|
On January 17 2011 21:07 iEchoic wrote:
Subdivided forums would be awesome, but we really need to wait for grandmaster league. Master's league is basically just the new Diamond - I personally know some really terrible master league players. It's not really a good qualification. That said, the administrative work in setting that up and keeping it running would most likely make it unfeasible.
The problem with only allowing grandmasters is though, these forum would mostly be empty I suppose. I mean, let's be honest here, how many top200 players post here...CONSISTENTLY? Like in a way that would lead to interesting discussions to follow?
I'm afraid that there would probably be 1-2 threads a week with maybe around 10 posts a day, don't you think?
I'm also strongly in favour of subdivided forums, even if I'm not invited since I'm not master 
|
On January 17 2011 21:19 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 21:07 iEchoic wrote:
Subdivided forums would be awesome, but we really need to wait for grandmaster league. Master's league is basically just the new Diamond - I personally know some really terrible master league players. It's not really a good qualification. That said, the administrative work in setting that up and keeping it running would most likely make it unfeasible. The problem with only allowing grandmasters is though, these forum would mostly be empty I suppose. I mean, let's be honest here, how many top200 players post here...CONSISTENTLY? Like in a way that would lead to interesting discussions to follow? I'm afraid that there would probably be 1-2 threads a week with maybe around 10 posts a day, don't you think? I'm also strongly in favour of subdivided forums, even if I'm not invited since I'm not master
Well I mean I'm in Masters but I know that what works for me against my opponent wont' work for a pro against his. So I don't really see how sub dividing the forums so people get an even bigger sense of their experience being the one right experience is a good thing.
It's as the OP said. It's not up to the admins to make this better, it's up to the people to open their minds and argue not from their own perceptions but from solid reasoning and good evidence.
|
I agree with what you said siege/zerglegend. Im personally getting very tired of posting in this forum, because it always feels like a bunch of people without any clue will immidiately start jumping at me and telling me how the build i am critizing is so great because it worked in their bronze/plat whatever league game :/.
While i agree with what you wrote, i very much doubt that people will actually read, understand and then act according to it (they will probably only do the first 2  ). In my opinion it will be necessary for the forum moderation to do something about it, but i guess its not easy for them to decide what to do and then implement it, as this takes time and people who do it.
|
On January 17 2011 21:19 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 21:07 iEchoic wrote:
Subdivided forums would be awesome, but we really need to wait for grandmaster league. Master's league is basically just the new Diamond - I personally know some really terrible master league players. It's not really a good qualification. That said, the administrative work in setting that up and keeping it running would most likely make it unfeasible. The problem with only allowing grandmasters is though, these forum would mostly be empty I suppose. I mean, let's be honest here, how many top200 players post here...CONSISTENTLY? Like in a way that would lead to interesting discussions to follow? I'm afraid that there would probably be 1-2 threads a week with maybe around 10 posts a day, don't you think? I'm also strongly in favour of subdivided forums, even if I'm not invited since I'm not master
It doesn't have to be just top 200, but inviting everyone in master's would still end up pretty bad.
You can be lower ranked and give good advice, I'm just saying that being in master's doesn't qualify you. Earlier I read a self-proclaimed master's player who said that "getting 30 thors + vikings on 2 bases is basically a free-win for terran". Blagh.
|
On January 17 2011 21:33 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 21:19 sleepingdog wrote:On January 17 2011 21:07 iEchoic wrote:
Subdivided forums would be awesome, but we really need to wait for grandmaster league. Master's league is basically just the new Diamond - I personally know some really terrible master league players. It's not really a good qualification. That said, the administrative work in setting that up and keeping it running would most likely make it unfeasible. The problem with only allowing grandmasters is though, these forum would mostly be empty I suppose. I mean, let's be honest here, how many top200 players post here...CONSISTENTLY? Like in a way that would lead to interesting discussions to follow? I'm afraid that there would probably be 1-2 threads a week with maybe around 10 posts a day, don't you think? I'm also strongly in favour of subdivided forums, even if I'm not invited since I'm not master It doesn't have to be just top 200, but inviting everyone in master's would still end up pretty bad. You can be lower ranked and give good advice, I'm just saying that being in master's doesn't qualify you. Earlier I read a self-proclaimed master's player who said that "getting 30 thors + vikings on 2 bases is basically a free-win for terran". Blagh.
everyone in masters would be infinitely better than what it is now, masters is the top 2% of players, you cant really make it much more exclusive than that without drying out the activity. that plus it is a convenient way to check for eligibility
|
To me there's one specific thing that the forums are lacking, that has changed since the release of SC2: humility.
Everyone thinks their opinion is right, and everyone thinks that their way is the best, and they will argue to the death to make sure that they are right in the end. People really need to realize that they aren't the best player in the game, and that there are indeed many other people who are better than them.
