In the Overachiever's guide, it recommends Techne. Techne is out of date, and is nowhere near as good as the Tabula mod for Minecraft, which does the same thing, but better. Tabula supports animating, and has some other useful things that make it way easier to make mod models, especially if you plan to put them in the game somehow. I think you should recommend this in the guide too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was trying to fit Heimskr's speech into this place, but it wouldn't fit.
Replaced "Techne" with "Tabula" in the Overachiever's Guide.
Added a new section: Logic and Realism (which might later get merged with another section)
Added a reminder on how to stay updated with changes to the guide.
You guys think I should add a section about rebelling users? You know, the ones that go "oh so no one's supporting my idea? this is the worst forum! I'm now gonna spam and troll it forever hahahaha oh sweet revenge!!" Yeah, those kind of people.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Unofficial Suggestion Guide - Everything you need to know to not make goofy mistakes in a suggestion! Honestly though, you should really go there.
While not the same, "Logic and Realism" and "what fits" would seem to go hand in hand. Logic and realism being a subset of "what fits."
Also, I may have missed it, but I don't see anything against vague suggestions in here. Specifically, the trend I'm seeing: "We need something that does this!" without explaining what that something is.
To add to what Chamelon said, perhaps a section detailing about Vague suggestions. While not against the rules, it's no excuse not to be vague and leave others in the dust to not understand one thing about your suggestion. Another is how making a suggestion so vague, where discussion can no longer be held place, is against the rules. All in all, make your suggestions detailed enough for everyone to understand (I've seen some locked threads about that, correct me if I am wrong though).
This one has been passed around a lot. "It doesn't fit", "Minecraft isn't advanced enough", etc. but there is usually never any solid framework about what does fit outside of flimsy shifting conjecture and short quips or flawed rules of thumb. What metrics can be defined as "it fits" or "it doesn't fit"? Since a yard stick hasn't actually been developed other than "doesn't feel like it fits lol" and using a highly subjective and highly volatile definition that changes within the scope of a single poster over the course of a day; perhaps we should define what would fit in Minecraft.
WHAT DOES FIT MINECRAFT: An idea that fits Minecraft is one that requires the fewest explanations for inclusion including lore, combat, existing blocks, and game mechanics. All ideas should be natural extensions of what exists in Minecraft. This means that a suggestion that is wildly different or contradictory of established lore or lore that requires a great amount of exposition to explain wouldn't fit because of the amount of required explanation.
Now, replace lore with "combat", "blocks", or "game mechanics". If your suggestion requires a ton of exposition, then it doesn't fit.
This one has been passed around a lot. "It doesn't fit", "Minecraft isn't advanced enough", etc. but there is usually never any solid framework about what does fit outside of flimsy shifting conjecture and short quips or flawed rules of thumb. What metrics can be defined as "it fits" or "it doesn't fit"? Since a yard stick hasn't actually been developed other than "doesn't feel like it fits lol" and using a highly subjective and highly volatile definition that changes within the scope of a single poster over the course of a day; perhaps we should define what would fit in Minecraft.
WHAT DOES FIT MINECRAFT: An idea that fits Minecraft is one that requires the fewest explanations for inclusion including lore, combat, existing blocks, and game mechanics. All ideas should be natural extensions of what exists in Minecraft. This means that a suggestion that is wildly different or contradictory of established lore or lore that requires a great amount of exposition to explain wouldn't fit because of the amount of required explanation.
Now, replace lore with "combat", "blocks", or "game mechanics". If your suggestion requires a ton of exposition, then it doesn't fit.
I like this. It provides a good, solid basis to go off of. "The more you have to explain it, the less fitting it is." Or perhaps, "the more mechanics you have to invent to make it work, the less fitting it is."
Of course, that doesn't take care of simple but absurd suggestions like ice cream or rotting food, but it does take care of the ones that are absurdly complicated.
I think the balancing section could do with a few changes, mainly changing "more X less Y" into "Symmetric balance", and having another point called "Asymmetric balance". Those are two completely different ways to balance things, the latter being far harder but also better.
First of all, I don't think you should tell users to refrain from using symmetric balance, but instead warn users that it's not the best choice. Asymmetric balance is generally better, so it's important to teach to "use asymmetric balance" rather than "don't use symmetric balance" (I mean that's why the new thread was made, to tell people what's right, rather than what's wrong)
Personally I'm not very good at explaining myself in a readable manner, so I'll refrain from writing an example, as it'd probably take longer to read than the time saved from using content from it.
