Addressing critical feedback, burden of proof, and player feedback

Thorgrim

Thorgrim

Apprentice
I am creating a different thread for this since the topic was touched on in the thread regarding the changes to bind and I think it warrants its own discussion.

I am a playtest coordinator for the Denver chapter. I am receiving an overwhelming amount of feedback from our play testers who are upset because they do not feel that their critical feedback is being properly considered. I cannot think of a single piece of negative feedback that has been posted on this forum that has not been met with stiff resistance and in many cases this has caused an argument where the play tester is told they are wrong.

I don't think the burden of proof should lie on our play testers to prove that their feedback and concerns are valid. If our play testers don't like a change, regardless of the reason, they should not be forced to defend their stance against owners ARC or other players. We are asking them to provide honest feedback and when that feedback is critical, it is being attacked.

I would propose that rather than players having to defend their criticism, that ARC and the owners should be the ones who have to defend the reasoning behind their changes to the player base. The game as is works, we have decades of evidence and thousands of hours played proving the system is at least functional as is. Could improvements be made? Absolutely.

We have very little evidence proving that the new rules work and improve the game. The entire process from inception has been flawed because everything was decided upon behind closed doors by a few people without asking for any feedback from most of the player base.

Now that the rules have finally been presented to the players the burden of proof has been shifted to us to prove that they are not warranted and should not be included. This is the opposite of how things should be done. The burden of proof should fall on the owners and ARC to prove to the player base that a change is warranted, is safe, and improves the game overall. If we ask for a reason why a change has been made and how it improves the game, we deserve a convincing answer, and if a convincing answer cannot be provided, then the rule should be scrapped.

The burden of proof should not fall on us to provide overwhelming negative feedback. Instead a change should only be implemented if it receives overwhelming positive feedback from a majority of the player base.

If no changes are made to the process and if our feedback is continually met with hostility and criticism, I do not feel comfortable continuing to ask our play testers to come out and spend their valuable time testing this system. The general consensus is that these rules are going to be pushed through regardless of what we say and any criticism will be met with hostility.
 
I'm going to just pre-empt the response I know you are going to get:

Owners vote on changes not player/playtesters.


I think this response, while accurate mechanically, misses the greater point. Players are the lifeblood of any LARP, when your LARP stops taking their opinions into account that LARP is dead.

Alliance needs to take a good hard look at player growth and question if it is at a level that is profitable and sustainable. Gone are the days where NERO/Alliance is the only game in town. Players have a lot of options in the marketplace and we need to make sure our game remains competitive there.
 
As Seattle's coordinator, I agree with the points presented here (And am guilty of repeatedly bringing them up in other threads. Sorry, not sorry).

Players' input to *every* owner is immensely important. It helps me decide what chapters I want to attend, and which chapters I want to avoid, based off how different owners and staff members interact with both their players and potential players -- this is the entire purpose behind a national game like Alliance, in my mind. When anyone -- player, staff from other chapters, etc -- is told "Talk to your owner", it comes across as dismissive, like your opinion doesn't matter to *that* owner, representing *their* chapter.

But, its a balancing point, as you can't flood every owner with the same feedback -- it creates noise that anyone, not just Alliance's owner-base would tune out in the same conditions, as it would be overwhelming otherwise. This is the immense importance of the Playtest Coordinators, bringing solidified feedback to their owner, who then discusses it with others. Is it perfect? No, far from it, but each and every person needs to know and understand that every player's voice should matter.

It was cited by Bryan in another thread that overwhelming feedback was given against Flurry -- Yet, it shows up in playtest rule set after rule set. Why? This is a proposed rule that even the (seemingly) proposing party has said "It only works sometimes, and we often ignore it in specific, experienced conditions". This speaks to me, saying that the players' voice, even the playtest results from previous cycles, aren't making it through to Owners, that voices aren't being heard.

To embody a broken record to an extent -- we have the opportunity to make the rules better. Not just "okay", but through feedback and engaging your chapter's playerbase, the playerbase to the coordinator, and then the coordinator to its owner, the opportunity to correct many rules we've likely all griped about at one point or another.

Talk to your players -- get them to show up to play tests.

Talk to your owner (Yeah, I said it) -- have them get a Playtest Coordinator, even if its the owner themself.

Owners, I'd look at each other honestly and consider whose input is truly noteworthy. If a chapter isn't running any Play tests, does their input really mean the same as another who is?
 
I don't know that this is a "burden of proof" issue so much as making sure that owners know and understand the feedback that is representative of their chapter as a whole. I don't get this feedback from these forums, and I don't argue for or against changes here for the most part. But I *do* monitor Seattle's feedback in a few different ways.

I see my job as making sure that the overall viewpoints of the Seattle chapter are expressed in the discussions with the other owners and ARC about future playtest packages.

I'll share the viewpoint/process that I use to process the feedback for Seattle and ensure that it is taken into account during the discussions.

I have a playtest coordinator now (I did not always, we did not have anyone to do the job until recently, and I was already wearing too many hats in our chapter to take it on myself). This has been a big game changer in helping ensure feedback is delivered to me so I can bring it to the full panel of Owners/ARC.

