EPT[!] A WARNING (Purge) - Page 9
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
sylverfyre
United States8298 Posts
| ||
|
Mordanis
United States893 Posts
On April 08 2011 11:11 Saracen wrote: For those of you posting [H]/[L] threads:
Could someone clear up the meaning of this to me, I think i may be missing something. If there I don't understand why I lost due to strange circumstances (more spending in every area than opponent, split battles, teched better than opponent, comparable micro to opponent), then I cannot post because my macro was not up to the appropriate level? If so, does this not obviate the whole concept of [L] threads? Basically, is there a minimum skill limit for posters in strategy? | ||
|
space_yes
United States548 Posts
| ||
|
Zombo Joe
Canada850 Posts
| ||
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
| ||
|
Spekulatius
Germany2413 Posts
You need to realize that Saracen's OP is forcing people to put effort in their posts. And that is a clearly needed, because fair thing. People post to get responses aka discussion or help. Those responses are supposed to have a certain quality to be useful to the Op. If they're bad advice or bad ideas, they're making the thread worse. So the mods demands a certain quality from a response in a thread (or BAN). Nobody's arguing there. Now, what that means for the usual OP is that, to be "allowed" to expect a certain quality of responses, he should put at least the same amount of effort in a thread than what he expects as a response. Since good responding is required, the OP itself needs to be good. It is basically a matter of fair trade. A thread is kept open because the poster a) deserves help, b) has an interesting strategy to share. To deserve help, he needs to put some effort in solving the problem himself before asking others for help, because if not, he's just mooching stuff of people that put time and good will into helping others. Which is unfair. Same thing if it's a strategy post. OP claims it's valuable which makes people try it or discuss it, aka putting work into evaluating the OP. And there again, if the strategy posted by the OP is nuts, all the effort the dozens of posters in the thread put in their response is in vain. In short: People opening a thread in the strategy forums make others put their effort, good will and intellectual capacities in responding to it (by the mere presence of the thread). This interaction that the Op gets from the community should somehow be deserved. So I argue, the most effort has to be brought in by the OP. It's not a coincidence that great threads like this one don't get closed. It's a community, treat your brethren like you want them to treat you. | ||
|
Mordanis
United States893 Posts
| ||
|
Rotodyne
United States2263 Posts
On April 09 2011 07:55 mordanis wrote: Could someone clear up the meaning of this to me, I think i may be missing something. If there I don't understand why I lost due to strange circumstances (more spending in every area than opponent, split battles, teched better than opponent, comparable micro to opponent), then I cannot post because my macro was not up to the appropriate level? If so, does this not obviate the whole concept of [L] threads? Basically, is there a minimum skill limit for posters in strategy? There should be  Maybe there should be multiple strategy forums. One for high level play, and another for people below masters to post in who need help. | ||
|
DeltruS
Canada2214 Posts
Finally any of us TLers can make the foreign scene strong. It is possible the amazing SC2 community can actually carry SC2 in an amazing direction at the higher tier of play. Not many players view the strategy forum now, but that is going to change. | ||
|
Achaia
United States643 Posts
On April 09 2011 09:13 mordanis wrote: So does this mean that there can be no threads in the strategy forum for peopled in lower levels? I'm pretty sure that up to mid-masters macro is certainly something that holds every player back. It seems to me that the bit where Saracen says that if macro is the reason you lost then you get banned precludes every single player aside from the top .001% who always macro perfectly. Does this mean that you can ask for help if you are in bronze league, but you and your opponent macro'ed equally badly, and you don't know why you lost? Or is TeamLiquid being set up as the place where only pros talk about their strategies, and everyone else just sort of listens in? The point is, even if your opponent had macro just as bad as yours and you lost because of something else you still could have won the game if you had better macro. If their macro sucks, and yours is significantly better then strategy is not nearly as important. For the people struggling with macro, basic build orders and counters or any other lower level skills or mechanics there is already a wealth of information on the forums from very good players that should be referenced first. Most low level players would improve significantly if they researched the forums for their answers and analyzed their own replays before posting a question on Team Liquid that has already been answered a hundred times in different threads. | ||
|
Aequos
Canada606 Posts
