHAT YOU CURRENTLY WANT IN ONE OR TWO PARAGRAPHS!
maybe ask chatGPT to do it

welcome to the programming school of flowcharts, where nothing makes any sense and the points don't matter. also, i made 4, the other two images are just highlighting different areas of one

 

[Coffeatus]

The loop you suggest to put CT in does not have a clear and precise exit point. Perhaps you explained it, but my guy... even for someone with excess free time this is a lot to study. Just post the solution you see, don't explain the entirety of the Suggestion Forums lore (do not describe all the way how you got to the solution, just the solution. You are not making a documentary.).

 

[Emilia Foddg]

The loop you suggest to put CT in does not have a clear and precise exit point. Perhaps you explained it, but my guy... even for someone with excess free time this is a lot to study. Just post the solution you see, don't explain the entirety of the Suggestion Forums lore (do not describe all the way how you got to the solution, just the solution. You are not making a documentary.).

I'm not even suggesting to put in a new loop, I'm suggesting an alteration to the current one. If you don't see the sense in it or an exit point, that's entirely because that's how it is now, because I never touched that aspect of the loop. Go over Yeke and Rushi's posts, they described how CT look at suggestions when they do.

also, how do i possibly boil this down while retaining my intention?

at most, i can reduce this to "instead of outright closing suggestions when dealing with them, give us chance to respond first in case either you missed something or we otherwise find a reasonable way to salvage this suggestion"

but that's a bit too vague and misinterpretable, especially when talking about fundamental alterations to a discussion loop.

 

[Niox]

I HAD TO SUMMARISE THE SUMMARISATION, AND THEN THERES ALL THE REPLIES TO GO THROUGH AS WELL?
+Support
-YOU ARE A LUNATIC FOR DOING THIS

on a actual note this does seem like a good idea, helps with communication as stated which is always good

 

[Emilia Foddg]

View attachment 13044
I HAD TO SUMMARISE THE SUMMARISATION, AND THEN THERES ALL THE REPLIES TO GO THROUGH AS WELL?
+Support
-YOU ARE A LUNATIC FOR DOING THIS

on a actual note this does seem like a good idea, helps with communication as stated which is always good

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[PhoenixHeanix]

You gon fill any more dictionaries or is the 50'th enough?
though it looks like an... alright suggestion

 

[Emilia Foddg]

I'd also like to add that suggestions being denied for reasons not congruent with or otherwise relevant to what is being asked for in the suggestion, are still like a thing that is happening:

Denied - /roll tweaks

What does this suggestion change/add/remove: - Move /roll command output to /looc layer of the chat. - Add cooldown to /roll. Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?: I have not seen similar suggestions. Possible Positives of the suggestion (At...

www.civilgamers.com

Chemist Change

What does this suggestion change/add/remove: Changes the "Press shift to skip button" when you buy a chemical to a toggle-able button that turns the confirmation menu on and off. Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?: No. Possible Positives of...

www.civilgamers.com

imo these are prime targets for re-opening at the current stage because like... huh.

but like under this system, we would be able to say like "hey, that's not what was asked for" and fix that

 

[Canoon]

Hello,

Thank you for taking the time to provide both a suggestion and feedback in relation to the way we currently run the suggestion forum.

After discussing this with the Network Leadership team, we do not plan at this stage to implement this suggestion.

There are a number of reasons why various suggestions are not progressed, including the practicality of the suggestion, how it will impact the gameplay loop, and other factors. These are discussed at length at by-weekly meeting by the content team, with the support of the Server Leadership team and the Network Leadership team. These people are volunteers, and dedicate a signficent amount of time to go through suggestions. We as a community do not see a benefit in adding extra workload to them.

Have a pleasant day.