Also, I may have missed it, but I don't see anything against vague suggestions in here. Specifically, the trend I'm seeing: "We need something that does this!" without explaining what that something is.
To add to what Chamelon said, perhaps a section detailing about Vague suggestions.
That's actually mentioned in the guide a few times. Most notably in the "Posting the Suggestion" section.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Yeah, that guy in the avatar is me. I'm *that* strange. It happens. Sometimes people act like that. Just go with it. I can offer help with suggestions even before you post them - NOT make your suggestions - but help you with them.
You should add something about experimenting with suggestions for veteran users. For example, posting a suggestion that you don't particularly agree with or is challenging, but doing so to see if it makes it work (like BroccoliMonkey's "Ore Detector" suggestion).
So... do you mean to add a part that mentions that people shouldn't make those kind of threads?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Unofficial Suggestion Guide - Everything you need to know to not make goofy mistakes in a suggestion! Honestly though, you should really go there.
If I may, point out some issues I found in the terminology spoliers?
Can you provide an actual definition of Redundancy, as "It been done before, many many many times." wouldn't really let those who are not familiar with it understand what it means. The Necro definition, I think should also state the difference of reviving and necroing. As Yoshi's thread states about the two differences. For the sake of the definition as well, you should put in the definition of Reviving.
I think the balancing section could do with a few changes, mainly changing "more X less Y" into "Symmetric balance", and having another point called "Asymmetric balance". Those are two completely different ways to balance things, the latter being far harder but also better.
First of all, I don't think you should tell users to refrain from using symmetric balance, but instead warn users that it's not the best choice. Asymmetric balance is generally better, so it's important to teach to "use asymmetric balance" rather than "don't use symmetric balance" (I mean that's why the new thread was made, to tell people what's right, rather than what's wrong)
Personally I'm not very good at explaining myself in a readable manner, so I'll refrain from writing an example, as it'd probably take longer to read than the time saved from using content from it.
I agree with changing the "more X less Y" section because you could pretty much apply that argument to literally anything in Minecraft (higher weapon tiers do more damage but use less common materials; minecarts require more set-up time but grant less travel time; etc.). The problem with the example in the guide (a weapon with 10% less damage than the sword and 10% quicker swing) isn't that it's "more X less Y", but rather the nature of X and Y. In the example, both damage and attack speed are used in the DPS calculation such that the overall DPS wouldn't really change with the changes mentioned, so in what instance would this be more desirable than a sword, other than pure aesthetic preference?
So, "more X less Y" isn't bad in itself, so long as the change doesn't become irrelevant as a result. Instead, we should encourage suggesters to ask, "Is there any reason someone would use what I'm suggesting rather than something already in the game, beyond simple 'coolness factor'?"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most plans are critically flawed by their own logic. A failure at any step will ruin everything after it. That's just basic cause and effect. It's easy for a good plan to fall apart. Therefore, a plan that has no attachment to logic cannot be stopped. The success or failure of any given step will have no impact on the macro level."
-Red Mage, 8-Bit Theater
"90% of the Internet's statistics are made-up, and 7/8 of its quotes are misattributed."
-Abraham Lincoln, 16th US President
Can you provide an actual definition of Redundancy, as "It been done before, many many many times." wouldn't really let those who are not familiar with it understand what it means. The Necro definition, I think should also state the difference of reviving and necroing.
The actual definition of the word "redundancy" is "not or no longer needed or useful" which doesn't exactly have too much sense in terms of suggestions. "Something being done before too many times" has more sense in the context of these forums. The necro/revive difference is already explained in that section.
I agree with changing the "more X less Y" section because you could pretty much apply that argument to literally anything in Minecraft (higher weapon tiers do more damage but use less common materials
Links to things like techne forum post, resource pack makers, or just helpful resources in general as in programs and such in a neat list. The people you can trust part is mostly commemorating outstanding people on the forums. And terminology is for words like mod, OP, power creep, recipe, and other words that you might not find otherwise.
There's not much need for these links for a guide that's just about not making stupid suggestions. This would fit best in the Overachiever's Guide.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Unofficial Suggestion Guide - Everything you need to know to not make goofy mistakes in a suggestion! Honestly though, you should really go there.
