Limit users to one reply per thread for Suggestions/ideas

[.geeK]

People should absolutely be able to share their opinions and give context and thought to any opinion being asked.

That being said, back and forth conversations and arguments open up ideas to derailment and other toxic and hostile interactions.


To prevent that, limiting the reply to a thread to one person per user, will do a few great things:

• Simplify Moderation -- Mods now don't need to review problematic users for continued rule breaking -- Everything would be in one singular post!
  
• Makes operational cost for Valve better (through less moderation)
  
• Allows comment numbers to be representative of people interested in the feature (good or bad -- this opens up discussion on how to classify comments quickly as for or against, which could be a further improvement)
  
• Minimizes scrolling -- People, in general, scan information instead of reading it. Aggregating one persons opinion into a singular posts allows to get general ideas across and more so encourages a poster to clarify and fix based on other posts (so its not censorship, but formatting better)
  
• Reduces trolling/harassment and toxicity -- Removing the ability to bicker back and forth will mitigate a lot of thread closing due to non-productive discussion

I believe this option brings this forum to the right direction and spirit of a good feedback forum. If further discussion or arguments are needed, creating a secondary post in "Steam Discussions" could be warranted or encouraged.

Arguments and counter arguments

Discussion is important. removing that ability hinders users ability to discuss ideas and clarifies things

Discussion may be important to the users who think their opinion is valid, which is why allowing them to leave said opinion on the suggestion, and edit to clarify should absolutely still be intact.Banter and continuous back and forths between users do nothing but create environments where hostility, brigading and toxicity can take place. This mitigates the majority of that, and reduces that to a minimum.I encourage any repeated posters to review their comments and imagine them being aggregated together, instead of separated and spread out.

No seriously, we NEED to be able to reply directly to things!

Nothing would prevent you from sharing your opinion and editing your opinion based on someones context which follows. In fact, as I just mentioned, take a look at this thread alone. For the repeat responders, having their entire opinion in a single post would IMPROVE the suggestions.It may even allow newer users to share their opinions more freely as well, instead of having one post steamrolled and overwhelmed by the same individuals.

Valve doesn't read whole threads! This is completely unnecessary

Valve has only indicated that developers review this forum from time to time to make changes.This would allow Valve to get a better gist of a thread, as it purposely removes discussion opportunities, and opportunities to derail or get off topic.

Bad actors could use this to break rules!

Bad actors already are well equipped to break rules, and happens all of the time in comments and posts.In terms of Safety and security, if you cannot eliminate something entirely, then reducing the "attack surface" is what you can do.This does that, while still allowing users to give their opinion in a more coordinated and concise fashion.It encourages user TO edit their posts to help them clarify and and restate their position.

They should eliminate the problem permanently, instead of restricting posts

Valve has decided they do not want to enforce heavier moderation and actively makes decisions to ban and unban users that are repeat offenders. It seems that the problem is something they may not have full insight into, or may be missing crucial information in such posts.Consequently, most replies are not helpful to strengthen or weaken reasoning surrounding suggestions, so putting guard rails up protects the suggester and protects discussion.

Editing is a mess! It ruins discussion!

It may ruin discussion for individuals trying to go back and forth with users, overpowering the discussion, amplified by other users... but it actually serves suggestions and ideas really well, and again, serves Valve well too -- The intended audience of posts.If further discussion is ever needed on a topic, Steam discussions could be used.

OP should NOT be able to make edits to their post

This goes against the notion that ideas can and should be clarified or strengthened, and reduces the ability of the poster to add further context, such as similar post links, youtube videos explaining their position or other examples, such as post aggregation. I do however agree that OP should also be limited to a single comment (maybe that second comment is where counter arguments could go?).

This would just create an echo chamber

Echo chambers happen when a person or group of people consistently post and take over threads by arbitrarily pumping up the comment count. By eliminating this artificial pump up, you now have threads which are more representative of the interest in the suggestion. More so, you prevent users from derailing threads, which lead to harassment, toxicity and cyberbullying.

Valve wouldn't be able to moderate edits!

There are plenty of ways to identify things that are broken. Changing the system to allow for edits would be relatively trivial in terms of engineering efforts.Also, Valve has not disclosed, and will not disclose, software functionality or internal processes, so unless Valve says its not technically feasible, there is no reason to believe that.

