| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Grend
1600 Posts
On April 08 2011 21:55 SmoKim wrote: all we need now is Rekrul back let the purge BEGIN! I misread this and thought it said now that Rekrul is back let the purge begin. Now I`m dissapointed. Interesting to see how this pans out. Seems like quite a lot of work to ban everyone though, good luck! | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On April 08 2011 23:26 Mofisto wrote: 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. There's no point in allowing threads that just generally give bad advice...advice that by definition only works on a low level of play. Because this forum should be supposed to make you a better player, not simply give you a couple of free wins against players who are too bad to react properly. Indeed such threads could even be misleading, because bad players could mistake this build for something really valuable. They will start losing eventually and then they have to start all over again. I don't see any point in that. | ||
|
RAGEMOAR The Pope
United States216 Posts
| ||
|
Alejandrisha
United States6565 Posts
On April 08 2011 23:37 RAGEMOAR The Pope wrote: How do you define "bad advice?" Piqliq got to the top of the world with all ins, 4gate, and cheese, but I have a sneaking suspicion if I posted a thread about cannon rushing and 4gating to win games that I would get a ban. No one said "cheesing" is bad. Bad would be something like: "hai i'm having truble dealing /w 4wg push" "get a really fast void ray and kill the stalkers with that" | ||
|
fatalities
United States91 Posts
Even as a sub-diamond player, I can't stand reading the Strategy Forum anymore. edit for grammar. | ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 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. i think this is the very reason why there are blue posters like yourself. So if someone who is looking for a quality discussion looks at names they recognize but at the same time nubs just ask silly question and kind souls have the choice whether to answer or not. What's wrong with making everyone feel warm and cuddly? | ||
|
lorestarcraft
United States1049 Posts
In order to have any chance of winning at all it would have to be realy airtight. This of course means that any body whose build is shoddy enough to be challenged means that they will most certainly lose. And yes, the hulk-smashing should be released in VODs on TL! | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
On April 08 2011 23:32 sleepingdog wrote: There's no point in allowing threads that just generally give bad advice...advice that by definition only works on a low level of play. Because this forum should be supposed to make you a better player, not simply give you a couple of free wins against players who are too bad to react properly. Indeed such threads could even be misleading, because bad players could mistake this build for something really valuable. They will start losing eventually and then they have to start all over again. I don't see any point in that. I think this reveals a key assumption that may or may not be valid: A ton of people don't care about being a better player, they just want a few wins and they want a gimmick 'strategy' that will give them those wins. Its kinda an immature attitude but one that exists and is not simply changed nor worth a time investment to change. To them this bad strategy is the advice they want. I agree that its not really fair for them to pollute an actual strategy forum though with these silly whines but should you just evict their posts from Teamliquid or do you want those people part of the 'real SC2' community? I suppose at the end of the day, its about the nature of TL: Is TL for every SC fan or is TL for every SC player? Personally I would just accommodate both with multiple forums or a tier system. That is you have a common forum like SCII Strategy and then the mods get to pick the threads they feel are good for promotion into a second forum where users cannot make threads. Really, I don't think anyone who is serious about SCII cares about the existence of simplistic threads, rather we want to just be able to pick out the good threads. However, it seems like the admins are split. We have blue posts, but we can't search for blue posts or find them in anyway. So in my eyes it seems like they don't want to make people feel excluded so they instead don't do enough to force the issue of create a real strategy forum. Addendum: I mean, to expand: Its WEIRD, because while the TL management wants inclusion of everyone - the mods just want the Strategy Forum to not be full of bad advice. So on one hand you have the people in charge going like "We wanting to have everyone be able to learn and feel included" while on the other hand the mods are having to slog through all the posts figuring out how to make the "We wanting to have everyone be able to learn." part working. Current system is clearly not working nor is the inclusive intent of the management being realized when Zatic is banning the nubs to keep the forum functional. -_-' I mean, its just kinda schizophrenic when you think about how the forum has to be run compared to how intent of the forum. But I suppose until something is decided, its nice to have the forum... you know... functional. | ||