The very last thing I want is some super formal guide. It's long enough as it is, so I try to keep it interesting. I don't want this guide turning into some high school textbook. Yeah, the guide has some abrasiveness, but if a guide offends you, then perhaps you're not ready for the rest of the internet.
Also, do not go around going "Don't read that guide, it's mean!" That will make you look like the biggest baby. There is a reason this guide exists, and whether you want to believe it or not, what the guide talks about is true.
I don't think the issue is that everybody who doesn't like abrasiveness is so spineless that they should keep off the internet because they can't take it. I think the issue is that if somebody is told that their suggestion is bad, they're going to come here to make it better. And if they come here and all of the points just continue to make fun of how much their suggestion sucks, they're not going to be particularly motivated. The "well if you can't take people being rude keep off the internet" argument is a terrible justification for actually being rude. At some point in my life, somebody is going to punch me in the face when I don't deserve it. That doesn't mean its okay for somebody to do that to me right now, because it's inevitable. Rather, people shouldn't be punching me in the face at all. Because punching me in the face isn't nice. I like my face. The fact that something will happen doesn't make it okay. At that point, you're contributing to the problem. If everybody who was rude 'because its the internet' stopped being rude, the internet wouldn't be such a rude place at all.
At some point in my life, somebody is going to punch me in the face when I don't deserve it.
I've been on the world for 31 years. I have yet to be punched in the face over an argument, deserved or otherwise.
because it's inevitable.
If it's inevitable, you need to get out of the situation.
If everybody who was rude 'because its the internet' stopped being rude, the internet wouldn't be such a rude place at all.
Which is a pedantic point. People aren't going to just stop being rude; and this guide isn't actually overtly rude. It's coarse but also indirect. Theriasis did not actually seek to inflame with this point. This damns your case substantially as it's taking offense to a non-issue and offense to a personal point of view.
In other words, if someone can't handle some colorful metaphors directed at a non-sentient audience; perhaps they aren't ready for the internet.
I've been on the world for 31 years. I have yet to be punched in the face over an argument, deserved or otherwise.
I could easily come up with a different metaphor if you don't like it and my point would still stand. You're sort of grasping at straws here and avoiding the point of discussion.
I'm also not sure you understand what the word inevitable means.
Which is a pedantic point. People aren't going to just stop being rude; and this guide isn't actually overtly rude. It's coarse but also indirect. Theriasis did not actually seek to inflame with this point. This damns your case substantially as it's taking offense to a non-issue and offense to a personal point of view.
In other words, if someone can't handle some colorful metaphors directed at a non-sentient audience; perhaps they aren't ready for the internet.
Would you like me to use a different word? Will that genuinely make you feel better? You seem to be under the assumption that I'm asserting that everybody on the internet should stop being rude under my authority. I am not under the delusion that everybody on the internet will stop being rude, I am trying to put to rest this simply ridiculous "well this is the internet so its okay" argument.
The rest of what you're saying is just "well I don't think its that bad so whatever". Now let me tell you, I've posted some really bad suggestions in my time, a long time ago, and the last thing I would have wanted was to go somewhere for advice and have the advisor poke fun at me along with everybody else. When an innocent poster by the name of 'NotMuchBrains' is the metaphor for every person who really needs help with their suggestions, there is a problem and the people who need this guide the most are being insulted, whether you consider it direct or not.
I don't think the issue is that everybody who doesn't like abrasiveness is so spineless that they should keep off the internet because they can't take it. I think the issue is that if somebody is told that their suggestion is bad, they're going to come here to make it better. And if they come here and all of the points just continue to make fun of how much their suggestion sucks, they're not going to be particularly motivated. The "well if you can't take people being rude keep off the internet" argument is a terrible justification for actually being rude. At some point in my life, somebody is going to punch me in the face when I don't deserve it. That doesn't mean its okay for somebody to do that to me right now, because it's inevitable. Rather, people shouldn't be punching me in the face at all. Because punching me in the face isn't nice. I like my face. The fact that something will happen doesn't make it okay. At that point, you're contributing to the problem. If everybody who was rude 'because its the internet' stopped being rude, the internet wouldn't be such a rude place at all.