User:"That's not what I said!!"

I'm not quoting or focusing on anyone in particular, nor targeting anyone. I'm presenting arguments which are DERIVED from the numerous pages of comments and then forming an argument and counter argument. Sorry if you had any other impression, user!

If they wanted feedback like that they would have done it already!

There are numerous reasons why something was created, then left that way -- Capacity, prioritization and lack of visibility. Valve has feedback forums to allow for suggestions, which should definitely exist. What shouldn't exist is situations that are not efficient for Valve and hard for users to follow. It seems that with the massive rise of users, this is one feature that didn't scale well. Pointing it out, as any suggestion does, should be encouraged.

[.geeK]

引用自 KittenGrindr：

[

If the "Good, valid, non-rulebreaking post' applies to the topic, then the exact same should apply to the replies.

I think you missed the part about "noise" and too much comments from one person or group of people to encourage others to partake.

Also, as indicated by various themes and posts by numerous people, who are not me ( ), there seems to be some persistent posts or users missed by moderators and reporting.


Here are the two reasons in which limited replies are a positive:

Allows comment numbers to be representative of people interested in the feature (good or bad -- this opens up discussion on how to classify comments quickly as for or against, which could be a further improvement)
Minimizes scrolling -- People, in general, scan information instead of reading it. Aggregating one persons opinion into a singular posts allows to get general ideas across and more so encourages a poster to clarify and fix based on other posts (so its not censorship, but formatting better)

[Boblin the Goblin]

引用自 .geeK：

引用自 Gwarsbane：

If users are limited to 1 reply per suggestion thread, then the OPs is limited to zero replies and only making 1 "suggestion" thread a year.

Seems like shoddy logic. One allows discussing an idea and allowing someone to reply, in albeit in a limited limited fashion. The other one prevents discussion entirely based on an arbitrary rule.

Like limiting to one reply and forcing any discussion to be had through multiple edits?

They are the same after all. One just puts the same limit on OP from posting suggestions. If that is 'preventing discussion entirely based on arbitrary rules.' then so is limiting a reply to only one.

[AmsterdamHeavy]

Oh. Still trying to control the conversation.

Nope.

[Boblin the Goblin]

引用自 .geeK：

引用自 KittenGrindr：

[

If the "Good, valid, non-rulebreaking post' applies to the topic, then the exact same should apply to the replies.

I think you missed the part about "noise" and too much comments from one person or group of people to encourage others to partake.

You are, again, letting a personal grievance with users be a driving point in the suggestion you are making. That isn't valid.

引用自 .geeK：

Also, as indicated by various themes and posts by numerous people, who are not me ( ), there seems to be some persistent posts or users missed by moderators and reporting.

Again, just because you think it breaks the rules, does not mean it does. Mods have removed posts and users who have broken the rules. If those feel they are innocent, they are more than free to appeal in their ticket. If mods did not take action, the post did not break the rules regardless of how you feel about it.

引用自 .geeK：

Here are the two reasons in which limited replies are a positive:

Allows comment numbers to be representative of people interested in the feature (good or bad -- this opens up discussion on how to classify comments quickly as for or against, which could be a further improvement)
Minimizes scrolling -- People, in general, scan information instead of reading it. Aggregating one persons opinion into a singular posts allows to get general ideas across and more so encourages a poster to clarify and fix based on other posts (so its not censorship, but formatting better)

I addressed these in my 2nd(3rd?) reply to this topic. It has also been addressed by other users in this topic.

for brevity's sake, I'll link it below;

引用自 KittenGrindr：

I'm actually going to break this down;

• This would not simplify moderation because that isn't how the moderation works. They don't 'review' users for repeated rule breaking. They can see your moderation history when they decide action already. You aren't cutting anything out to make it easier.
  
• The mods are paid based on a schedule. This would not make it cheaper. They are set to work so many hours. They get paid in those hours regardless of how much moderation they do.
  
• It wouldn't do that. Comment numbers just mean how active a post is, it doesn't designated interest in an idea. You're also trying to make this a 'for or against' which isn't true for ideas either.
  
