Tiny precision, I wasn't trying to blame the process  I saw how it works well to generate hardened quality code, the time reviewer spend to read your (sometimes sh!ty) code is never to be taken granted --thanks by the way @Vantha, @phosit, @Stan` for the reviews on my PRs --. But simply the additional time to be spent on trying to get any feature into the game (again the 1-2 order of magnitude larger of work isn't a exaggeration, add to this waiting time) create a very real limit to what you can get done, even over a large time frame. Your suggestions to try to organize the collaboration although nice, can hardly solve this dilemma.  

@Atrik @wowgetoffyourcellphoneI want to touch on the recent discussion regarding our development workflows and how best to align our modding efforts with the vanilla codebase. I have read through both of your points and really appreciate the nuance around resource allocation and reviewer availability. The reality is that there are definitely valid differences between the timelines for mods versus full game integration, particularly when it comes to compliance and QA scrutiny. However, as we move forward on larger project deliverables, our goal is to streamline the process without sacrificing quality. I am proposing that we introduce weekly alignment sessions on Microsoft Teams to keep everyone synced with QA and product management. This would allow us to surface blockers earlier and ensure our technical direction remains aligned with the broader roadmap. Regarding the specific debate on mods versus pull requests, standardising our integration protocols can actually help bridge the gap you mentioned regarding reviewer availability. By centralising these reviews within a PR workflow, we create a more predictable pipeline for feedback and refinement before code enters the core system. This is a collective effort to improve how we scale our development operations. If we can establish these regular touchpoints and adopt a shared development standard, we should see fewer integration headaches  and faster cycles for feature releases. I would love to hear your feedback on how you think we can implement this in a way that respects the workflow differences you are facing while still moving us toward greater consistency.  

Same. However, offending people deliberately and expecting no punishment for it strange. If a player targets the other player's racial, ethnic or religious background, that player should be punished. Of course, we don't have to go to extremes and punish people for saying the f-word or just calling other people idiots in a heated context.

I’m not sure about this one, since someone’s idea of trolling varies wildly (you could consider anything from worker harassment to deleting captured buildings trolling, and both are commonly used tactics.)

I like the distributed farmers idea. There would be lots of gameplay ramifications for eco efficiency and vulnerability to raids. One outstanding point is the slot ("trees" as mentioned by @DesertRose) priority per farmers. Instead of some script that would place each additional farmer at the best possible slot depending on dropsite and farm orientation, slot prioritization should be done based off the path the farmer takes to access the farm when tasked to farm on it (whichever slot is closest).