You're right. Inevitability doesn't make it okay. But that doesn't matter in the slightest. We all agree that we would like things to be sunshine and rainbows. But that's not how it's going to be. Rather than trying to promote ideals that will fail a simple reality check, it's best to become prepared, thick-skinned. And if the guide (which is not very offensive) offends you, the solution isn't to complain about her admittedly bad excuse. That's not going to change.The solution is to learn how to not be offended. To become inoculated to an everyday occurrence.
To go with your metaphor: if it's inevitable that someone's going to punch you, then learn self-defense. The punch will have no impact on you because you can easily dodge or block it.
I'm also not sure you understand what the word inevitable means.
Oh, I'm well aware. I'm not sure you are using it in the right context here as whatever situation could be avoided without the predestined outcome.
I am not under the delusion that everybody on the internet will stop being rude, I am trying to put to rest this simply ridiculous "well this is the internet so its okay" argument.
The argument is well founded as nothing you read on the internet is going to directly kill you. Inability to reconcile anonymous jabs and insults is a personal issue; not a community one.
The rest of what you're saying is just "well I don't think its that bad so whatever".
You are correct, I don't think it's that bad because it's not actually that bad.
Now let me tell you, I've posted some really bad suggestions in my time, a long time ago, and the last thing I would have wanted was to go somewhere for advice and have the advisor poke fun at me along with everybody else.
Ideally, no one makes fun of anyone. This guide is here to help direct a conversation toward improving a suggester by illustrating what is bad and why. I'll grant that it misses a few marks (which is the point of having this an open and ongoing discussion). To compensate, FTC is there to help others collaborate with the OP to make the suggestion better.
So, with that said, You have made an opinion and discussion piece which is still valuable and worthy of being discussed. I just disagree with it. However, I am but one person and one opinion against you. There'll be lots of opinions on this; and doubtless most would disagree with me.
When an innocent poster by the name of 'NotMuchBrains' is the metaphor for every person who really needs help with their suggestions, there is a problem and the people who need this guide the most are being insulted, whether you consider it direct or not.
Don't speak about "the people", speak for yourself. Others can speak for themselves. If you're not personally offended, then don't make a case for offense as you honestly don't know.
In the Overachiever's guide, it recommends Techne. Techne is out of date, and is nowhere near as good as the Tabula mod for Minecraft, which does the same thing, but better. Tabula supports animating, and has some other useful things that make it way easier to make mod models, especially if you plan to put them in the game somehow. I think you should recommend this in the guide too.
I was trying to fit Heimskr's speech into this place, but it wouldn't fit.
Update:
You guys think I should add a section about rebelling users? You know, the ones that go "oh so no one's supporting my idea? this is the worst forum! I'm now gonna spam and troll it forever hahahaha oh sweet revenge!!" Yeah, those kind of people.
The Unofficial Suggestion Guide - Everything you need to know to not make goofy mistakes in a suggestion! Honestly though, you should really go there.
While not the same, "Logic and Realism" and "what fits" would seem to go hand in hand. Logic and realism being a subset of "what fits."
Also, I may have missed it, but I don't see anything against vague suggestions in here. Specifically, the trend I'm seeing: "We need something that does this!" without explaining what that something is.
If you are planning to make a suggestion, please read this.
If you want to know more, you can read this.
For those who complain about post-Beta generation, you might want to see this.
To add to what Chamelon said, perhaps a section detailing about Vague suggestions. While not against the rules, it's no excuse not to be vague and leave others in the dust to not understand one thing about your suggestion. Another is how making a suggestion so vague, where discussion can no longer be held place, is against the rules. All in all, make your suggestions detailed enough for everyone to understand (I've seen some locked threads about that, correct me if I am wrong though).
DOES IT FIT? An objective look:
This one has been passed around a lot. "It doesn't fit", "Minecraft isn't advanced enough", etc. but there is usually never any solid framework about what does fit outside of flimsy shifting conjecture and short quips or flawed rules of thumb. What metrics can be defined as "it fits" or "it doesn't fit"? Since a yard stick hasn't actually been developed other than "doesn't feel like it fits lol" and using a highly subjective and highly volatile definition that changes within the scope of a single poster over the course of a day; perhaps we should define what would fit in Minecraft.
