To tell, or not to tell?

[Valentine Z]

To preface a little, I do appreciate and respect the way things are handled regarding accepting and rejecting issues, and letting authors know for the latter. With that said, I thought it would be good if I can give my honest feedback, or what I think might be the issue, if you will! ^^ I'm sorry if this has been suggested before, but here it goes.

The current state of doing things from my understanding is that if the issue is accepted, a TG is sent to the author, letting them know about it. On the other hand, a rejection is silent - with no follow-up or anything unless perhaps you ask an Issue Editor.

I was wondering if that could be changed, if it is okay with everyone else, of course. I personally feel that a rejection deserves a mention by TG as well, especially for people such as myself who wanted a closure. I know the best thing is to simply move on and write the next draft, but it would really be something that I would like if I get into issue-writing sometime in the future. I personally would face rejection even if can be demotivating, than to be in the dark about that one issue I have submitted and have not heard back for weeks, months... Years.

Again, I understand that change does not happen overnight and often it might not be implemented in favour of the current workflow. Sending rejection letters would definitely take up more time, that is a certain drawback.

Thanks for hearing me out, and hope I am not rude in suggesting this sort of thing (it's hard to convey at times in text form!)

[Noahs Second Country]

[Obligatory, "I'm not an editor" disclaimer]

There has definitely been drafts that I've submitted and kind of wanted to redraft in hindsight - knowing whether the issue made it into the accepted pool or not would make the decision much easier.

Besides the additional work put into letting someone know their issue has been rejected, I don't think it's a black-and-white process just based on things editors have said in the past though.

Even if an editor picks up an issue, it may not make the cut, and vice versa, so some people may end up getting false rejection telegrams(which, in my opinion, is much worse than a false acceptance). Additionally, some authors may actually find rejection telegrams more discouraging than nothing at all, or you'd have more authors trying to fix drafts that weren't going to work out from the get-go.

As an alternative, I would actually welcome an automated telegram if our issue ends up in the 'accepted' pool. Currently, people who have accepted issues are only contacted when select editors actually pick up the issue. These messages come with a "your issue still may not make it" disclaimer, so a "your issue was sorted into the accepted pool (disclaimer)" doesn't seem to be such a bad idea, and it serves as positive reinforcement for aspiring authors. The rejection is implied when you don't get an acceptance telegram after some time, but any confirmation you receive is positive rather than negative.

[Valentine Z]

(I'm on mobile and on a tight schedule, so... Sorry for the short replied! ><)

That is indeed a good point. I am aware that it's not a black and white thing, and a rejection couldn't be permanent. Again, not an editor, but I'm sure that there are times when a rejected issue might be reconsidered if it can be saved. A false negative can also be a drawback.

Thanks for the input as well!

[Golgothastan]

Not to tell.

When I was an editor, I took an issue out of the Deleted pile and edited it. Now in that case, the author would have received a 'rejected' TG, only to see their issue enter the game.

Similarly, there were issues I liked on submission but which it did not prove possible to get into a state where they could be put into the game. In that case, the author might receive an 'accepted' TG, only to never see their issue enter the game.

Also, the issues drafted and submitted on this forum were, at least when I was an editor, in the minority. The majority had clearly not been drafted much, if at all. Many were, simply, not ever going to be good enough. I did not want to spend the time I could spend on the game editing good issues, instead trying to word diplomatic rejection letters. Writing those letters would be a delicate juggling act: be encouraging and offer false promise, to those players who will probably never be able to write a good enough issue? on the other hand a firm discouragement might be just as disheartening as you say the silence is. Also, I think TGs would lead to people trying to argue or negotiate or re-draft via TG, rather than using the forum which is a much better resource.

TGs like this have been proposed before. I didn't think they were a good idea when I was an editor, and I still don't think they're a good idea as a player. Sorry.

[Valentine Z]

Nah, it's fine. I do see where you are coming from and I agree. Looking at it in hindsight, it will be a backfire if you send a rejection TG, only to edit the issue in some future.

I am all right with the current system in-place, though I do feel bad that I have to bug an IE now and then on how it is going. ^^;

[Trotterdam]

My suggestion has previously been that when editors reject an issue, they get an optional field in which they can explain their reasons in order to give the author feedback on how to improve the issue. If they do not feel the issue had enough merit to be worth their time to write such feedback, they can leave the field blank and the author will instead get a standardized form letter, so you at least know the issue was rejected. Caveats (like "there is a small but nonzero chance that a rejected submission might later be salvaged from the rejected pile after all" and "you'll have much better chances if you ask the Got Issues? forum to help with your draft") could easily be included in this standardized form letter.

There is no reason to tell submitters when their issue has been accepted short of it actually being added to the game (or the editor wanting to discuss edits with the author, as some do). Let's not give people false hope when a provisionally-accepted issue might later be dropped after all.