|
Alejandrisha
United States6565 Posts
How can you determine, oh this thread shouldn't be here, if it's only applicable to low levels of play? Hell, you can do anything you want in low levels of play and it's "viable" ie mass chargelots pvp because people at low levels tend to have bad forcefield micro etc. If you want to engage in low levels of strategy discussion, head over to the blizzard forums where they don't really moderate posts based on content, just flamage. | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On April 08 2011 23:50 Sfydjklm wrote: i think this is the very reason why there are blue posters like yourself. So if someone who is looking for a quality discussion looks at names they recognize but at the same time nubs just ask silly question and kind souls have the choice whether to answer or not. What's wrong with making everyone feel warm and cuddly? There are plenty of places players can go if they want to feel warm and cuddly (and entitled). TL clearly wants their strategy forum to be a distillation of good strategy. There's also the fact that indulging 'nubs' only serves to reinforce poor forum usage: a newcomer heads for the strategy forum, sees a whole bunch of random questions and [H] threads, assumes that what he's looking at represents good practice according to the strat forum rules, and promptly posts a thread of his own. If instead he sees a bunch of [G] threads, his first impulse is more likely to be to search for the information he needs. And he'll find it more easily and reliably because only good advice with plenty of detail is to be found. | ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 Posts
On April 09 2011 00:37 Umpteen wrote: There are plenty of places players can go if they want to feel warm and cuddly (and entitled). TL clearly wants their strategy forum to be a distillation of good strategy. There's also the fact that indulging 'nubs' only serves to reinforce poor forum usage: a newcomer heads for the strategy forum, sees a whole bunch of random questions and [H] threads, assumes that what he's looking at represents good practice according to the strat forum rules, and promptly posts a thread of his own. If instead he sees a bunch of [G] threads, his first impulse is more likely to be to search for the information he needs. And he'll find it more easily and reliably because only good advice with plenty of detail is to be found. i'm not saying the forum couldnt be cleaner or shouldnt be cleaner, im just saying that even the bigger part of the elite blue name team does not adhere to the standards listed in the OP. | ||
|
Alejandrisha
United States6565 Posts
On April 09 2011 00:37 Umpteen wrote: There are plenty of places players can go if they want to feel warm and cuddly (and entitled). TL clearly wants their strategy forum to be a distillation of good strategy. There's also the fact that indulging 'nubs' only serves to reinforce poor forum usage: a newcomer heads for the strategy forum, sees a whole bunch of random questions and [H] threads, assumes that what he's looking at represents good practice according to the strat forum rules, and promptly posts a thread of his own. If instead he sees a bunch of [G] threads, his first impulse is more likely to be to search for the information he needs. And he'll find it more easily and reliably because only good advice with plenty of detail is to be found. You, sir, are winning! http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=210510 can some one shut this down? ^^ | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On April 09 2011 00:43 Alejandrisha wrote: You, sir, are winning! Sadly, no more than 50% of the time at the moment. But I'm working on it! | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
On April 09 2011 00:25 Alejandrisha wrote: Theres a fundamental problem with that. If there's a tiered system of strategy forums, ie THE strategy forum where all of the information is helpful at high levels of play (and so inherently helpful at ALL levels of play) and then you have subsections which apply only to low levels of play, no one is going to want to moderate that. How can you determine, oh this thread shouldn't be here, if it's only applicable to low levels of play? Hell, you can do anything you want in low levels of play and it's "viable" ie mass chargelots pvp because people at low levels tend to have bad forcefield micro etc. If you want to engage in low levels of strategy discussion, head over to the blizzard forums where they don't really moderate posts based on content, just flamage. Proposal Well basically my idea is everyone gets to post in a forum we have like now within reason. But mods that find lift all the good guides and stuff into a separate forum. So its basically instead of filtering all the crap, you filter everything that meets guidelines. Description So take what you said and flip it around and change it a little bit. Basically you have 2 Forums: 1 - One is dedicated to high quality OPs like those massive matchup guides that people post AND discussion topics that meet the guidelines and have useful content. You can think of this as a sub forum for the main strategy forum. Users in this forum have no ability to make New Threads Call it "SCII Strategy and Discussion." 