WHAT DOES FIT MINECRAFT: An idea that fits Minecraft is one that requires the fewest explanations for inclusion including lore, combat, existing blocks, and game mechanics. All ideas should be natural extensions of what exists in Minecraft. This means that a suggestion that is wildly different or contradictory of established lore or lore that requires a great amount of exposition to explain wouldn't fit because of the amount of required explanation.
Now, replace lore with "combat", "blocks", or "game mechanics". If your suggestion requires a ton of exposition, then it doesn't fit.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
I like this. It provides a good, solid basis to go off of. "The more you have to explain it, the less fitting it is." Or perhaps, "the more mechanics you have to invent to make it work, the less fitting it is."
Of course, that doesn't take care of simple but absurd suggestions like ice cream or rotting food, but it does take care of the ones that are absurdly complicated.
If you are planning to make a suggestion, please read this.
If you want to know more, you can read this.
For those who complain about post-Beta generation, you might want to see this.
I think the balancing section could do with a few changes, mainly changing "more X less Y" into "Symmetric balance", and having another point called "Asymmetric balance". Those are two completely different ways to balance things, the latter being far harder but also better.
First of all, I don't think you should tell users to refrain from using symmetric balance, but instead warn users that it's not the best choice. Asymmetric balance is generally better, so it's important to teach to "use asymmetric balance" rather than "don't use symmetric balance" (I mean that's why the new thread was made, to tell people what's right, rather than what's wrong)
Personally I'm not very good at explaining myself in a readable manner, so I'll refrain from writing an example, as it'd probably take longer to read than the time saved from using content from it.
That's actually mentioned in the guide a few times. Most notably in the "Posting the Suggestion" section.
Yeah, that guy in the avatar is me. I'm *that* strange. It happens. Sometimes people act like that. Just go with it. I can offer help with suggestions even before you post them - NOT make your suggestions - but help you with them.
Unofficial Suggestions Guide (2.0) - by Theriasis
Unofficial Critics Guide - by yoshi9048
So it is. I just missed it.
If you are planning to make a suggestion, please read this.
If you want to know more, you can read this.
For those who complain about post-Beta generation, you might want to see this.
So... do you mean to add a part that mentions that people shouldn't make those kind of threads?
The Unofficial Suggestion Guide - Everything you need to know to not make goofy mistakes in a suggestion! Honestly though, you should really go there.
Anyway, I added a "Forums Terminology" section that was discussed in the guide's discussion PM. I'd love more suggestions of what to add in there.
The Unofficial Suggestion Guide - Everything you need to know to not make goofy mistakes in a suggestion! Honestly though, you should really go there.
If I may, point out some issues I found in the terminology spoliers?
Can you provide an actual definition of Redundancy, as "It been done before, many many many times." wouldn't really let those who are not familiar with it understand what it means. The Necro definition, I think should also state the difference of reviving and necroing. As Yoshi's thread states about the two differences. For the sake of the definition as well, you should put in the definition of Reviving.
I agree with changing the "more X less Y" section because you could pretty much apply that argument to literally anything in Minecraft (higher weapon tiers do more damage but use less common materials; minecarts require more set-up time but grant less travel time; etc.). The problem with the example in the guide (a weapon with 10% less damage than the sword and 10% quicker swing) isn't that it's "more X less Y", but rather the nature of X and Y. In the example, both damage and attack speed are used in the DPS calculation such that the overall DPS wouldn't really change with the changes mentioned, so in what instance would this be more desirable than a sword, other than pure aesthetic preference?
So, "more X less Y" isn't bad in itself, so long as the change doesn't become irrelevant as a result. Instead, we should encourage suggesters to ask, "Is there any reason someone would use what I'm suggesting rather than something already in the game, beyond simple 'coolness factor'?"
"Most plans are critically flawed by their own logic. A failure at any step will ruin everything after it. That's just basic cause and effect. It's easy for a good plan to fall apart. Therefore, a plan that has no attachment to logic cannot be stopped. The success or failure of any given step will have no impact on the macro level."
-Red Mage, 8-Bit Theater
"90% of the Internet's statistics are made-up, and 7/8 of its quotes are misattributed."
-Abraham Lincoln, 16th US President
Didn't notice this until now. Cool.
The actual definition of the word "redundancy" is "not or no longer needed or useful" which doesn't exactly have too much sense in terms of suggestions. "Something being done before too many times" has more sense in the context of these forums. The necro/revive difference is already explained in that section.
