EPTlet the purge BEGIN!
[!] A WARNING (Purge) - Page 6
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
SmoKim
Denmark10301 Posts
let the purge BEGIN! | ||
|
FranzP
France270 Posts
Read the Strategy Forum Guidelines or you will be BANNED: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=113479 No balance talk and/or theory crafting. Only post if you have substantial evidence (= Replays) to back up your claims or you will be BANNED. Use the search function, and check Liquipedia for answers before you make a new thread or you will be BANNED. Do not reply to other threads if you can't give meaningful advice or if you haven't watched their replay or you will be BANNED. If you are making a thread for advice on your gameplay, please make sure you post both the replay and your analysis on the replay or you will be BANNED. A basic guide to analysing replays can be found here In bold and red and underlined. | ||
|
Ghad
Norway2551 Posts
On April 08 2011 12:00 Defeat wrote: Might I suggest another forum/subforum for people seeking help, sort of like how the Fan Clubs and User Streams are for the TL Community section. It would be used to post replays and ask what said person did wrong and other replay analysis.Then keep the strategy section purely for such threads as CecilSunkure's PvT 3 gate expo and others along those lines. Yeah, excellent idea. I think it is excellent with a cleanup, but i find myself getting the most enjoyment out of the threads where people are asking for help, if they are asking for something i have been struggling with myself. | ||
|
Deleted User 135096
3624 Posts
| ||
|
Gladiator6
Sweden7024 Posts
On April 08 2011 11:27 CecilSunkure wrote: I like how it's mandatory to read my thread on improving :D But your posts I always feel are really great. And also that you are protoss just makes it so much better with all your guides and stuff, helps people improving their gameplay! About the topic I think it's a great change and indeed needed. | ||
|
Harmonious
179 Posts
These rules will discourage constructive discussion. That is because a constructive discussion does not require all the participants to be right all the time, it does not require everyone to agree. What it requires is that the participants are partaking for the purpose of increasing their own and others understanding of the game. So there are 2 ways of being wrong, contributing an idea that is not good in good faith. The second is to be wrong while being disparaging about the topic. The first is perfectly ok. It is the sort of thing that in the long run benefits everyones understanding. The second is tantamount to for example saying "that build sucks because it loses to 4 gate". So I hope these rules (the ones regarding being right and wrong) are enforced in such a way to encourage the first type of contribution while discouraging the second. When and if it helps these rules should be relaxed significantly in my opinion. | ||
|
57 Corvette
Canada5941 Posts
Seriously though, if people would just take the time to think their posts through, ask themselves if it is worthy of posting, or even we have some kind of confirm post page after they click post (kinda like the screen we have before posting a new topic) for people under a certain amount of posts, the SC2 strategy forum would be a much better place. | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
| ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
With strategy section in mind I think there should be a higher order subdivision of strategy section, where ability to post in is a privilage you must earn. There the rules should be very strict, the level of players should be highest, as well as the level of advice. Threads asking for help can originate there or be promoted from usual section if they apply to standards. Those who have shown wisdom in the usual strategy section with their advice should have a chance of promotion to the upper section. Some kind of test of actual gaming skill can be imposed but should not be the primary requiremnt (as we all know there are coaches and there are progamers, coaches should be as valuable to the strategy section as progamers). Such construction of the section also allows for less moderation effort. In the end we get less frustration, more satisfaction, easier high quiality advice finding, easier moderation. On the other hand you will NEVER be able to make a single strategy section comply to the highest standards without hurting TL popularity among the casual level players. | ||
|
iChau
United States1210 Posts
@Cheerio: TL is becoming a bit too strict, but you wouldn't want advice that says, "Oh you could've 4 gate and won that easily." Also, the [H] threads here are usually vague and the flaws of the game-play within the replay could've been solved by the user themself. Basically, be more self-dependent and stop relying on others to spoonfeed you advice that you could've thought of yourself by watching your replay. I think thsoe are some reasons why. | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On April 08 2011 22:13 Cheerio wrote: dont ask for help untill your macro and micro is good by "our" standards. The thing is, all the advice for low level players IS ALREADY THERE. Sorry for caps, but in my opinion - and I'm pretty sure that's the core point of this purge - there's no need for threads that only ask questions that can be answered by search. This is no chatroom, the purpose of a forum is that you can read up on stuff that has been posted some time ago. Meaning, why would you ask for help when your macro sucks and all the advice on how to improve your macro has already been posted a million times? Why would you ask others to analyze a replay when you could do it yourself after reading up in the thread about how to analyze your replays? You argue that there should be a very strictly regulated sub-forum for quality-discussion. Now I'm asking you: why would we want to have a "normal" forum with discussion of bad quality? Just to make everyone feel warm and cuddly inside? Also this has nothing to do with scaring off bad players, since basic discussion isn't going on in the strategy-section but in general and - regarding tournaments - in tournament. Why do we need bad players making bad strategy-related threads? I'm 100% ok with stricter moderation, I don't feel like TL needs to encourage bad players to post all of their problems in the strategy-section, especially if they could easily solve them themselves. | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
http://tinyurl.com/3qp6ubt  | ||
|
rastaban
United States2294 Posts
| ||
|
BoxedLunch
United States387 Posts
This thread should probably be featured on the frontpage just to avoid people claiming ignorance. | ||
|
Alejandrisha
United States6565 Posts