• This wouldn't prevent scanning. If anything, it would encourage it because now you are just hit with this wall of text instead of individual responses.
  
• This wouldn't reduce that since you can still edit comments. All this would do it put it all in one posts and make it more of a mess. Threads aren't closed as often as you think or are making it out to be.

[.geeK]

引用自 KittenGrindr：

Like limiting to one reply and forcing any discussion to be had through multiple edits?

Limiting to a user to having a voice in a singular post encourages clarity and reduction of low effort posts, in addition to singular users trying to steer and take over something they don't like by persistently and repeatably replying with roughly the same tone of "I don't like it, this is stupid, this will hurt me".

If all of that was in a singular post, you would still be able to get your point across without having to force Valve into trying to derive valuable and productive posts from a *checks number* seven pages of comments from a group of people within two hours.

In short, it cuts down on "spam", attempts to derail, attempts to target users and focus on an individual, which could lead to harassment.

[Boblin the Goblin]

引用自 .geeK：

引用自 KittenGrindr：

Like limiting to one reply and forcing any discussion to be had through multiple edits?

Limiting to a user to having a voice in a singular post encourages clarity and reduction of low effort posts, in addition to singular users trying to steer and take over something they don't like by persistently and repeatably replying with roughly the same tone of "I don't like it, this is stupid, this will hurt me".

So it's about controlling the conversation? Considering your suggestion literally wouldn't prevent that with being able to edit comments.

引用自 .geeK：

If all of that was in a singular post, you would still be able to get your point across without having to force Valve into trying to derive valuable and productive posts from a *checks number* seven pages of comments from a group of people within two hours.

Again, you assume Valve reads past the title or doesn't have a way to filter on their end. It would also do the opposite considering they would now have to piece together a conversation through edits instead of direct replies.

引用自 .geeK：

In short, it cuts down on "spam", attempts to derail, attempts to target users and focus on an individual, which could lead to harassment.

It wouldn't though. Instead of multiple posts you consider 'spam' you now just have giants posts with back and forth edits between users, not to mention any edits made to the topic by OP.

[.geeK]

引用自 KittenGrindr：

You are, again, letting a personal grievance with users be a driving point in the suggestion you are making. That isn't valid.

You're making a lot of assumptions on who I am or how I feel. There is no personal grievance. I don't know anyone in this forum, nor care enough about anyone in this forum to form one.

Let me try out a tone you have used directed at me:

You do not get to tell people how they feel, nor attempt to drive a narrative about someone who you do not know.

I addressed these in my 2nd(3rd?) reply to this topic. It has also been addressed by other users in this topic.

Sorry, you've made so many posts against my.. Three? posts that it's hard to keep track or listen to all of them. Let's call it less than 10 in this thread all together, and less than 5 where I actually quoted or replied to you.

[Boblin the Goblin]

引用自 .geeK：

引用自 KittenGrindr：

You are, again, letting a personal grievance with users be a driving point in the suggestion you are making. That isn't valid.

You're making a lot of assumptions on who I am or how I feel. There is no personal grievance. I don't know anyone in this forum, nor care enough about anyone in this forum to form one.

Let me try out a tone you have used directed at me:

You do not get to tell people how they feel, nor attempt to drive a narrative about someone who you do not know.

I'm not telling you how to feel. I'm saying your feelings about this 'group' you keep mentioning are not a valid point for the suggestion you are making.

I addressed these in my 2nd(3rd?) reply to this topic. It has also been addressed by other users in this topic.

引用自 .geeK：

引用自 KittenGrindr：

Sorry, you've made so many posts against my.. Three? posts that it's hard to keep track or listen to all of them.

You have made much more than that along with edits to OP, which I addressed a few as they appeared for brevity's sake. You've also had no issue 'keeping track' of comments by me before.

[Gwarsbane]

引用自 .geeK：

引用自 Gwarsbane：

If users are limited to 1 reply per suggestion thread, then the OPs is limited to zero replies and only making 1 "suggestion" thread a year.

Seems like shoddy logic. One allows discussing an idea and allowing someone to reply, in albeit in a limited limited fashion. The other one prevents discussion entirely based on an arbitrary rule.