2 - The other is just the strategy forum we have now, we call it "SCII Gamplay." Modding Scheme All topics are made in SCII Gameplay. The mods transfers topics from SCII Gameplay to SCII Strategy and Discussion if the mod judges the topic to meet guidelines and contain useful content. SC II Gameplay (Main Forum) SCII Gameplay would be modded like the strategy forum we have now on a normal day (not like during the purge campaign we have going now). And by normal day, I mean: -Mod looks at the threads, deletes the poorly made topics. (ZvP Imba? Discuss) NOT: -Mod bans every idiot ever. SC II Strategy and Discussion (Featured Topics Forum) On the other hand in SCII Strategy and Discussion, you do ban every idiot ever. Analysis Basically this scheme is designed to reduce the work of modding to 2 steps: 1) Filter by Thread 2) Filter by post Right now it alternates between filter by thread and filter by post depending on blood alcohol content of Zatic and how long since the fear of Zatic has been instilled in the noobs. So instead of having to filter by post in EVERY thread, delete bad threads altogether and filter by post in ONLY THE THREADS WE CARE ABOUT. Of course, keep the report button if a Psionic Sh!tstorm erupts in SCII Gameplay So with this scheme, if a user comes to TL, you can have a strategy forum with useful advice (a library if you will since no one updates liquipedia with guides) for them to browse or search(!) without having to deal with the bad advice from general which is still bad even if you search(!). Or they can go to a forum where they can learn basic posting style and ask gameplay related questions. | ||
|
Alejandrisha
United States6565 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:01 Antisocialmunky wrote: + Show Spoiler + Proposal Well basically my idea is everyone gets to post in a forum we have like now within reason. But mods that find lift all the good guides and stuff into a separate forum. So its basically instead of filtering all the crap, you filter everything that meets guidelines. Description So take what you said and flip it around and change it a little bit. Basically you have 2 Forums: 1 - One is dedicated to high quality OPs like those massive matchup guides that people post AND discussion topics that meet the guidelines and have useful content. You can think of this as a sub forum for the main strategy forum. Users in this forum have no ability to make New Threads Call it "SCII Strategy and Discussion." 2 - The other is just the strategy forum we have now, we call it "SCII Gamplay." Modding Scheme All topics are made in SCII Gameplay. The mods transfers topics from SCII Gameplay to SCII Strategy and Discussion if the mod judges the topic to meet guidelines and contain useful content. SC II Gameplay (Main Forum) SCII Gameplay would be modded like the strategy forum we have now on a normal day (not like during the purge campaign we have going now). And by normal day, I mean: -Mod looks at the threads, deletes the poorly made topics. (ZvP Imba? Discuss) NOT: -Mod bans every idiot ever. SC II Strategy and Discussion (Featured Topics Forum) On the other hand in SCII Strategy and Discussion, you do ban every idiot ever. Analysis Basically this scheme is designed to reduce the work of modding to 2 steps: 1) Filter by Thread 2) Filter by post Right now it alternates between filter by thread and filter by post depending on blood alcohol content of Zatic and how long since the fear of Zatic has been instilled in the noobs. So instead of having to filter by post in EVERY thread, delete bad threads altogether and filter by post in ONLY THE THREADS WE CARE ABOUT. Of course, keep the report button if a Psionic Sh!tstorm erupts in SCII Gameplay So with this scheme, if a user comes to TL, you can have a strategy forum with useful advice (a library if you will since no one updates liquipedia with guides) for them to browse or search(!) without having to deal with the bad advice from general which is still bad even if you search(!). Or they can go to a forum where they can learn basic posting style and ask gameplay related questions. I think this sounds alright, not that I'm really in charge of anything. It kind of reminds me of the dota strategy forum back in the day; you had the strategy forum, and a subsection of the strategy forum was for "Premium Guides," where a VERY small amount of threads were hand picked and voted on by the administrators. These guides contained information gathered from and based upon the highest tier of competitive play, were well written and presented in an aesthetically pleasing way. I suppose a Premium Guides section would be pretty good, but as of right now it would probably contain like 10-15 threads total, including the ones in the OP of this thread. Another function this served was it really motivated people to make extremely high quality guides so that they could be considered worthy of Premium Guide status. | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