In BW, you accepted certain strategies, builds, etc., to be true, because you just assumed that whoever created them was 1000 times better than you. And 99% of the time, that assumption was correct. And yet still when someone brought up a new idea, you would discuss it gracefully, talking about the pros and cons and considering both sides. And if the person's opinion did indeed turn out to be dead wrong, you would constructively correct them with the goal of helping them improve as a player, rather than correct them just to show that you are a better player. These days there's this feeling of an air of superiority in a lot of posts for whatever reason; at least that's how it feels to me. There's a bunch of black and white statements, rather than unbiased (racial or otherwise) discussion.
I really hope that people can be just a bit more humble in discussions, instead of having a massive amount of unwarranted pride in their race, rating, knowledge of the game, or otherwise. It would really help the forum a lot I think.
|
On January 17 2011 21:33 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 21:19 sleepingdog wrote:On January 17 2011 21:07 iEchoic wrote:
Subdivided forums would be awesome, but we really need to wait for grandmaster league. Master's league is basically just the new Diamond - I personally know some really terrible master league players. It's not really a good qualification. That said, the administrative work in setting that up and keeping it running would most likely make it unfeasible. The problem with only allowing grandmasters is though, these forum would mostly be empty I suppose. I mean, let's be honest here, how many top200 players post here...CONSISTENTLY? Like in a way that would lead to interesting discussions to follow? I'm afraid that there would probably be 1-2 threads a week with maybe around 10 posts a day, don't you think? I'm also strongly in favour of subdivided forums, even if I'm not invited since I'm not master It doesn't have to be just top 200, but inviting everyone in master's would still end up pretty bad. You can be lower ranked and give good advice, I'm just saying that being in master's doesn't qualify you. Earlier I read a self-proclaimed master's player who said that "getting 30 thors + vikings on 2 bases is basically a free-win for terran". Blagh.
I agree, having some sort of "automatic" master-qualification wouldn't solve much. Probably even the opposite, because some would feel their advice is "supposed" to be highly valued "because" they are in master.
To be honest, I don't really know what the perfect way to improve this would be either...
On January 17 2011 21:27 DarKFoRcE wrote:I agree with what you said siege/zerglegend. Im personally getting very tired of posting in this forum, because it always feels like a bunch of people without any clue will immidiately start jumping at me and telling me how the build i am critizing is so great because it worked in their bronze/plat whatever league game :/. While i agree with what you wrote, i very much doubt that people will actually read, understand and then act according to it (they will probably only do the first 2 ). In my opinion it will be necessary for the forum moderation to do something about it, but i guess its not easy for them to decide what to do and then implement it, as this takes time and people who do it.
As far as I know you still post on instarcraft.de, so your tolerance-level of infantility must be very high anyways
|
Really good post, i fully agree with it, there can be no discussion without argument, and no argument without proof.
I'd like to add, something about people only considering ranking for a post reliability.
I'm currently in plat, playing not that much but watching lots of vods, replays, and strategy thread. Even though my practice isn't perfect, i think i deserve to be ranked in diamond league: my mechanics and my game understanding are OK but i fail to put it in practice and to stay focus enough during the game. Btw, i'm not discussing about my level, but about the vain people who thinks that bronze player can't handle the theory.
Points and league aren't a proof a reliability of a post. Few days ago, i saw a post written 'Only master 2k5' with the justification that the strategy aren't the same at master 2k5 and master 2k3. I don't think that guy will garbage day9 advise, despite the fact day9 isn't in master league.
That's stupid, dealing with a 2 gate stargate won't change from one league to another. You need timings, advise and maybe replays to fully understand way to react, and you don't need to know what's the ranking of the guy who tries to help you.
|
this would require JUDGES who's reputation/knowledge allow to separate the crap from the crop.
And I mean group of judges who would evaluate specific builds/advice etc. An average grade would be what's interesting for us. Make it so that only the judges can give grades, so we would know that what they say has some value.
I'm not sure I'm being clear enough, but I've seen someone asking for bronze/gold subforums which is plain silly, considering the lack of knowledge of such posters. I myself am bronze and I rarely state anything - I'm a lurker more than a poster when it comes to teaching people.
On January 17 2011 21:19 sleepingdog wrote:The problem with only allowing grandmasters is though, these forum would mostly be empty I suppose. I mean, let's be honest here, how many top200 players post here...CONSISTENTLY? Like in a way that would lead to interesting discussions to follow? I'm afraid that there would probably be 1-2 threads a week with maybe around 10 posts a day, don't you think? I'm also strongly in favor of subdivided forums, even if I'm not invited since I'm not master
moreover - why would they even ask anything strategy related when they're the one's who create strategies of their own?
|
It's sad that this already got pushed to the second page so quickly with only 3 pages of posts.
It's clear that the people to whom this thread is addressed to simply 'TLDR' it and move on.
