There seems to be an increase in posters who don't actually read the original posts in threads. These posters seem to read the subject line, then reply to that, assuming that all info was in the subject line. We saw a lot of this in Incarnate's suggestion for Pillagable stations. These replies interrupt the logical flow of the thread instead of promoting healthy discourse. Those who actually read the entire post, and knew what was about got drowned out by those who assumed what it was about without reading the actual post.

I suggest that all posts in reply to OPs on the suggestion forums be required to write a brief summery of the OP. This summary will be hidden from view from the general public. Only the devs/guides will be able to read it. It will be proof that a person replying has a correct idea about what the suggestion is about.

Positives: More people actually reading before replying means the potential for post quality will go up. A reduction in one off troll posts will improve the SNR. The devs/guides will be able to, in a glance, understand if a poster truly understands what they are replying to. Emotion driven +1/-1 campaigns will be reduced.

Negatives: More writing for all participants of the forums. Because of that, this could limit the amount of posting because it will be seen as more of a hassle.

This could be done using a web form with required fields for submission.. it's a good idea, seems like a simple fix as well

The situation with the pillagable-stations example actually runs a little beyond the OP case, here. In that example, people didn't simply avoid reading the OP, they avoided reading responses or on-going discussion as well.

Like the #1 criticism in that thread was "people will steal my stuff within seconds!" where I repeatedly stated there could be a lengthy time-lock on inventories, anywhere from hours to months, allowing re-conquest and recourse prior to theft. (It was "mentioned" in the original OP, but expanded considerably during discussion).

So, I'm not sure that the OP suggestion (here) would really have addressed that case. In that situation, responses appeared to be more driven by misleading conversations held elsewhere, like on guild-specific forums, or in-game chats. People came on the forums to reply to.. what someone "had told them" was happening.

As far as I can tell, the best response is probably administrative. If people repeatedly post dumb crap without reading the thread, we should mute them off of Suggestions for a period of time, and after a few mutes they get booted permanently.

Going back to the "pillage" example, there is sometimes a reactionary effect when a particular discussion has a substantial perceived impact on a specific player sub-set (sometimes a guild, sometimes just a group of friends or other "aligned" players).. then people log on to "pile on" and "vote down" the idea (not that that's how this.. works, anyway). If the repercussions for doing that is effectively losing your "voice" in on-going development discussions, well, people might take that more seriously?

But, that also gets back into the realm of "perhaps Suggestions needs to be like the PCC, but read-only, and access has to be requested". And, that's probably a good route to take, but it's.. yet more time. Although probably not much more than doing the OP-solution in this case.

suggestions should probably be for fully subbed accounts only.. (bracing for backlash for this post)

Making forum access a privilege like the VO Discord relay access makes sense, but I don't think it should be made premium-sub only. I actually don't see how it would benefit. It's not like full sub players are more likely to give well thought-out responses than lite or free players.

Sid123 wrote:
It's not like full sub players are more likely to give well thought-out responses than lite or free players.

As much as I wish I could disagree with that statement...

Anyways, yeah, having entire threads get out of hand because someone tl; dr'd something is quite infuriating, but if someone wants to not put in valid effort, its best we just pull out a ruler and get give that pilot a whack, while properly explaining our own stance(s) to those providing and/or looking for proper feedback.

I am curious, however, if guides/devs could perhaps mark a post as "irrelevant", for lack of a better word. the posts themselves wouldn't be hidden, but the text color could be dimmed out, making it obvious to the poster and other viewers that the comment had ignored the OP and/or discussion.

I'm... not even sold on my own idea, though.

Perhaps the Rules could be expanded to include some new clauses that encourage the etiquette you want. Possible ideas:
* "Let everyone have a chance to reply. We have many players that visit the forums at various frequencies and different times. It can be easier to have a conversation by waiting for multiple comments to come in and respond to them all at once, rather than one by one as they trickle in.
* "Not every reply needs to be responded to. Two people debating over one detail makes it difficult for others to comment on the OP or other posts"
* "Disagreement does not require a response. It's natural for players to disagree or have differing opinions, and know you don't need to change their mind"
* "Rule #6 - Read the OP, Read the Replies, Stay On Topic."

Alternatively, devs/guides could start enforcing Rules #4 & #6 more frequently. I know this goes against the spirit of reducing the amount of moderation work that's present in OP, but you are ostensibly not infringing on the perception of access to Suggestions.

suggestions should probably be for fully subbed accounts only.. (bracing for backlash for this post)

I disagree. Lite subbed and freemium players could have valuable suggestions and input. Restricting their access wouldn't be beneficial to the game.

-1. A summary is an undue burden and will be otherwise problematic.