Hi, I have a community issue.
I have a contribution https://www.codingame.com/contribute/view/5479972fa4f63429a4e1b0b136b78d57cc07 where there are 30 comments with me trying to solve every single one. So I tried to improve all aspects over several days to make sure every single person can like this. Which is not easy, when you have 10 persons with different opinions commentating.
Now after doing all this, no one of them for whom I change the contribution seemed to take a second look at it… But now a random guy rejects it with comment “puzzle maybe”. He did not spend time to properly read my contribution or tried to solve it obviously. The whole thing is 5 lines of code if you split the lines for readability. It is all but not a puzzle! (Who wants a puzzle which is potentially solvable as oneliner? My puzzle which is 10x harder was too easy for easy difficulty for some members here)
This seems to be a super cancer community problem with CG. At first it seemed kind of fun to try out own ideas for the next puzzles and clash of codes on this side. But how people really reject without proper comment and never take time to actually approve stuff is really taking the fun out of it.
Everyone has little bits he doesn’t like, but the way contributions are handled here makes me not wanting to spending more time with it. Does anyone else also have problems like this?
Edit: The other rejection this puzzle has comes from a guy who seemed to have make a mistake for rejction. He deleted his comment because it was wrong, but rejection obviously stays. Bullshit as well - if you don’t / can’t take a rejection it should be clear why you (maybe wrongly) rejected it.
I agree on the fact that the contribution moderation system is far to be perfect.
I can understand that the situation is frustrating.
But all angry you are, tag an entire community of “cancer”, based on the few interactions you had with a few of its members, is as objectionable that rejecting without commenting.
It is super obvious that although I call it “canncer community” there is not everybody meant with it.
But the fact stand that the contribution has > 100 views over a week which seems to be a good share of the active userbase here. Then I have had multiple people in the first days to look for stuff they don’t like. (roughly 10 persons). And there has not been a single person willing to make a sample solution for themselves and fill out the “approve” section.
Considering “toxic / cancer communities” in online games - they usually get the name from having some people flame and attack other people and most other people ignoring those things. And this is exactly the same situation with codingame atm. It certainly does not have to stay that way, but it fulfills all criteria of usual toxic / cancer definitions.
A sample solution from online communities is banning (temporary or permanently) for misbehaving. I would suggest to remove the rights of those persons. Rejecting (or accepting) in a bad way should lead to banning those people from further actions. (only contributions, not solving puzzles, clashes, contests, etc.)
That’s obvious for you who wrote it. And the fact that others communities can be considered as toxic on a few people base doesn’t mean that this model is good and must be reproduced here.
Requesting modifications on a contribution is not a “change what I don’t like” affair, but a “improve the contribution” one. Furthermore those are just advice, nobody force you to take them into account. People who gives such advice are not waiting you to modify your contribution for their own pleasure, so no they will not necessarily came back to see.
About sanctions, it seems that is really not the Codingame policy for now. And the add of the quests-map and of its “moderation quests” obviously cause users to “moderating” just for achievements. Sorry but neither you nor me have any control on that.
Finally I will tell you that the only (useful) thing you can do is to ensure that your contributions are enjoyable and irreproachable, while being unpleasant on the forum wont change anything.
Since one approver deleted their comment, I removed their vote too. This is a bug I reported to my team as soon as we added the approver comments in the comment discussion. Considering the fix options, we decided not to fix it and take action if it happens too often. I wouldn’t put this on a toxic attitude from the approver though. Perhaps, they thought it would remove their vote or they simply forgot. The best is to ping them and tell them. And ping me or other moderators if they don’t reply.
As for the other approver who rejected your contribution with only a short message, well, I understand this is frustrating. It must feel as though they didn’t care much. The best is to ask them more details about why they rejected it. I’ll contact the approver.
Removal of moderation rights is possible in case a moderator repeatedly abuse their moderation rights. Don’t hesitate to discuss it calmly with them, other moderators and me.
Regarding comments, I second @anon72424297 , consider them as feedback, not commands to change your contribution.
Well, overall I still feel like there should be some kind of improvement for when people are allowed to reject / approve a solution.
For approval you should make sure people actually have created a working solution - right now you only need to check a box. For rejection there should be a minimum amount of text which is needed. Additionally a list of reasons why people would not accept (like you have for approvals). E.g. not solvable in 15 minutes, bad test cases, description is not understandable, etc.
This would ensure people have made themselves some though about why they reject a solution. People who want to approve a contribution have to put in at least enough though as needed to solve the contribution.
Anyway, criticizing the community have triggered at least [BlaiseEbuth] such that he does not see any problems with the current system. For myself I will stop here right now, since I gave enough usefull input on how to improve the current situation. Use my post as you like.
I don’t know if you have even read what I said, since your conclusion is that I do not see any problems with the current system…
But thanks for your “useful inputs”, that’s right that nobody before you had ever talked about all of that…
Since you have nothing more to say, I close this topic.