You can't ask a community to change when it is already warped around to the point where it ignores itself. Right now people post to post, no other reason. Threads automatically restart every few pages because most people don't even read the messages of those two or three entries above them let alone two or three pages.
That combined with the problem of content that the OP describes and you get a soulless forum. Not a dead forum, because posts will be up by tenfold, but everyone who has half a brain would have already left the hornets nest for what it is.
Either moderators crack down, something I think they wouldn't really look forward to considering the amount of work is involved.
Or you start confronting bad posts. Only a small group of people is needed, a sort of vigilante. Nothing malicious, simply pointing out bad posts while still contributing to the thread. People will need to be confronted with this, hardly anyone is going to read this thread, and it'll be forgotten in a few days after people stop bumping it.
It'll flush out the trolls and indicate who is simply not fit to be in this forum. Giving mods a helping hand in wading through the sludge.
|
On January 18 2011 19:00 Greth wrote:
It's sad that this already got pushed to the second page so quickly with only 3 pages of posts.
It's clear that the people to whom this thread is addressed to simply 'TLDR' it and move on.
I wanted to write this yesterday already, lol. The people who take the time to read this are those that are probably NOT those the OP wanted to appeal to. The people who post 90% crap will probably never bother to read more than the first paragraph, then decide that they are too lazy to continue reading - if they click on it at all.
|
I can't remember who said it, but a Like/Dislike option would be helpful. But even moreso would be if TL updated the website to allow a persons rank and record in their signature (I can't remember what website has this already?) Members would just enter their SC2 name and ID and their signature would be updated automatically. That way when you see a point made by a Master league player you may take it into consideration and if you see a point made by a diamond/platinum player you can take it into consideration with a grain of salt type deal.
Now I know this isn't a be all solution, but frankly, their isn't one. We're still on the internet here after all.
|
This thread is a good thread, I've been reading it all, and I cannot agree more.
I can't remember who said it, but a Like/Dislike option would be helpful.
I don't know. We have those on youtube, and there they are only used in a big battle for the most thumbs up. I don't think that will contribute too most threads.
And I often write a few sentences, only to skip them later on. Why? I know I'm not a brilliant player. So I look at what I wrote, and then decide, let's not post this, it might be bad advice. And I'd rather post nothing then bad advice.
This thread should be a sticky.
|
Hey there,
I just wanted to give some points that I think are quite important but not really discussed enough:
1. The game is still in an early stage. As iNcontrol said in his recent ZvP Stargate Play lesson with MrBitter (It's in the early minutes) we're not in the state of 12 years experience with the game like we are in SC1.
This means, in my opinion, that it is completely valid to make points that MAY seem wrong. Just for example: A few weeks ago everyone said "Ooh mass queens is so lame, not effective and you shouldn't even bother that." Now somebody gave some good points about that and many people are like "F*** yea mass queens <3.".
So for some part, what happens here is good. Not the flaming, not the diffarmation etc. but all the good theorycrafting of everyone. I actually think we NEED this!
2. Yes, the argument of authority is a solid point. But again: if you watch MrBitter's lessons with the pros you'll see that they don't say "I said that before so this is always right and it should be written into stone." No, they are like: "I found out that this is wrong, so I'll be doing this." (For example a Zerg-Pro said that he found out that 1base roach is actually pretty good.(I think it's the recent ZvZ Lesson with MrBitter & Ret... I'm not quite sure tho. May be Machine as well. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.)
So here's what I think:
If you have your own experience, this is fine.
It's good if you say "Well I think that [...] so I think you're wrong."
The problem with this is(this may sound like flaming, but it really isn't):
People get butthurt really fast if you say that they are wrong. They don't think you want to discuss, they always think that you want to just flame/hurt their feelings/whatsoever.
I think it's totally fine if a bronze player comes to me and say "Hey I actually find that 1 base play is pretty good". If he's saying that he's bronze, not facing anything other than bronze-standard cheese and that stuff.
When I read the OP I was thinking about Huxley's Brave New World all the time. I really think that we are facing somehow the same kind of problems. I we could somehow part the bad posts from the good posts or at least find a good way to define "good posts", as OP already tried, it would be a lot better.
I'm reading for a pretty long time now and it often happens that somebody made a good post, got flamed by somebody who was butthurt(no offense here, this is just my bad way to describe the reaction) and suddenly it all turned into a flamefest for some time and the good post was forgotten and the discussion didn't have a single result.
So just a small conclusion:
I think discussions are good. I think it's okay if somebody says "I think Pro-XY is wrong". But not because he played 1game where he experienced a different thing that Pro-XY said, but maybe like "Well I played 100 Laddergames in diamond league with this build and I got owned all the time, so I think Pro-XY is wrong". But still this is not a valid argument since you could just play bad, but it's way better than just saying "olol you're so wrong I can't even express how wrong you are.".
