This being moved to rejected is a perfect explanation of why I have no faith in Pokefarm suggestions. Niet was concerned about the shelter lag, so he proposed this solution. Upon doing this, he stumbled upon a different problem: the under utilization of both the shelter and the daycare. From user feedback, it’s clear that this is something many people have thought about. They do want changes to the way the shelter and daycare work, even if the specifics of how best to do it weren’t agreed upon yet. Opening up a discussion through an announcement about a large aspect of gameplay being changed and how to change it is amazing, and gives way to so many people discussing it and giving new ideas. I was excited at the prospect of a suggestion that would actually be maintained, followed up on, and have user feedback considered. However, in all my excitement, I forgot that the potential rework of the shelter and daycare wasn’t the goal. Reducing shelter lag was. Niet found a way to reduce shelter lag, the initial cause of the suggestion, and thus rejected it. This is a solution to the problem Niet proposed. All the discussion about how to rework the shelter and daycare that was done by users was tossed away. To add insult to injury, not only was the announcement for the suggestion deleted, we weren’t told why, and instead had to dig through the thread to find Niet’s response. Even the discord announcement mentioning that shelter lag was reduced doesn’t say anything about the fate of the suggestion itself. As usual, Pokefarm suggestions are completely to the whim of what Niet wants, and have little to nothing to do with player feedback. This is a fine way to run a site, honestly I have no problem with the admin being the main controller of site features, but don’t pretend to care about user feedback if you’re not going to use any of it when making decisions. I of course could have more to say about why I dislike and distrust suggestions on this site, but I think it’s more important to keep it relevant to this thread specifically.

---

Edit

Want to clarify some things abt this post real quick!. Becaues of this interaction, I assumed that the reason the thread was moved to rejected was because Niet found a solution to shelter lag. However, I do want to appologize to Niet for jumping the gun a bit. As @Gallevoir is pointing out to me in the thread, there is actually a post from @Eltafez about NOT scrapping all the discussion that users made. Additionally, someone did edit Niet's first post with the updated status of the suggestion, though it was small enough that I missed it (my bad!)

To be fair to Niet, I don't think that it's all been completely tossed. From what Eltafez said earlier in the thread, it seems as though our discussion's going to be pooled together into a potential second draft of the initial solution, which could be reproposed in the next few days. But that's just how I understand it.

That would be fantastic, I didn’t see that post at all! It would address a lot of my concerns :0 However, it does highlight my concern about difficulty in finding updates. This would have been a great post to edit into the announcement post that Niet made, or even Niet’s first post, so that it was easily accessible for people who don’t want to dig through the 60+ pages of posts for the staff-made ones.

Sorry to play devil's advocate twice in a row, but: it was edited into Niet's first post, just at the very bottom. But I do agree, perhaps it could be moved higher up to be made slightly clearer, since not everyone checks there after a thread's like 50+ pages.

... That it is! Wow. I think I've just not woken up this morning. That's a bit embarssing; even if it's small I should have reread the whole post more carefully.

---

Want to clarify some things abt my inital post. Becaues of this interaction, I assumed that the reason the thread was moved to rejected was because Niet found a solution to shelter lag. However, I do want to appologize to Niet for jumping the gun a bit. As @Gallevoir is pointing out to me in the thread, there is actually a post from @Eltafez about NOT scrapping all the discussion that users made. Additionally, someone did edit Niet's first post with the updated status of the suggestion, though it was small enough that I missed it (my bad!)

I am starting to grow brain-exhausted from reading comments, yet although my brain is starting to turn to mush, I find many pros and cons players make do contain a plethora of valid points. However: The point I feel/think I must stress is that it should be of utmost importance to consider the negative impacts that would/could ensue for players with any sort of physical or cognitive disability as well as for children. The Farm has been a safe haven for all such players in the past, and looming changes at this point seem highly likely to threaten their ability to play and/or enjoy this game. For shame ... Side note: RUS could likely become a super tedious affair for many players unless much thought is given to impacts there. I have not seen much comment in particular on this subject, but I might have missed it.

Hello all! This thread has been locked to halt discussion regarding this suggestion as, for those of you who have not already noticed, it has been moved to rejected. Response to this suggestion was overwhelmingly vocal and largely negative from the userbase, as evidenced by the poll on page 1. With such immediate and vocal opposition to any proposed changes and a large number of players determining that even adjusting numbers and the like would be insufficient to satisfy, the staff team saw fit to listen to the userbase and toss this idea to the side. Since this is a rejected suggestion that will not be going into implementation, there is no further need to discuss it. However, we encourage players to create their own suggestion thread regarding individual issues raised during this discussion so that those may be placed under consideration for implementation Thank you!