But you are not allowing a discussion because a discussion is back and forth, not 1 single reply. You also don't seem to limit the OP to one single reply to the replies so they could say what ever they wanted after that and the person you are replying to can't say anything other then edit their own reply, which then starts making everything disjointed.

引用自 .geeK：

I'd use stronger words with how bad this suggestion is but I don't want to get banned.

Are you sure? I would love to hear how you REALLY feel about me.

Funny how you think this is how I feel about you... no its not about you, its about the REALLY bad idea.

You keep trying to derail the thread off of your bad idea. How about trying to defend your idea with reasons why it would be a good thing...



Also noticed how this is the only parts you reply to. You didn't include the part with me pointing out in your own words, why this is a bad idea.

So I quote again...

引用自 .geeK：

Why? If someone has a good, valid, not rule breaking post, why would Valve not want to hear it?

That seems like an arbitrary rule that hurts proper discussion.


Note How in my suggestion, the only restriction is that a user has one opportunity to make a post For or against something. Editing, deleting and reposting and creating threads in the ACTUAL discussion forum is all options they would still have.

Again YOUR OWN REPLY is the best reasoning why this is a bad idea....

Why? If someone has good, valid, not rule breaking replies to posts, why would Valve not want to hear them?

That seems like an arbitrary rule that hurts proper discussion...


If the OP is allowed to reply, then all the users should be able to reply more than once. If the OP is not allowed to reply, then there would just be a whole lot of whining that its not fair to people making the suggestion.

Yet again, you and a number of others who have suggested stuff like this before, just don't like people pointing out just how bad the ideas are and sadly there are A LOT of bad ideas suggested in this discussion area. Most of them are never thought out with just had badly their ideas can be abused and many times the OPs just don't seem to get it and this is why many times you get pages upon pages of people arguing in circles.


So yet again consider YOUR own words in a reply from the first page for reasoning why this idea will never happen.

[Mad Scientist]

引用自 .geeK：

引用自 KittenGrindr：

Like limiting to one reply and forcing any discussion to be had through multiple edits?

Limiting to a user to having a voice in a singular post encourages clarity and reduction of low effort posts, in addition to singular users trying to steer and take over something they don't like by persistently and repeatably replying with roughly the same tone of "I don't like it, this is stupid, this will hurt me".

Except that is not what they are saying at all. Labeling replies as "noise" also gives a more bad faith interpretation of the responses, rather than actually discussing the responses in an appropriate manner. Generally, if you want to sell an idea as feasible, valuable etc; you sell it, you don't do things like that. Selling an idea is being able to deal with criticism, pointing out flaws, having more than "i agree" or i disagree" as the responses and even wanting clarity of short responses, not wanting to restrict them for perception of low quality of responses.

If users would have a 1-Limit reply, then the OPs ability to edit threads should be disabled in the thread and have a 1-Limit to reply within their own thread or inability to reply, which again is very much against the point of having a discussion.

引用自 .geeK：

If all of that was in a singular post, you would still be able to get your point across without having to force Valve into trying to derive valuable and productive posts from a *checks number* seven pages of comments from a group of people within two hours.

You seem to be focusing on "friends" or a "group". Whoever is posting, is simply posting. Activity varies, users vary depending on time of day, weekday, weekend, holidays or other factors. It's best to try having a discussion. One could always walk away from a given thread if not wanting to interact with the public as well.

Also, if an OP wants to sell an idea it's best done the first time, not via edits. If users will have restrictions globally, the OP needs to have the same exact limitations or even more restrictions to prevent abuse of systems. Editing the OP as "Arguments and counter arguments" is optically not so great as a self descriptive of wanting to argue, not so much have a discussion and just have the overall say in a controlled space where everyone else has a 1-Limit reply, which again, is immensely counter productive to a Discussion Forum which is to have a discussion.

Suggestions/Ideas is not to become a polling place. Polls were removed for a reason.

引用自 .geeK：

In short, it cuts down on "spam", attempts to derail, attempts to target users and focus on an individual, which could lead to harassment.

There was an attempt and it was dealt with, so the system works and allowing users to continue the discussion is the best thing rather than putting restrictions for everyone because of a very small amount of users that try to argue or violate rules rather than have a discussion.