On April 09 2011 09:30 Achaia wrote: The point is, even if your opponent had macro just as bad as yours and you lost because of something else you still could have won the game if you had better macro. If their macro sucks, and yours is significantly better then strategy is not nearly as important. For the people struggling with macro, basic build orders and counters or any other lower level skills or mechanics there is already a wealth of information on the forums from very good players that should be referenced first. Most low level players would improve significantly if they researched the forums for their answers and analyzed their own replays before posting a question on Team Liquid that has already been answered a hundred times in different threads. If, by contrast, your macro and micro are decidedly superior to theirs and good enough that there aren't "glaring flaws" (getting supply blocked for half a second once or twice is normal, and wouldn't make a huge difference - likewise, stimming 4 marines instead of 1 to kill a Zergling before it runs away is acceptable, although not fantastic), then you probably should post a help thread. This is assuming, of course, that it was something that you cannot find any way to beat on your own that doesn't leave you too vulnerable to a different playstyle, and that it wasn't something stupid like "I only built marauders against his VRs." That is essentially what the [H] tag is for. | ||
|
Wrongspeedy
United States1655 Posts
On April 09 2011 07:55 mordanis wrote: Could someone clear up the meaning of this to me, I think i may be missing something. If there I don't understand why I lost due to strange circumstances (more spending in every area than opponent, split battles, teched better than opponent, comparable micro to opponent), then I cannot post because my macro was not up to the appropriate level? If so, does this not obviate the whole concept of [L] threads? Basically, is there a minimum skill limit for posters in strategy? That part bothered me a little at first, but its up to them on how they enforce it. I think the main point is to get more people to think twice (maybe 3 times) before posting something on this forum. It seems rather harsh but I think its much too early to judge and it should keep the clutter down on the forum, which should only help even noobs in the long run. | ||
|
Faze.
Canada285 Posts
To all the people who are asking about "low lvl players not able to post", well here's the thing, the very simple thing. There is a HUMONGOUS amounts of threads and information to help new players improve with every basic things. Any new player who knows about TL has already put enough effort into trying to improve that it is unacceptable to see them blindly post anything without looking first. That being said, all of these threads could be answered by people posting links to an appropriate thread already discussing that subject. If someone has the time to make a thread, they have time to search for one. I think all of this will help a lot for many things, not just this specific forums. If this kind of discipline starts being applied in other forums (of any games really) the overall internet trolling tendencies should drop, at least a bit. I'm just dreaming but a can't wait for the day when being a moron behind internet's mask of anonymity will actually have consequences... | ||
|
imp42
398 Posts
If I can find the answer to your thread using the search function, you will be BANNED. what's wrong with you. do you want a forum all for yourself? A very simple but far more reasonable adjustment: 1. "[...] you will be warned." 2. "If you already have a warning, you will be banned". | ||
|
Faze.
Canada285 Posts
On April 09 2011 12:16 imp42 wrote: what's wrong with you. do you want a forum all for yourself? A very simple but far more reasonable adjustment: 1. "[...] you will be warned." 2. "If you already have a warning, you will be banned". Considering the amount of people who simply REFUSE to search before posting right now, I would say that if we use your rules, the forum will get flooded with similar threads before all of these people get banned. Also this: NOTE: All bans will be temporary Strategy Forum bans. DO NOT PM me about bans/thread closures | ||
|
ShadowHunter95
United States19 Posts
| ||
|
Slivered Skin
Canada347 Posts
THANK YOU!! Keep it up!! | ||
|
AMW1011
United States13 Posts
I pride myself on my maturity, and quality of content in my posts. Is this a good community? I feel like my first impression can't really be how this place is, I've heard way too much good about it. I guess I'm in the same boat as Zachatron. | ||
Mawi
Sweden4365 Posts
so sick and tired going to strategy forum and seeing posts " race " op this and that and no one even reads the god damn thread and they just reply and derail the whole thread, one of the reason i havent checked it out in several months hell its like blizz sc2 strategy forums filled with trolls and flames. | ||
|
SpaceGhost
United States61 Posts
On April 09 2011 15:01 AMW1011 wrote: I'm going to be honest. I want to become part of this community, I really do. However, I read this and the rules, they seem to make sense and I can relate with my large experience with various forums. Some seem a bit extreme, if not childishly so, but I realize that there is probably a good reason for them. Then I go read the first three threads in the Stradegy forum, and each one has at least one ban. I see people get warned for correct information because the post was short and sweet. I see people get warned for asking questions that have relevancy and can be taken in a way that makes sense, or can be a trollish post, depending on how it was meant. I pride myself on my maturity, and quality of content in my posts. Is this a good community? I feel like my first impression can't really be how this place is, I've heard way too much good about it. I guess I'm in the same boat as Zachatron. I think this is is like, emergency, temporary martial law. Hence the title "purge" and not "we're going to be this extremely strict forever now, get used to it." So stick around--for the flowers of good strategy to start emerging out of the decomposing bodies of noobs :D | ||
| ||
