This seems like it was directed towards my previous post, and I'd like to respond to a few key points:Just would also like to say that some users seem to have this mentality that because things like Corrosion and Water Bubble received so much discussion that we are beholden to slate them, despite the numerous concerns presented against them, which is frankly just bollocks.
Agreed on the viable part - In the specific context of this thread, I think both Corrosion and Water Bubble have been demonstrated to be so by their proponents. I also agree with the well-liked bit - both of these abilities have had numerous users voice their support, with reactions showing additional people agreeing with them. In my opinion, that makes them well-liked. These abilities wouldn't have received the amount of support or discussion they have otherwise. They are also disliked (hence the controversy), but well-liked nonetheless. But that's just my personal opinion/interpretation of the term you used. How do we as a community measure how well-liked something is? Must we have universal consensus before something hits the slate?Ideally we want as tight of a slate of viable and well-liked options....
True. Nothing should be universally accepted without scrutiny. The opposite of what you said should also be true; users should be prepared to see something they pushed back on make the slate, if community support is strong enough. In my opinion, Corrosion and Water Bubble have met this qualification.Having your desired option not be universally well-received and possibly be denied is not a new concept here at CAP, users should be prepared to see things they like not make the cut if the community pushback is strong enough.
I wanted to explore this final point a little more - this might be getting a bit into PRC territory, but let's take stock of where we are now. CAP is at a place where determining a slate hinges on how many posts people make in favor/against a certain ability/typing/etc in a small window of time. This is essentially exactly what voting is, just without the explanations. It really feels like we're at a point where we're voting twice - once by making a post to voice an opinion on what we should vote on, and then again with the actual vote. What this does is cut out people who wish to reduce redundancy in the thread - at my latest haphazard count, there were 9 users who used reactions to show they agreed with my stance that both Water Bubble and Corrosion should be slated, and yet have made 0 other posts anywhere in this thread. I don't want to speak on behalf of them, but if their thought process is anything like mine usually is, those 9 people haven't made separate posts because they feel like I said it well enough, so why clog up the thread? "Well, if they want to see the options on the slate, these users should be making posts to express their opinions!" - We're going to get short posts listing which options people like, and which ones they dislike - in essence, their voting ballots. And so, basically we'd just be voting twice. But I digress...It might sound harsh but that's just how things are, if we included every heavily talked about controversial option in previous projects we wouldn't be where we are now.
Controversial =/= overwhelmingly unpopular: it means split popularity. I think slating controversial options is the only way to truly gauge where the community lands on them. I don't think including one or two additional options to slates in previous projects would have derailed CAP on its progress to where it is now, nor do I think they would result in a sharp increase in Aurumoth-level broken final products. With enough reservation, the controversial options will lose in the polls anyway; not slating them runs the risk of missing out on learning of the 'silent support' an idea may have.
... I hope that was mostly coherent. I'm running on very little sleep and probably got a bit rambly there at the end, but I stand behind the sentiment of all I've included here.