But that's not scale-tipping.
There's not much need for these links for a guide that's just about not making stupid suggestions. This would fit best in the Overachiever's Guide.
The Unofficial Suggestion Guide - Everything you need to know to not make goofy mistakes in a suggestion! Honestly though, you should really go there.
I don't think the issue is that everybody who doesn't like abrasiveness is so spineless that they should keep off the internet because they can't take it. I think the issue is that if somebody is told that their suggestion is bad, they're going to come here to make it better. And if they come here and all of the points just continue to make fun of how much their suggestion sucks, they're not going to be particularly motivated. The "well if you can't take people being rude keep off the internet" argument is a terrible justification for actually being rude. At some point in my life, somebody is going to punch me in the face when I don't deserve it. That doesn't mean its okay for somebody to do that to me right now, because it's inevitable. Rather, people shouldn't be punching me in the face at all. Because punching me in the face isn't nice. I like my face. The fact that something will happen doesn't make it okay. At that point, you're contributing to the problem. If everybody who was rude 'because its the internet' stopped being rude, the internet wouldn't be such a rude place at all.
I've been on the world for 31 years. I have yet to be punched in the face over an argument, deserved or otherwise.
If it's inevitable, you need to get out of the situation.
Which is a pedantic point. People aren't going to just stop being rude; and this guide isn't actually overtly rude. It's coarse but also indirect. Theriasis did not actually seek to inflame with this point. This damns your case substantially as it's taking offense to a non-issue and offense to a personal point of view.
In other words, if someone can't handle some colorful metaphors directed at a non-sentient audience; perhaps they aren't ready for the internet.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
I could easily come up with a different metaphor if you don't like it and my point would still stand. You're sort of grasping at straws here and avoiding the point of discussion.
I'm also not sure you understand what the word inevitable means.
Would you like me to use a different word? Will that genuinely make you feel better? You seem to be under the assumption that I'm asserting that everybody on the internet should stop being rude under my authority. I am not under the delusion that everybody on the internet will stop being rude, I am trying to put to rest this simply ridiculous "well this is the internet so its okay" argument.
The rest of what you're saying is just "well I don't think its that bad so whatever". Now let me tell you, I've posted some really bad suggestions in my time, a long time ago, and the last thing I would have wanted was to go somewhere for advice and have the advisor poke fun at me along with everybody else. When an innocent poster by the name of 'NotMuchBrains' is the metaphor for every person who really needs help with their suggestions, there is a problem and the people who need this guide the most are being insulted, whether you consider it direct or not.
You're right. Inevitability doesn't make it okay. But that doesn't matter in the slightest. We all agree that we would like things to be sunshine and rainbows. But that's not how it's going to be. Rather than trying to promote ideals that will fail a simple reality check, it's best to become prepared, thick-skinned. And if the guide (which is not very offensive) offends you, the solution isn't to complain about her admittedly bad excuse. That's not going to change.The solution is to learn how to not be offended. To become inoculated to an everyday occurrence.
To go with your metaphor: if it's inevitable that someone's going to punch you, then learn self-defense. The punch will have no impact on you because you can easily dodge or block it.
If you are planning to make a suggestion, please read this.
If you want to know more, you can read this.
For those who complain about post-Beta generation, you might want to see this.
Oh, I'm well aware. I'm not sure you are using it in the right context here as whatever situation could be avoided without the predestined outcome.
The argument is well founded as nothing you read on the internet is going to directly kill you. Inability to reconcile anonymous jabs and insults is a personal issue; not a community one.
You are correct, I don't think it's that bad because it's not actually that bad.
Ideally, no one makes fun of anyone. This guide is here to help direct a conversation toward improving a suggester by illustrating what is bad and why. I'll grant that it misses a few marks (which is the point of having this an open and ongoing discussion). To compensate, FTC is there to help others collaborate with the OP to make the suggestion better.
So, with that said, You have made an opinion and discussion piece which is still valuable and worthy of being discussed. I just disagree with it. However, I am but one person and one opinion against you. There'll be lots of opinions on this; and doubtless most would disagree with me.
Don't speak about "the people", speak for yourself. Others can speak for themselves. If you're not personally offended, then don't make a case for offense as you honestly don't know.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)