Imagine that you have two artists, designers, or other CIG employees working on a project within SC that you are producing. Along the way they have a professional disagreement about what they should do and it is clear that it would not be possible to accommodate both versions. How do you determine which version to keep and which one to scrap? Is it difficult to tell a fellow employee that, even though they are working hard, they need to change how they are doing their job because it doesn't fit into your plans? What tools do you use to minimize the possibility of the situation described above?asked by AragornBH

Great question. Uh, and this kind of, uh.

I don't think it was a very good question.

Oh.

We have to, we have to resolve this.

[laughing]

How do we tell.

I was just kidding.

We're going to do it right here. Example. Role play it, role play it. Uh, that is a great question. And, and this goes back to some of our other questions about the soft skills of the job. And the communication portions of the job. Um, it is very important I think to, to help everyone understand that their ideas matter, their opinions matter. What they have to say is totally important. Um, and I think Travis actually talked about this earlier when it was... How do you have that, that professional debate, where you can ultimately come to a compromise. So, for me - at least how I would try to resolve this is understanding what they're both looking for. Right? Honestly one of the best tools of our trade is getting in the same room and helping us all hash it out. Because in, in this industry, we're all professionals, right? We may be making entertainment and maybe be really passionate about what we're making.

And generally too everybody involved, I've yet to meet a person that's super super selfish.

Yes.

So everybody is really in it. They just legitimately are having an argument because of what's best for the product. Which is the best argument.

The best argument you could possibly have. So you're already starting off with strong, in the right way. So, helping them come to a compromise is now your goal. Helping them come to an understanding that whichever one is right is also your goal. So getting them in the same room, helping them guide that conversation, giving them both a platform to speak out whatever it is. Make sure all the key stakeholders are there to hear all the sides. And then the hope is to walk out of there - and that's one of the things us as producers try to do when we're helping guide a meeting - is to walk out of there with a set solution that we all feel good about.

Yeah.

We may not feel great about it. Especially, like you mentioned AragornBH, that it's hard to tell somebody, great idea but we're not going to use that idea. But when you're all together and you've come to a compromise. Honestly, it's not that difficult. Again, they're professionals, we're all professionals, we're all adults. And we all understand that you know, "Okay, I got what you're saying, I still would like to do mine, but that does sound the best for the project, let's move forward with that." It tends to resolve itself through just simple guidance, communication, and getting the team together to come up with a good plan.

I think what Eric said is exactly how you approach solving a problem that has happened, a conflict that has happened. The best problems are the ones you don't have to solve. I think the example that he's giving here is probably, when I listen to it I hear the situation is kind of like... That's something that maybe before could have been completely eliminated just by having like more clearly defined roles and responsibilities.

Yeah, absolutely.

Because these two guys apparently were working on the same thing and had a competing method, going for some amount of time before we had to sit them down and talk with them.

Absolutely, absolutely.

Which would be us making a mistake anyways. Because that would be a producer's fault, for having two people working in parallel.

On the same thing, that's a great point. I think what we came to here is a symptom of a more root problem. That root problem is establishing clear defined roles for each person on the team. I am going to jump around what you just said. Once everyone kind of understands it. It's totally okay to have opinions about what everyone else is working on, but also respecting each other enough to know, "Alright thats your field of expertise, this is how I've done it for many years in the industry. Here's my perspective.." But they're very clearly defined that this is that person's role.

Yeah. We've had a lot of success with establishing clear ownership on different pieces of the game. Even pieces of features. That's the thing everybody should understand, everybody has opinions and actually a lot of people on the team, like Zane is a great example. Zane is super dedicated, Zane spends an amazing amount of time working on his art. And he will be the first one to walk up and ask you, "What do you think? What could I do better? How could this be better? What's it like to play with this. Did you guys like this thing I did or not?" So everybody is very open to feedback. I think everybody just needs to have ownership and then they can run a nice little operation.

I love that last point too, about Zane. And that's pretty true with everybody. I think even as producers, right? I'll bounce something off Travis, be like, "Does this make sense? This is what I am going to do, this, this, this." It gives you just another perspective to improve. We want to make a really cool product for our backers and for our subscribers and just for people that want to have a great experience. That's what we're all fighting against each other for, right? That's ultimately what we're doing. And as you said at the beginning of this interview, that's the best problem to have.