Again, I must point out such restrictions would bury threads. This would also encourage re-creation of threads or branching threads which causes more spam and buries new/newer users suggestions/ideas, even if they are usually not so great. Having a discussion in a discussion forum is the point of a forum. Such a suggestion goes against the "Everyone is welcome" part, though since everyone is by default welcome, their privileges can be temporarily or permanently revoked if their behavior is poor. Hence, the system works and allows by default anyone to come & go from any one section at any moment, to have, reply to, or continue a discussion without restrictions.

Those that are a problem, receive restrictions. The system works.

If they want private feedback, they will use their standard sources for such.

[.geeK]

引用自 KittenGrindr：

I'm not telling you how to feel. I'm saying your feelings about this 'group' you keep mentioning are not a valid point for the suggestion you are making.

Lol, what "group" is that? You mean the ones where you can go to a public profile and see repeated names all posting in succession with one another? Yes, I did seem to call that out once in this thread.

Oddly enough, that has nothing to do with this post, which isn't surprising.

I've been waiting for Chell, The G-man or some other wonderful moderator to swoop in here with the "This is being locked because it has devolved into non-productive discussion. Thanks for your understanding" For... at least 3 pages.

The only mistake I've made was replying those handful of times... Or was it? I do like seeing how people respond, so maybe it WAS good. I'll think on it more.

[.geeK]

引用自 Gwarsbane：

How about trying to defend your idea with reasons why it would be a good thing...

As I have in the "counter arguments" section.

Engaging with you directly only serves as a reason for... what, another page of posts of picking apart every sentence.


I would say maybe 10-15 of the comments out of the 102 comments {and growing} have anything of value to a person making a decision on a change in their service. I don't really feel the need to entertain all of them to have a good idea.

Again, none of this is about me, despite your attempts to drive that narrative.

[Boblin the Goblin]

引用自 .geeK：

引用自 KittenGrindr：

I'm not telling you how to feel. I'm saying your feelings about this 'group' you keep mentioning are not a valid point for the suggestion you are making.

Lol, what "group" is that? You mean the ones where you can go to a public profile and see repeated names all posting in succession with one another? Yes, I did seem to call that out once in this thread.

Oddly enough, that has nothing to do with this post, which isn't surprising.

You literally are the person who even said anything about a group first...

引用自 .geeK：

How many posts and rehashing from a single person do you need? 4 pages from a group of steam friends

引用自 .geeK：

This would just create an echo chamber

Echo chambers happen when a person or group of people consistently post and take over threads by arbitrarily pumping up the comment count. By eliminating this artificial pump up, you now have threads which are more representative of the interest in the suggestion. More so, you prevent users from derailing threads, which lead to harassment, toxicity and cyberbullying.

No one was talking about a group of users(outside of someone mentioning making a Steam group if you want to control discussion) until you edited the topic and made a post out of nowhere mentioning it.

[.geeK]

引用自 KittenGrindr：

引用自 .geeK：

How many posts and rehashing from a single person do you need? 4 pages from a group of steam friends

No one was talking about a group of users(outside of someone mentioning making a Steam group if you want to control discussion) until you edited the topic and made a post out of nowhere mentioning it.

I think you missed the part where I'm not targeting or specifically talking about any person.


A person suggesting an idea should provide usecases, which a group of people would be indeed a usecase.


You not liking that usecase isn't my problem, nor is rulebreaking because you disagree or it feels relatable.

[Boblin the Goblin]

引用自 .geeK：

引用自 KittenGrindr：

No one was talking about a group of users(outside of someone mentioning making a Steam group if you want to control discussion) until you edited the topic and made a post out of nowhere mentioning it.

I think you missed the part where I'm not targeting or specifically talking about any person.

Never said you were targeting a specific person.

引用自 .geeK：

A person suggesting an idea should provide usecases, which a group of people would be indeed a usecase.

Please show me how that applies here;

引用自 .geeK：

How many posts and rehashing from a single person do you need? 4 pages from a group of steam friends

引用自 .geeK：

You not liking that usecase isn't my problem, nor is rulebreaking because you disagree or it feels relatable.

Never said or even suggested it was rulebreaking. Honestly have no idea why you even mention that.