So yea, I think there are enough good-quality posts, there are just way more bad-quality posts that distract people from the real discussion.
|
On January 18 2011 22:00 KeksX wrote:
So just a small conclusion:
I think discussions are good. I think it's okay if somebody says "I think Pro-XY is wrong". But not because he played 1game where he experienced a different thing that Pro-XY said, but maybe like "Well I played 100 Laddergames in diamond league with this build and I got owned all the time, so I think Pro-XY is wrong". But still this is not a valid argument since you could just play bad, but it's way better than just saying "olol you're so wrong I can't even express how wrong you are.".
So yea, I think there are enough good-quality posts, there are just way more bad-quality posts that distract people from the real discussion.
I understand where you coming from: I noticed that it's gotten to a point where a MASSIVE amount of rather low-level players disagrees with high-level players on certain issues, while the high-level players have actually tested their stuff against exactly the things the low-level players bring into the discussion.
Perfect example: kcdc's one gate FE: Minigun used to post a lot, especially in this thread, that it was viable and didn't lose to 3 rax play. Still there were constantly newbish people disagreeing with him, it was painful to watch. I think on some point you just have to accept your own limitations when people way better than you talk about stuff - even if you think like "wtf, he plays with strategies that I never got to work"...keep it to yourself. Chances are, that the (semi-)pro has probably tested his strat against exactly the stuff you keep losing against and still found it useful. If the poster isn't on a comparable level, the discussion is more likely to get derailed if he tries to argue against the points made.
|
Although the analogy made in the OP was long-winded, its point is well-taken. Supported arguments are always more powerful.
The quality of posts here on TL and in most other places is shoddy because, in general, people have never learned how to craft arguments -- or if they have, they've forgotten. In the US, this type of critical discourse is typically learned in very late high school or in university. (I would submit that the only worthwhile thing learned in most university curricula is how to support a claim properly.) Even so, among the people who are educated most barely remember the courses they took at university, much less what was covered in them. So the problem is not unique to TL or even internet forums (though it can manifest iself quite badly on the internet), it's a wider problem of societal ignorance. This is not something that can be fixed on this forum, nor will it diminish with time. There really is no way to rid TL of bad posts other than to have administrators remove every such post and punish the poster with a temporary ban. But do the admins even know how to properly craft an argument?
tl;dr -- It's not just TL.net. Most people don't know how to make a good argument. The ability to support claims and filter one's own opinion is something that only comes with education.
|
Maybe they should restrict strategy discussions to Masters league AND have some new rule regarding posts. What do people think of the following:
1. All posts must be positive - e.g. saying what works rather than what doesn't. e.g. Someone that posts "Phoenix are crap" cannot possibly know that since no one has yet tested out all the possible phoenix related plays. However, someone that says "Here is a build that works at the 2200 Diamond level and here are the replays to prove it" is making a good contribution even if the same build completely fails when you get to Masters.
2.All posts must be evidence based - Posts must say objective things that can be supported with facts. e.g. "I play in bronze and I find that build X works really well vs zerg when they go build Y and here are the replays to prove it" is a better post than "I play in Diamond and I think phoenix are crap"
The two rules are overlapping since the reason you cannot do 1 is that it is impossible for a strategy to be dismissed since noone has yet tested all strategies of one race vs all possible strats of the other races. Maybe in 10 years time we can relax rule 1 since most builds are understood but until then it will get rid of a load of rubbish posts.
The mods do a good job of weeding out the REALLY bad posts already but they should just be more liberal in banning for this new strat forum.
|
In my opinion, the only feasible way to define what good and bad posts are is to let the community decide. I am convinced a like / dislike feature as mentioned would help a lot.
However, I would like to propose a somewhat more refined rating system:
Each member gets to rate any post with either +1 or -1.
Each poster is assigned a rating = the total rating of all his posts.
Each rating is weighted the following way: rating * (rating of rater) / (number of rates by rater)
This has the following effect:
- the rating of popular raters is more important
- the influence of a single rater is very small, since each subsequent rating loses value, therefore abuse is virtually impossible
After an initial phase the system should stabilize and good posters should stand out.
Now, I should back up my statements with evidence and a replay, but I won't ;-)
|
brilliant post op, great observation many of us have made...the best solution is to just try and have everyone put their rating/leauge at the beginning of their post (i know its not fool proof but its a thought) and that MIGHT (unlikely) give a kind of idea over which info is good or bad
just a crappy suggestion but every little thing might help someone think of an actual solution
|
This probably makes me a jackass, but the fact that you even posted this is a problem.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the strategy of SC2 and only is exacerbating the problem by its mere existence.
My theory is that the mods aren't ninjas, but if they were, they could simply enforce the existing rules faster.
I think it's great that you're trying to instill some basic logical reasoning foundations in here, but you should probably have posted this in the forum guidelines thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