1. Playtest Coordinator (Brad) runs playtests.
2. Playtest Coordinator works with everyone who attends to create a sheet of clear feedback, in addition to individually submitted feedback forms.
3. Playtest Coordinator sends out those feedback notes to all players, and me.
4. Players are also welcome to write up and send me their individual feedback. However, the feedback that I receive as a result of the playtests plays a much bigger role in my decision making. The views of a group of my players do hold more weight than one individual.
5. Playtest Coordinator or Other Players draw my attention to changes that have really strong opinions from my player base (such as the Bind change). I make sure to note these so I can help push to have them considered/adjusted for the future playtests.
6. Based upon everything that comes my way via feedback from the Seattle chapter, I make recommendations/put up votes for the other owners. If I'm a steward of the Seattle chapter, and regardless of whether or not I as an individual like a rule, if my overall playerbase doesn't, that matters more.

Having a solid Playtest Coordinator to compile all the feedback, and then putting the overall chapter's feedback first in follow-up discussions is key.
 
Saephis said:
As Seattle's coordinator, I agree with the points presented here (And am guilty of repeatedly bringing them up in other threads. Sorry, not sorry).

Players' input to *every* owner is immensely important. It helps me decide what chapters I want to attend, and which chapters I want to avoid, based off how different owners and staff members interact with both their players and potential players -- this is the entire purpose behind a national game like Alliance, in my mind. When anyone -- player, staff from other chapters, etc -- is told "Talk to your owner", it comes across as dismissive, like your opinion doesn't matter to *that* owner, representing *their* chapter.

But, its a balancing point, as you can't flood every owner with the same feedback -- it creates noise that anyone, not just Alliance's owner-base would tune out in the same conditions, as it would be overwhelming otherwise. This is the immense importance of the Playtest Coordinators, bringing solidified feedback to their owner, who then discusses it with others. Is it perfect? No, far from it, but each and every person needs to know and understand that every player's voice should matter.

It was cited by Bryan in another thread that overwhelming feedback was given against Flurry -- Yet, it shows up in playtest rule set after rule set. Why? This is a proposed rule that even the (seemingly) proposing party has said "It only works sometimes, and we often ignore it in specific, experienced conditions". This speaks to me, saying that the players' voice, even the playtest results from previous cycles, aren't making it through to Owners, that voices aren't being heard.

To embody a broken record to an extent -- we have the opportunity to make the rules better. Not just "okay", but through feedback and engaging your chapter's playerbase, the playerbase to the coordinator, and then the coordinator to its owner, the opportunity to correct many rules we've likely all griped about at one point or another.

Talk to your players -- get them to show up to play tests.

Talk to your owner (Yeah, I said it) -- have them get a Playtest Coordinator, even if its the owner themself.

Owners, I'd look at each other honestly and consider whose input is truly noteworthy. If a chapter isn't running any Play tests, does their input really mean the same as another who is?
Click to expand...

((I made my post at the same time you made yours... I'm glad we're on the same page ;) ))
 
That said, as a follow-up, I do actively play a number of different chapters. Feedback from players in other chapters *also* matters to me, and it should matter to all owners, because what really sets us apart is that we are a National game. My primary source of feedback is my own chapter, but the good of the Alliance as a whole is important. Especially since I do know a lot of the people posting here that aren't from the Seattle chapter, please don't take my post as indicative of me not wanting to hear your feedback if you don't play in my chapter.
 
Last edited:
Kasuni said:
I don't know that this is a "burden of proof" issue so much as making sure that owners know and understand the feedback that is representative of their chapter as a whole. I don't get this feedback from these forums, and I don't argue for or against changes here for the most part. But I *do* monitor Seattle's feedback in a few different ways.

I see my job as making sure that the overall viewpoints of the Seattle chapter are expressed in the discussions with the other owners and ARC about future playtest packages.

I'll share the viewpoint/process that I use to process the feedback for Seattle and ensure that it is taken into account during the discussions.

I have a playtest coordinator now (I did not always, we did not have anyone to do the job until recently, and I was already wearing too many hats in our chapter to take it on myself). This has been a big game changer in helping ensure feedback is delivered to me so I can bring it to the full panel of Owners/ARC.

1. Playtest Coordinator (Brad) runs playtests.
2. Playtest Coordinator works with everyone who attends to create a sheet of clear feedback, in addition to individually submitted feedback forms.
3. Playtest Coordinator sends out those feedback notes to all players, and me.
4. Players are also welcome to write up and send me their individual feedback. However, the feedback that I receive as a result of the playtests plays a much bigger role in my decision making. The views of a group of my players do hold more weight than one individual.
5. Playtest Coordinator or Other Players draw my attention to changes that have really strong opinions from my player base (such as the Bind change). I make sure to note these so I can help push to have them considered/adjusted for the future playtests.
6. Based upon everything that comes my way via feedback from the Seattle chapter, I make recommendations/put up votes for the other owners. If I'm a steward of the Seattle chapter, and regardless of whether or not I as an individual like a rule, if my overall playerbase doesn't, that matters more.

