Genuine Question for Frequent Negative Posters

[Shurrikhan]

Oh, alright. I guess I never realized they were a housing/social player. I know plenty of people like that.

The one thing I've never understood about Storm is why they seem so confrontational/antagonistic to even the most chill of posts such as what OP did here.
It's fine to be angry with the game, the devs, and even confrontational "white knights" or whatever you wanna call them, but to chill posts or reasonable people? Dunno... seems to stifle the chance of any productive conversation.

It's a matter of implication. Especially given recent threads (that have repeatedly asked players critical of the game to defend their right to/rationale for still playing it), it's hard not to read some "If you don't like X, why don't you just quit altogether?(!)" energy from the OP at a glance (especially if you're someone repeatedly called out just for being a "frequent negative poster"), even if one would normally assume from the post's style that such probably isn't the fairest take on his intent.

I agree with your conclusion that it doesn't help the discourse to react that way, but at the same time, that reaction doesn't seem unreasonable in/from this context.

Because feedback isn't always negative.

If people only speak up about the things they dislike, and not the things they do like, they might change something on the false impression that nobody is happy with it in its current state.

Efficient feedback tends, at its core, to be negative, since those are the parts that warrant some sort of analysis or call to action. But it also tends to make suggestions that can be readily visualized, which in turn often depends on juxtoposing the good with the bad in order to illustrate what is bad and/or why.

Only when why X works is worth debating do we tend to focus directly on the positive for a time, and even that's usually in the interest of providing guidelines that will ultimately correct or preclude what the community thinks could use improvement.

That feedback includes little reference to what is good or has worked isn't typically a sign of neglect or bias so much as simply...

• that there are few examples already existing in-game that could be successfully copied over or seem likely able to be built up from compared to more general or from-scratch examples (or the poster is hoping for a more imaginative/contextualized approach and doesn't want to prompt yet another Monkey's Paw outcome or further stagnancy by relying on those past examples),
• that the poster simply isn't putting that much time into the details of their suggestion (such as because they don't think it's their place to do the design-work for the devs, only to evaluate what has been given, because the concrete designs simply aren't their forte or could inadvertently give a false impression, the issue is too fundamental for concrete examples to be of much use, or because they just don't have the time/interest at that moment),
• etc.