On April 08 2011 22:13 Cheerio wrote: Well this is contradictory. You strive for quality and order in the section which is good. But you also basicly are putting a sign at strategy section: if you are not masters dont post or risk a ban, dont ask for help untill your macro and micro is good by "our" standards. This will hurt TL popularity as people dont like to feel inferior and disattached to the comunity and will add to the TL reputation of being too much elitist and proud. Instead of creating lower classes of users (who have their usual rights cut), you should be creating the higher ones (who are given privilages): it doesnt create frustration and instead creates motivation for users to achieve something (live higher status) by contributing to comunity. With strategy section in mind I think there should be a higher order subdivision of strategy section, where ability to post in is a privilage you must earn. There the rules should be very strict, the level of players should be highest, as well as the level of advice. Threads asking for help can originate there or be promoted from usual section if they apply to standards. Those who have shown wisdom in the usual strategy section with their advice should have a chance of promotion to the upper section. Some kind of test of actual gaming skill can be imposed but should not be the primary requiremnt (as we all know there are coaches and there are progamers, coaches should be as valuable to the strategy section as progamers). Such construction of the section also allows for less moderation effort. In the end we get less frustration, more satisfaction, easier high quiality advice finding, easier moderation. On the other hand you will NEVER be able to make a single strategy section comply to the highest standards without hurting TL popularity among the casual level players. I don't think this is true. If you are not knowledgable enough to be posting in a forum where higher level players are posting, you should just be reading. If you need help, you can read about people who have had the same problems as you. I don't think there is any reason to have people who DON'T know what they're talking about posting in this section; it can mislead other people who are looking for advice and really just serves to water down the quality of the forum in general. I think with the blue poster thing coming out, a lot of the people in this community have been motivated to step up and really try to help people out. However, there are only so many of them and having limitless low level players asking the same questions over and over again in new threads (ie. How do I beat marine + scv + 2 thor all in as protoss?) is a little discouraging. | ||
|
leonardus
59 Posts
On April 08 2011 21:20 enykie wrote: it would be nice, if there were buttons like +1(good) or -1(bad) to judge threads, or something to say thx (because, like you said, its senseless if there are 10 posts which say thx, but any postfree kind of feedback should be avaiable) I also like this ideea, and if the thread has 50 pages to have possibility to view only post with more than 10 good votes. | ||
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
That said, a low level sub forum as mentioned by others would be a good idea. | ||
|
Mofisto
United Kingdom585 Posts
On April 08 2011 21:58 Ghad wrote: Yeah, excellent idea. I think it is excellent with a cleanup, but i find myself getting the most enjoyment out of the threads where people are asking for help, if they are asking for something i have been struggling with myself. I suggested this a while ago, but people didnt seem too keen on the idea http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=195679 If the guide doesn't apply to a high enough level, it will be CLOSED. Why? Because we have quality standards at TL. The Strategy Forum is for helping people be the best they can be. If you have a fun build you want to write a guide about, blog it or post it on the B.net forums. This is the only thing I dont totally agree with. What about guides which are aimed at people who are of less than optimum ability (check the diplomacy there)? The advice may not be completely rel;event at higher level play (even though some will overlap) but for someone it bronze league it could be exactly what they need to push their play in the right direction. | ||
|
Alejandrisha
United States6565 Posts
On April 08 2011 23:26 Mofisto wrote: I suggested this a while ago, but people didnt seem too keen on the idea http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=195679 This is the only thing I dont totally agree with. What about guides which are aimed at people who are of less than optimum ability (check the diplomacy there)? The advice may not be completely rel;event at higher level play (even though some will overlap) but for someone it bronze league it could be exactly what they need to push their play in the right direction. Anything that is not relevant at a high level of play will not push anyone in the right direction. Things that masters players take for granted and as "obvious" push low level players in the right direction. There isn't a single pointer that would be good/helpful for a bronze level player to hear that a masters player does not already know/agree with. If you're saying that there could perhaps be something that would be helpful for a bronze player to hear but bad for a higher level player to hear/apply, then this bit of information serves only to limit the long-term progress of the lower player if he follows it. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On April 08 2011 22:29 sleepingdog wrote: The thing is, all the advice for low level players IS ALREADY THERE. Sorry for caps, but in my opinion - and I'm pretty sure that's the core point of this purge - there's no need for threads that only ask questions that can be answered by search. This is no chatroom, the purpose of a forum is that you can read up on stuff that has been posted some time ago. Meaning, why would you ask for help when your macro sucks and all the advice on how to improve your macro has already been posted a million times? Why would you ask others to analyze a replay when you could do it yourself after reading up in the thread about how to analyze your replays? You argue that there should be a very strictly regulated sub-forum for quality-discussion. Now I'm asking you: why would we want to have a "normal" forum with discussion of bad quality? Just to make everyone feel warm and cuddly inside? Also this has nothing to do with scaring off bad players, since basic discussion isn't going on in the strategy-section but in general and - regarding tournaments - in tournament. Why do we need bad players making bad strategy-related threads? I'm 100% ok with stricter moderation, I don't feel like TL needs to encourage bad players to post all of their problems in the strategy-section, especially if they could easily solve them themselves. Well said. I don't agree with those posting about how the micro/macro rule isn't fair. If your random low-level player peruses TL for more than 5 minutes, they'd know that improving macro (pylons & probes) is the easiest way to improve. After that, your random low-level player can look at his own replays (critically) and say to himself: "It was probably bad that I was floating 2k minerals on 2 bases wasn't it?" or "I probably shouldn't have engaged that siege line with pure Hydralisk" or what have you. Your micro/macro doesn't have to be perfect to post here (no one has perfect micro/macro anyways). But if the first 10 posts to your [H] thread are some variation of "macro better" then it's obvious that player didn't really examine themselves that closely. Also a great point earlier in the thread about how much time it takes to critique replays. A well-thought out critical examination of someone's replay can easily take over 30 minutes to do, between watching the game and writing up the post. If we want that kind of constructive help for people that are stuck, we can't have people posting replays in every other thread. 90% of them would know what they did wrong if they watched it themselves. | ||
| ||