Having a solid Playtest Coordinator to compile all the feedback, and then putting the overall chapter's feedback first in follow-up discussions is key.
Click to expand...

We have created a very similar sheet of combined feedback from our chapter which is a list of issues we have found, and have updated with each round of play testing. Our other play test coordinator Jim (Lagarde) has delivered this directly to our owner Jesse and Polare, but from what I understand (but will let him confirm) this consolidated feedback from coordinators is not accepted by ARC and the only feedback that is accepted by ARC is the official feedback form from individual players. Lagarde or Polare please correct me if I am wrong here.
 
Thorgrim said:
We have created a very similar sheet of combined feedback from our chapter which is a list of issues we have found, and have updated with each round of play testing. Our other play test coordinator Jim (Lagarde) has delivered this directly to our owner Jesse and Polare, but from what I understand (but will let him confirm) this consolidated feedback from coordinators is not accepted by ARC and the only feedback that is accepted by ARC is the official feedback form from individual players. Lagarde or Polare please correct me if I am wrong here.
Click to expand...

I believe it isn't accepted as official feedback by ARC (and neither is Seattle's) but it's a tool I use as an owner communicating with ARC and other owners to fuel the rules/points that I find important to address.

BTW, if you'd like to send me your notes as well to have one more set of owner eyes, I would also be happy to take a look.
 
Thorgrim said:
We have created a very similar sheet of combined feedback from our chapter which is a list of issues we have found, and have updated with each round of play testing. Our other play test coordinator Jim (Lagarde) has delivered this directly to our owner Jesse and Polare, but from what I understand (but will let him confirm) this consolidated feedback from coordinators is not accepted by ARC and the only feedback that is accepted by ARC is the official feedback form from individual players. Lagarde or Polare please correct me if I am wrong here.
Click to expand...

Kasuni said:
I believe it isn't accepted as official feedback by ARC (and neither is Seattle's) but it's a tool I use as an owner communicating with ARC and other owners to fuel the rules/points that I find important to address.

BTW, if you'd like to send me your notes as well to have one more set of owner eyes, I would also be happy to take a look.
Click to expand...

I'm also curious on your notes, if possible to share a bit further.

Edit: I'm keeping Seattle's available here, for anyone interested.
 
Do other chapters have sheets of notes like this? If so, if you'd all like to compile and send them my way, I can make a point of sharing the sets of notes from *all* chapters who have them with other owners, and maybe @Tevas would be down to share with other Playtest Coordinators?

Maybe we move this to more of a national approach, rather than by-chapter.

Thoughts?
 
I agree with this Kasuni, and would go so far as to say if other chapters are doing this we can post a stickied link with these compiled feedback forms on this forum so it is viewable to all. I think transparency is important, and if other chapters have found issues we might not have seen it is important we know about that so we can test for similar issues in our future tests.
 
Thorgrim said:
I agree with this Kasuni, and would go so far as to say if other chapters are doing this we can post a stickied link with these compiled feedback forms on this forum so it is viewable to all. I think transparency is important, and if other chapters have found issues we might not have seen it is important we know about that so we can test for similar issues in our future tests.
Click to expand...

I think that is a great idea, and would love to see that happen. I would be really interested in seeing as much general feedback summarized from different chapters as possible.

(Edit: I hit up the admins to see if we can make that happen)
 
Last edited:
This is a good thread, and I'm happy to discuss why I approach this playtest the way I do, if anyone would care to do so, but I'd rather do so privately. If anyone wants to talk, feel free to message me. If not, that's fine too. :D
 
I would just like to say, as a player, I feel I have had ample time, and feedback opportunities, and they don't always fall on deaf ears. It's in our reviews, it's asked after game if there is time. I have not felt closed out of what's coming, have your say. Very communicative, as far as not breaking any Non Disclosure Agreements. An example from our Player reviews here on the forums : 1. Post your favorite moments
2. Post your less favorite moments (if we don't know, we can not fix)
3. What you would like to see more of
4. Give us a moment from the perspective of your character

This, coupled with a very busy FB page, playtest page, and our habit of socialized every week for many reasons, we have built quite the impressive community.

Thanks, Mythic and Calgary Staff.. you need not worry, we know where to catch you and ask.
 
This is specifically in response to feedback regarding play testing. Our owner and plot team are very open to feedback, and we have a system much like yours to provide it between our Facebook group, forum, and plot surveys sent out at the end of each event. We have spoken to our owner who has gone to bat for us in owner meetings.

This post was in reference to how critical feedback is received here on the forums by ARC and the owners.

I have seen more dialogue between ARC/the owners and players here, that while it may be heated at least having the discussions is a good start.
 
Of note Feed back posted to a Forum will always be discussed and argued, I am not sure Burden of proof is the right term for such discustion. Forums have been prone to that kind of arguement since the USERNet and thread based Forms in the early to mid-90's unfortunatly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top