Mostly builds and the match up guides. We had a topic with community picked good guides but no one stickies these things and they get pushed into search engine territory.  No one knows they exist. | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:01 Antisocialmunky wrote: Proposal Well basically my idea is everyone gets to post in a forum we have like now within reason. But mods that find lift all the good guides and stuff into a separate forum. So its basically instead of filtering all the crap, you filter everything that meets guidelines. The problem with this kind of system is that the mods' workload is enormous, and newcomers will continue to get the wrong idea about how to use the site - meaning that workload will never decrease. Plus they'll have to start banning everyone who pipes up saying they think a thread should be moved. Part of the point of a purge is to work very hard for a short time in order to reduce long-term workload. The strat forum is (to my understanding and with a certain latitude to be applied when interpreting 'most', 'some' and 'few') intended to be a resource for most, a place of discussion for some, and a place of exhibition for a dedicated few. If newcomers see that to be the case, they will get the right idea about how to get the most from it whilst causing minimal inconvenience to moderators and other users alike. | ||
|
BobMcJohnson
France2916 Posts
But it probably implies quite a lot of work for the guide authors :/ A sort of standardized guide structure that would allow to convert them "automatically" into liquipedia articles would be great. | ||
|
Daniel C
Hong Kong1606 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:21 Umpteen wrote: The problem with this kind of system is that the mods' workload is enormous, and newcomers will continue to get the wrong idea about how to use the site - meaning that workload will never decrease. Plus they'll have to start banning everyone who pipes up saying they think a thread should be moved. Part of the point of a purge is to work very hard for a short time in order to reduce long-term workload. The strat forum is (to my understanding and with a certain latitude to be applied when interpreting 'most', 'some' and 'few') intended to be a resource for most, a place of discussion for some, and a place of exhibition for a dedicated few. If newcomers see that to be the case, they will get the right idea about how to get the most from it whilst causing minimal inconvenience to moderators and other users alike. What about utilizeing the collective wisdom of TL to promote the good posts? We could have a "like" or "dislike" system whereby only the really good OP's get sent to the mods for approval to go into the premium section. Another suggestion would be where the really really bad threads could be automatically closed once it has enough "dislikes". Would this alleviate some of the workload? Of course there's an issue with varying player skills on TL and such, but it's just an idea... I think on the whole it's a great proposal Munky. Definitely support two types of forums as I mentioned earlier in this thread. | ||
|
Alejandrisha
United States6565 Posts
On April 09 2011 01:34 Daniel C wrote: What about utilizeing the collective wisdom of TL to promote the good posts? We could have a "like" or "dislike" system whereby only the really good OP's get sent to the mods for approval to go into the premium section. Another suggestion would be where the really really bad threads could be automatically closed once it has enough "dislikes". Would this alleviate some of the workload? Of course there's an issue with varying player skills on TL and such, but it's just an idea... I think on the whole it's a great proposal Munky. Definitely support two types of forums as I mentioned earlier in this thread. The problem with this is you would get a lot of people just thumbs-downing every single post. There would have to be some sort of accountability, like if the OP or another viewer clicked on a button next to a thumbs up or thumbs down it would give a list of all the names, and perhaps a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down would leave a brief comment... you see where this is going! | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Wardi Open
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
MaNa vs sebesdes
Mixu vs Fjant
ByuN vs HeRoMaRinE
ShoWTimE vs goblin
Gerald vs Babymarine
Krystianer vs YoungYakov
PiGosaur Monday
The PondCast
WardiTV European League
Jumy vs NightPhoenix
Percival vs Nicoract
ArT vs HiGhDrA
MaxPax vs Harstem
Scarlett vs Shameless
SKillous vs uThermal
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs Reynor
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
